More Praise for Mike Rowe and "Work"

Gail Pennington, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is the latest to discover the important commentary coming from the mouth of Mike Rowe, star of the Discovery Channel's shows World's Dirtiest Jobs and Most Dangerous Catch. Pennington's recent column gives voice to Rowe again and his message that "America has declared war on work," and this attitude is detrimental to our future.

Rowe asks an important question: "Doesn't it seem strange we can have a shortage of skilled labor, a crumbling infrastructure, and rising unemployment? How did we get into this fix?"

How indeed.

It is particularly troubling that we continue to ignore the needs of our economy and assume that all Americans need a college degree or that America should lead the world in college degrees. Interestingly, according to the Department of Labor, the average four-year college graduate in this country makes $45000/yr while the average plumber/electrician makes $49800. Of course, we shouldn't forget that only 29% of Americans have a bachelor anyway, and many of them are over-educated for what they do.

However, I am not going to argue for or encourage kids to pursue career and technical education in this country if we continue to not only declare war on work, but also continue to devalue work by continually padding the corporate bottom line by decreasing wages and benefits. Europe and Asia can effectively increase education while maintaining skilled labor because they support their workers.

Hopefully, Americans will actually get a clue about what makes America "work."

Actual Conservative Health Care Reform

Knowing that something happening is going to be better than nothing happening, I'll settle for some version of the Baucus health reform plan, though I'm not completely in favor of it. I'll side with heart surgeon and former senator Bill Frist on that. Ultimately, something as logical as the Healthy Americans Act isn't going to happen, and many provisions in the legislation - like preventing the insurance companies from dropping my family when they get sick - are good ideas. Beyond that, it's a good idea to provide a marketplace where Cigna or Kaiser or United have to offer a plan at a price - as opposed to charging me and my employer five times as much as they do for the same plan to a company across the street.

However, there are other ideas. And they don't have to come from the Democrats. I truly wish the GOP would actually start listening to the smart conservatives in their party and actually use some of the intelligent - not ideological - Republicans and conservatives to present an actual plan for health care reform. Not an idea or a theory or a ideology or a tweak. But an actual plan.

Like this one from conservative Harvard economist Martin Feldstein:

The simplest solution would be for the government to issue a health-care credit card to every family along with the insurance voucher. The credit card would allow the family to charge any medical expenses below the deductible limit, or 15 percent of adjusted gross income. (With its information on card holders, the government is in a good position to be repaid or garnish wages if necessary.) No one would be required to use such a credit card. Individuals could pay cash at the time of care, could use a personal credit card or could arrange credit directly from the provider. But the government-issued credit card would be a back-up to reassure patients and providers that they would always be able to pay.

The combination of the 15 percent of income cap on out-of-pocket health spending and the credit card would solve the three basic problems of America's health-care system. Today's 45 million uninsured would all have coverage. The risk of bankruptcy triggered by large medical bills would be eliminated. And the structure of insurance would no longer be the source of rising health-care costs. All of this would happen without involving the government in the delivery or rationing of health care. It would not increase the national debt or require a rise in tax rates. Now isn't that a better way?

That is market reform that would work, and it would actually accomplish the goal of many conservatives which is to encourage people to understand what their health care actually costs because they are paying for it - not $5 premiums for a high quality plan picked up by the wealthier companies and people in the country.

It's a thought. Any Republicans out there smart enough to run with this?

Brooks Gets Conservatism Right

There are few people in political commentary who get it as right, and say it as well, as David Brooks of the New York Times. Though he is often chastised by the neo-conservative-right-wing-noise machine who have called him a closet liberal or "conservative-light," Brooks, instead, represents that calm, rational, and rather engaging voice of conservatism that I regularly call for. He is, in many ways, the last hope we have after the loss of William Buckley and William Safire, though many, including Brooks, would argue he doesn't have quite their monolithic voice in the conservative crowd. Regardless, he is always a pleasure to read, and his insight is well represented in his piece today, introducing two views of the future, represented by Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume.

I’ve introduced you to my friends Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume because they represent the choices we face on issue after issue. This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.

The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)

The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.

So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.


Brooks is just so damn smart that his allusions are often lost on many. But he is drawing from classic enlightenment history with astute nods to Jeremy Bentham and David Hume. It is these historical allusions that make his commentary so rich, but it is also what leads neo-conservatives to criticize him. For the reality is Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly don't really understand Brooks or his allusions, and by association don't really understand conservatism.


David Brooks calls himself a Burkean conservative, and it is a definition and a pragmatic ideology I support. Sadly, most in the Republican Party don't really - and here's the irony because they use this charge so much - don't really understand their history. They don't understand the nature of their ideology and how to apply it to a changing world. Instead they rely on soundbites that simply become a rant about "low taxes" and "limited government." Yet, they don't understand how to take those ideas and actually "govern." Brooks, to his credit, tries to explain how the GOP needs to move beyond the "government is the enemy" idea of the Buckley and Reagan eras. For, while Reagan was absolutely right about marginal tax rates when they were 80%, his argument doesn't apply when they are 36%. Neo-conservatives don't get that, and they have never been able to reconcile their ideas with the social conservatives and the Religious Right. It makes for a mess of a message and a mess of a party.

One man who knows this - though sadly forgot it for about six months when his party needed him most - is John McCain. McCain had built an entire - and rather impressive - career on similar Burkean philosophy. This was effectively profiled in The Atlantic. Sadly, I think, few conservatives read that, and the noise machine couldn't understand it, so they dissed that type of thinking.

But there is hope. Brooks makes that clear. But you have to read it and you have to "get" it for that hope to have any chance.

Yes, we can. [sic]

Zakaria on Iran's Non-Threat

There are few people in the news industry I respect more to speak about the Middle East than Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. And, generally, his views and perspective are pretty well received by people from both political parties. Thus, I hope his recent piece for Newsweek, "Containing a Nuclear Iran," is read and discussed, rationally and intelligently, by the powers that be. Some interesting points:

At the same time, we must stop exaggerating the Iranian threat. By hyping it, we only provide Iran with "free power," in Leslie Gelb's apt phrase. This is an insecure Third World country with a GDP that is one 40th the size of America's, a dysfunctional economy, a divided political class, and a government facing mass unrest at home. It has alienated most of its neighboring states and cuts a sorry figure on the world stage, with an international embarrassment for a president. Its forays in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza have had mixed results, with the locals often growing weary of the Iranian thugs who try to control them.

The country does not yet have even one nuclear weapon, and if and when it gets one—something that is far from certain—the world will not end. The Middle East has been home to nuclear weapons for decades. If Israel's estimated -arsenal of 200 warheads, including a "second-strike capacity," has not prompted Egypt to develop its own nukes, it's not clear that one Iranian bomb would do so. (Recall that Egypt has fought and lost three wars against Israel, so it should be far more concerned about an Israeli bomb than an Iranian one.) More crucially, Israel's massive nuclear force will deter Iran from ever contemplating using or giving away its own (hypothetical) weapon. Deterrence worked with madmen like Mao, and with thugs like Stalin, and it will work with the calculating autocrats of Tehran. The Iranian regime has amply demonstrated over the past four months that it is interested in hanging on to power at all costs, jailing mullahs and ignoring its own clerical elite. These are not the actions of religious rulers about to commit mass suicide.

We should not fear to negotiate with these rulers.

Clearly, there will be many screeching voices from the right wing noise machine who oppose this "appeasement" and will liken it to Chamberlain and Hitler. But those voices have no real credibility in the foreign policy world, and they earn money by hyping fears and criticizing everything. By contrast, I have heard and seen support for Zakaria's view by people such as Pat Buchanan, Henry Kissinger, and Charles Krauthammer. In fact, as far back as the Bush administration, Krauthammer offered the rational conclusion that if Iran wants the bomb, they will get it. But they can and will be persuaded not to use it. For, they don't want to become a parking lot, as much as some like to paint them a national of suicidal maniacs. That's no more true than it is in Pakistan or Korea.

Thus, perhaps, as Iran slowly moves out from under its theocratic control - hints of which were revealed in the last election - the world will control its more unsavory elements without making it worse.

The Problems of "Info-tainment"

Though I used to watch a fair amount of "talk television" in the realm of of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I now avoid the white noise of talk television because I discern, beyond the ranting, that the goal is not to inform, but simply spark suspicion and even anger, for the simple purpose of ratings and revenue. However, that does not mean I an uninformed. I read more news than ever before. But I avoid the idiot box more and more. For, nothing new or insightful is offered on these shows. They simply "comment" on the news, and generally it's more inflammatory than anything else.

Lately the focus on Glenn Beck has challenged the "edginess" of these shows, arguing Beck does his job in a far more insidious manner than the others, or than he used to in his original show and first two books, which I read and actually enjoyed. That criticism is the focus of a piece of print commentary (generally more rational and not built on soundbites) that came from Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News. While Dreher is more critical of Beck than some others - and while he in my opinion goes on a bit of a tangent - there is much to consider about the increasingly dangerous world of (mainly) Fox News commentary.

From ridiculous charges of FEMA concentration camps to charges of Manchurian candidates to shameless accusations of subversive muslim congressman to a million people at the tea party in D.C. cited by a "university" that Beck "couldn't remember the name of to a "deep seated hatred of white people that one was a minute before Beck said "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people" to Vancouver losing billion dollars on an Olympics they hadn't held yet, Beck has fallen so far off the road of rational thought, that his anti-government fearmongering has actually become dangerous. And I would argue that I used to listen to Beck and agreed with much of his points. I've read all his books, and until his last one, had little criticism. However, his current arc is what leads Dreher to wonder where the William Buckleys of the conservative party are.

Well, they might be in South Carolina. At least that might be inferred from the recent statements - and consistent rational pragmatic conservatism - of Senator Lindsay Graham. From his evenhanded and just criticism (but ultimate vote for) Justice Sotomayor to his denouncement of craziness and cynicism in the conservative media, Graham is one of the few Republicans left that I could - and would - vote for on a national level. He might just be stepping up, in a Buckley-esque way to defeat the madness and extremism that has taken the microphone of his party.

This hope is, incidentally, supported in the New York Times today by one conservative voice I can trust and support, David Brooks. Brooks reminds us that, for the most part, the crazy voices of the conservative media aren't all that influential, as they'd like us to believe. While 15 million or so viewers and listeners will follow these guys each day, that doesn't turn into a reliable voting bloc for their far right, neo-conservative agenda. Instead, pragmatism still rules at the voting booth.

Or at least I'd like to hope.

Summer Vacation at Risk Based on a Myth

It seems like every time Education Secretary Arne Duncan opens his mouth about reform of public education, he perpetuates myths and offers reforms based on those myths that I find very frustrating. For in the news today, President Obama and Duncan are both continuing with the argument that the American school day and week and year are too short. This is based on the erroneous idea that Asian and European kids who beat American kids on international tests spend more time in school. The Education Secretary again showed his ignorance of the history of public education when he said, "Our school calendar is based on the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working in the fields today." This is, of course, fundamentally not true.

First of all, up until the late nineteenth century, the school year, especially in the cities, was actually all year long. This was driven by the desire to have the kids in school so their parents could work, especially in factories. In rural areas, kids were given release time in the spring and fall for planting and harvesting - not "summer vacation" to work in the fields. The "agrarian model" explanation is a myth, and up-to-date education researchers have known this for years. The school calendar was not set so kids could help on the farm. Most of the work on a farm is done during spring and fall - planting and harvesting. Clearly, that is when the kids were most needed. The summer vacation schedule was set to appeal to middle and upper class families (the ones who actually went beyond sixth grade) because these families wanted to get out of the hot, crowded cities (and classrooms) during the summer months, especially before the days of air conditioning.

The "myth of summer vacation" has been well-documented over the years, though misperception persists. Perhaps the most informative analysis of the history comes from a really good read by Kenneth Gold, entitled School's In: The History of Summer Vacation in American Public Schools.

While there are arguments for longer school, the agrarian model is not one of them. Additionally, the longer school day has shown a definitive impact in struggling, urban populations, but suburban middle and upper class populations have never shown the "summer loss," and they are well-served by a myriad of summer activities that enhance and add to their education as well-rounded citizens in ways that more classroom time drilling for standardized tests doesn't. If we are going to have effective discussion about education reform, we need to dispense with the perpetuation of myths by the misinformed. Additionally, the article I linked to noted that the belief that others countries' students spend more time in school is also not true:

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school. Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

As I noted after watching the movie Two Million Minutes, critics have argued that by the time they graduate from high school, Chinese and Indian students will have spent twice as much time in school as American students. But that leads to the following questions:

Are their economies twice as large or powerful? Are their buildings and bridges twice as strong? Are their doctors and scientists twice as effective and efficient and innovative? Are their products twice as durable? Are their workers twice as productive?

The answer is, of course, no.

Arne Duncan and President Obama need to do a little more research before they start speaking of reform in education. Clearly, there is evidence that a longer school day, week, and year is helpful for struggling populations. However, my high school has a 90% school-wide pass rate on AP exams in nearly all subjects, and we have more honors classes than regular levels. And we do it with the current schedule.

If anything, our students can get through K-12 effectively in less time, not more.

Dual-Credit is Key In Education Reform

As I've noted on several occasions, there is much inefficiency in the way we direct our students to bachelor degrees. Problematically, half the students who go on to a four-year college don't finish, and many people seeking careers that need an associate's degree end up going for a bachelor's. Additionally, we have established twelve years as being the standard for being ready for college, when that number is arbitrary at best, and completely overestimated for the top thirty percent in the country. Additionally, the rise of AP and IB could alleviate some of the waste in time and money for college classes, yet many colleges are now reducing the credit for those programs.

However, there is a growing trend in dual-credit courses where students can take core classes in high school, that if taught by a qualified teacher with appropriate rigor, can also count for college credit in associate degree programs. This concept is long overdue, and the Denver Post spotlights it in an article today about students who are moving more efficiently through the k-16 labyrinth. The story discusses several students who pursue college courses in high school. Notably there is Lauren Goh:

Goh, 18, fit the profile of the high achiever who was the traditional target of concurrent enrollment. For two years, she took most of her classes at Red Rocks Community College instead of Golden High — where she still was elected student body president.

"High school is definitely a unique experience, but I'd had enough of it," Goh said. "At Red Rocks, there were people in their 60s I'd make friends with, from all walks of life. That was the appeal to me."

She earned her high school diploma and associate degree on the same day. Eventually, she faced a choice: Transfer her credits and begin as a junior at any number of schools, or enroll at Harvard for four year.

A high school diploma and an associate's degree on the same day. I know so many students for whom this should apply, as I regularly tell my AP Lang juniors at the end of the year that they "are ready for college." Sadly, the AP system is arbitrary, and many schools won't give them credit and will make them re-take classes for which they are already qualified. This is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

Dual-credit, also called concurrent enrollment, is precisely the type of reform that can alleviate the logjam of public education, and ease many of the funding problems in schools. We can get kids out of school and on with their lives in a much more efficient and effective manner.

Kurt Anderson and America's Reset

As Jesus Jones noted in their hit song "Right Here, Right Now," we are in the midst of "watching the world wake up from history." While the pop hit from the early 90s focused on the fall of communism in eastern Europe, Kurt Anderson's "Reset" is a calm, reflective meditation on the end of the bubble economy/bubble society that began in the 1980s and has finally and resoundingly ended after a near decimating crash. While Anderson is not big on specifics in terms of what the end of the party will bring, he is hopeful that America, and the world, will be moving into a more rational, pragmatic world view on issues of health, wealth, and well being.

As far as a predictor of trends and guru of solutions, the books of Matt Miller are more detailed and prescient. But Anderson's book is a nice short meditation, strong on hope and belief in American's ability to respond to the current crisis and be the better for it. Granted, Anderson's book was written and published during Obama's honeymoon period - and notably prior to the rage of the town hall meetings and the audacity of Joe Wilson's "You lie." However, knowing the generally moderate views of middle America, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Anderson's insight and hope for a more rational and simplified future in America society is on the horizon.

As we decrease our "lottery-winner" expectations of an early retirement in our McMansion based on our unrealistic mutual fund projections, Americans may begin to downsize their purchases and simplify their lives. More rational plans for education reform and immigration reform and health care and finance and materialism could potentially lead to a calmer, happier society.

The book is a nice, easy read - big on hope and brevity. A nice reflection.

Carter Finally Gets It

If John Hughes had ever written a young-adult novel, it would have been Carter Finally Gets It. This hysterically entertaining, and pleasantly insightful, debut from author Brent Crawford is one of the best YA novels I have read in years. In fact, there are few books that better capture the voice of a boy during his freshman year of high school, especially one with ADD, an occasional stutter, an overbearingly popular sister, and his "boys." These characteristics and characters are the main vehicles of Carter's conflicts as he navigates the trials of adolescence - football, girls, parties, girls, competition, girls, homework, girls, and, well, girls.

Carter tells his own story in a voice that is as honest as it is hilarious. The frustration that comes from the pressures of school and social situations moving just a bit too fast for an eternally distracted mind is always entertaining, and at times rather poignant. Carter can't seem to get a handle on his social or athletic or academic responsibilities, and at times he simply helplessly admits I've been in high school almost a month, and it's nothing like I thought it would be .... I want to feel comfortable ... I want people to think about me as much as I think about them, and I worry I'll always feel this way. Like I did on the first day of kindergarten. That sort of honesty is so refreshing, and it's nice to see in a character like Carter who isn't simply a stereotype of a dorky freshman. In fact, Carter is a popular, athletic kid who struggles with schools and the social expectations of an increasingly fast adolescent world. Carter is an Everyman, for whom many high school students will be able to relate.

This is the kind of book that I wish every adolescent girl would read - it might do a lot help them understand the adolescent boys that frustrate them so. Like so many of the movies from the classic young adult raconteur John Hughes, this book presents a fun, funny, and truly honest portrait of adolescence, in all its manic glory.

I highly recommend this book.

Civility and Decorum

Here's a thought:

Perhaps Joe Wilson, Kanye West, and Serena Williams could all get together for an idiot party.

We all make mistakes ... and we all should be roundly chastised for acting infantile in our adult years. Hubris is a terrible thing.

Words of Wisdom

During the course of the school year, I read a lot of selections to my students from various books by Robert Fulghum, author of All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Generally, we will write about them, and occasionally these short pieces generate some nice personal essays. One of my favorites comes from Fulghum's time studying Zen buddhism in a Japanese monastery. Upon Fulghum's leaving, the zen master reads to him the following proverb:

There is really nothing you must be,

And there is nothing you must do.

There is really nothing you must have,

And there is nothing you must know.

There is really nothing you must become.

However, it helps to know that fire burns,

and, when it rains, the earth gets wet.

This sort of sentiment and insight is especially important for teenagers during these years of the search for identity and autonomy. Hopefully, as the country seeks its identity, the course of the future will be influenced by such level-headed wisdom.

Corporations are People, Too?

In a sad development for the roots of democratic republics - and a backdoor victory for oligarchy - the The Supreme Court's conservative bloc sounded poised Wednesday to decide, on free-speech grounds, to end the ban on corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the presidency. The "ironic" issue of money as "free" speech has always troubled me, though I understand the reasoning behind it. Of course, it wasn't nearly the problem thirty and eighty years ago before the rise of television, especially cable. Now we have trillions behind spent to promote agendas, and the concept of truth in politics and ideology becomes even more bent.

This development - corporations being freed to use their resources to specifically influence individual political races - is a nail in the coffin to any hope of campaign finance reform. Perhaps the most disturbing concept is the idea that "Corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment," said Olson, who represented Citizens United. This is an absolute affront to the rights of the individual and democratic republics. A corporation is NOT a person, and that was not the intention of the First Amendment. If individual members of a corporation want to exercise free speech, I support it. If the corporation wants the same right to use its massive funds to override representative voices of individuals, that's a move toward oligarchy.

Thom Hartmann - and I know he's very liberal - first brought this to my attention in his critical book What Would Jefferson Do. Issues like these really do bring Supreme Court appointments into prominence. While I was bothered by the Courts ruling on private property last year, I am equally, if not more, bothered by this one.