Bus Monitor Bullies are not "Good Kids"

Every once in a while a news story on children behaving badly goes viral, and we're all given a sad bit of insight into the dark side of the human spirit and the stupidity of youth.  The latest incident is the group of middle schoolers who taunted, ridiculed, threatened, and demeaned a 68-year-old bus monitor, and then posted a video of their exploits on Facebook.  The public reaction - and outrage - has been swift and animated.  Matt Lauer on the Today Show called the kids "little monsters," and a website originally created to raise money to send the woman on a vacation has, at last count, raised nearly a half-million dollars.  While the school has yet to discipline the cruel, small-minded tweens, one father is reporting that his family is receiving death threats.  Clearly, that has gone too far.

But I have to wonder about the father who says his son "made a mistake."

The bus monitor bullies did not make a mistake - they made a conscious choice to be cruel.  They didn't accidentally insult this 68-year-old woman - they chose to be mean, they chose to psychologically brutalize a weaker person, they chose to victimize a human they saw as beneath them, they chose to be awful human beings.  This father has said his "heart was broken" when he viewed the despicable behavior of his child.  Sadly, he came face-to-face with his son's nature - and it's not a pretty picture.  Some will take exception to my criticism of these boys - because they truly are young and naive and clueless about the pain they were causing.  But these boys are mean and nasty individuals who, for some reason, lack any degree of empathy and the most basic level of human decency.  They are not good kids.

The bus monitor bullies' incident reminded of another example of atrocious teen behavior that happened in the upper class Chicago suburb of Northbrook about ten years ago.  A girls powder puff football game that was established as a ritual where the senior girls hand the school over to the juniors degraded into brutal hazing incident which resulted in girls being hospitalized with concussions and broken bones.  In one of the more disturbing aspects of the incident, the younger girls had buckets and coolers filled with fish guts, fish blood, urine, and human feces poured over their heads.  To add to the insanity, some of the girls were beat over the heads with the buckets, and some of the girls with concussions required up to ten stitches.  It was a disaster of human behavior which generated the same sort of outrage as the bus monitor bullies.  However, the aspect that really got under my skin was comments from some parents of the senior girls who said, "They're not bad kids - they're good kids who made a mistake."

Whoa, there, Nelly.

These are not good kids, and this was not a mistake.  They are actually rather self-absorbed, obnoxious, cruel, manipulative, mean-spirited, and shallow young women.  They are not nice people.   They apparently take some sort of sick twisted pleasure from brutalizing others and seeing people suffer.  They have no empathy and they have no self control.  That is not, in my opinion, the behavior of a "good kid."  And brutalizing a person is not a mistake.  It is a representation of who you are - in your heart - even if that means you are simply an incredibly shallow and careless person.  But that's who these girls are.  So, let's not try to justify it.  Let's not claim it was about the alcohol.  Let's not pretend that mob action can be justified.  That part of their nature is indefensible.  And, while it does not represent the whole sum of their lives and personalities, it is a very significant part of who they are.

That said, I do not believe that these "children" are beyond redemption.  People can change ... their behavior.  They can be taught to control and manage that dark side.  But that darkness is in their hearts, and it cannot be explained away or justified.

The Next Food Network Star - Linky Goes Home

Not surprisingly to veteran viewers of the reality competition for who will be the "next" Food Network Star, Linky - the pastry chef with South African roots - was eliminated last night.  The basic reason for her failure was the inability to speak in front of the camera.  Additionally, critics might argue that she never really had a point of view, was not that skilled as a chef, and had been hanging around for weeks simply because her team was doing well enough to protect her.  Of course, with Linky coming from Team Giada, the team argument is weak because I still can't understand how some of these people have stuck around.  Like Linky, Ippy has no camera presence at all and he never will.  Martita is really not that interesting and her point of view - the Latina chef - is already well represented on the Food Network.  Yvan is coming along ... but he's still not going to be star quality.

It really comes down to the ability to be engaging and interesting in front of a crowd.  That simple trait goes back to the all important angle taken by Alton Brown in his initial screening.  He wanted the chefs to "teach him something" because that is what a Food Network Star needs to do.  And that was much appreciated by A Teachers View, as people don't often consider the significance of that quality.  It is an EQ - or emotional intelligence - issue, rather than an IQ or skill.  Not surprisingly, many intelligent and skilled people leave teaching - or never pursue it - because standing in front and being able to engage a group is quite tough.  It's extremely challenging when you have a reluctant audience of young people.  But it can be as tough for someone like a Food Network Star who has a very demanding and critical audience who will quickly change the channel if they don't like and buy what you're selling.

So, clearly, Linky didn't have "it."

Food Network Cookbook Holder

Are Video Games Education?

Over the years, I have had various students who are video game players and enthusiasts, and the more astute of them have often argued for the educational value of video games.  This idea has been gaining traction in the field because of the basic concepts of risk/reward, critical thinking, improvement through increasing levels and challenges, and teamwork.  Additionally, I occasionally encounter some very bright students who talk about game design as a career.  While that may sound like a fantasy job, it is by no means a slacker career.  In fact, it's mostly my advanced AP students who express a sincere interest in this career.  Thus, the value of video games as education, and the value of game design as a credible career should be considered by any education advocates.

For more information check out this short 5-minute Film Festival of clips exploring the value of video games in schools.  This presentation is from Edutopia - the site for the George Lucas Educational Foundation.  It presents examples such as a middle school in New York in which all the traditional subjects are explored and learned through game design, or the STEM video game contest sponsored by the White House.  In keeping with "a teacher's view" that whatever works in education is good policy, the idea of video games as education is worth considering.

My Education Statement of Belief

In 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk, I was thirteen years old and preparing to enter high school.  That report established my generation as the first to suffer failing schools.  It was a call for action and change, and it forewarned of a coming national crisis.  Yet, thirty years later, even as the nation has survived several cycles of boom and bust, the public education system remains largely intact. Even as the world has been reinvented through radical growth in information technology, public education looks much as it has since its inception.  However, change is incremental, and bringing innovation and progress to public education requires informed, passionate, and prudent leadership, as well as a degree of patience and commitment.

Certainly, the last thirty years have seen growth and development in education policy, especially with the rise of charter schools and various experiments in school choice.  Yet, despite numerous reform movements, not the least of which is the No Child Left Behind Act, the system remains virtually unchanged.  At times, that sort of intransigence can be disheartening to reformers.  However, it shouldn’t be.  There is much to praise about American education, and there is also great potential for change.  Margaret Mead said, “Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed citizens to change the world. Indeed, it has never been done otherwise.”  As an educator and leader in my community, I seek to be one of those committed citizens.

The current K-16 model of a one-size-fits-all education system is both outdated and inefficient for a nation as productive and progressive as the United States.  The system is not at all representative of American society, a culture built on diversity, innovation, and progress.  Change will come from the foundation of the American Dream – the notion of opportunity.  The greatest strength of American society and American education is the notion of “access granted.”  In Colorado, that idea is enshrined in the state constitution, which calls for a “thorough and uniform education system.”  At the most basic level that means equal opportunity for all students to access as much education as they require and desire.  As an educational leader, I seek to promote the strengths of American education while modifying its weak points, and my ultimate goal is summed up in the words of Washington Post education writer Jay Matthews who believes “The best education for the best is the best education for all.”

Having taught in Taiwan and in the United States, in both public and private schools, in the city of Chicago as well as several suburbs, my educational experience is diverse and informed.  Ultimately, as an educational leader, I seek to synthesize the best components of all systems into an exemplary system in the United States.  In the area of educational leadership, I have established a strong voice through a career dedicated to professional growth.  In twenty years of teaching classes ranging for ELA to developmental English to college prep and AP English, I have seen it all.  However, beyond the classroom, education policy has been a hobby of mine for years, and I consider myself a bit of a policy geek.  My desire to become an educational leader and reformer came during a staff development class on literacy when I discovered Chris Tovani’s book I Read It But I Don’t Get It.  That exposure kicked off a reading revolution in my classroom, and by the following year, my principal had purchased Tovani’s book for the entire department.  It was about this time that I began contributing to the world of educational commentary.  Following the publication of my first op-ed commentary on education – a piece for the Denver Post in which I challenged Sean Hannity’s assertion that the public education system was in a state of “ruin” – I discovered the world of education blogging, and truly began to develop a mindset for education reform and leadership.

As a reformer in education I firmly believe in “whatever works.”  For example, in terms of charter schools, I’d consider the plan in Mark Miller's book The 2% Solution, which should appeal to both liberals and conservatives, because while it is focused on achievement, it addresses the concerns of unions, which are made up of many passionate and committed teachers.  I’m also intrigued by reforms in the Adams 50 district, which challenge the tradition of “seat time” and “grade level.” Any program that produces results should be supported and replicated.  Additionally, I would like for Colorado to take a sincere look at the reforms in New Hampshire, which is moving toward a high school graduation at sixteen for students entering associate degree programs and trade schools. Students who stay in school for years 11 and 12 will take a rigorous AP/IB college prep curriculum that seriously prepares them for the work of a four-year college. This would radically cut down on the number of students requiring remedial courses in college or the half who quit without earning a degree.  The reforms are adapted from the “Tough Choices, Tough Times” report released by a coalition of education leaders and business professionals, and it draws on the Asian and European models that are so often cited by critics of the current system.  

Ultimately, America’s system of education has a strong tradition and foundation that can be developed and return the United States to the status of having the premier education system in the world.  The most important component of change, however, is open and honest dialogue that is grounded in the realities of the problems.  As long as Americans are committed to education, reformers can build on the strengths of innovation that are inherent in the character of the American people.

The Next Food Network Star 2012 - Eric Goes Home

As much as I am enjoying the competition for who will be the Next Food Network Star 2012 on the Food Network, I have to think Bob and Susie made a big mistake in sending Napa executive chef Eric home this week after a producers challenge with Ippy.  While both of these great chefs have a camera problem right now, Eric is clearly the far superior chef, and Bobby Flay made this obvious argument in the final segment.  While Ippy from Team Giada is a good chef and a nice guy, he can not bring it on the camera in any meaningful way.  Ultimately, I think Bob and Susie just felt like the Hawaiian angle is more marketable for the network.  But it doesn't work for me, as neither of these two men was ever really going to be the Next Food Network Star.

Sadly, I would have liked to see Eric go farther in the competition simply because he is the superior chef.  That should count for something because we're all tuning in to see people who can work culinary magic.  And, while he has regularly struggled to finish his dishes, I always love what he's doing. Ippy, on the other hand, really doesn't have much of anything interesting going on.  Despite the claims that he is simply laid back, like his culture, I am unimpressed.  And, I can't figure out how Linkie didn't go home this week, and hasn't gone out yet.  She is completely forgettable - except when I can't forget how poorly she stumbles through her presentations.  The same goes for Yvan.  Bob and Susie should just send him home - despite how well he does next week - because he simply will not be the Next Food Network Star.  Ultimately, Eric and Ippy should go because it really is all about the camera presence and personality.  All these people can cook, and the world has many magical chefs; but being able to engage an audience is the key, and that's really the answer to who will be the Next Food Network Star.  It's like teaching - no matter how well you know your subject, you won't survive in the classroom if you can't bring it on the stage.

And, I have to again assert that I am not liking this celebrity chef team format at all.  For one, Alton and Giada are clearly helping out their people quite a bit - and that's not the point of the show.  Additionally, this format is really not flattering for Giada.  She continues to come across as petty and desperate for the affection of her team and the need to simply win.  It seems like she doesn't want to find the best Next Food Network Star, for she has had nothing positive to say about any other finalists.  She just wants to win and she is coming across, quite honestly, as a real bitch.  That's a shame because I never felt that way about her.  So, Bob and Susie should definitely nix this format for next season.

So, Eric's out.  Hopefully, Linkie or Yvan or Ippy go next.

*UPDATED

Judson is another example of the problem with the team format.  As a reader recently pointed, he should have gone home last night as well.  In fact, he was every bit as bad as Eric and Ippy on camera, and he's a much worse cook.  Yet, he was protected because his team won.  And, this wasn't even a team competition.  It would almost be understandable if this - like last year - was an actual team event and his work somehow led to the team's win.  But it wasn't.  He was "safe" just by the default of having been picked by Alton.  Otherwise, he's a standard cook with absolutely no marketable "point of view," or POV, and he has no camera presence at all.  Everything he says sounds scripted - if not simply phony.  So, Judson needs to go home soon.

However, I must acknowledge the winner from Team Alton - Justin.  That kid just flat out rocks in the kitchen.  And, I think the quirky creativity is definitely going to be an asset.  My early favorite was Michelle.  But, if she doesn't get out of her own head, Justin is going to steal this competition.


** UPDATE - For the most current breakdown on Malcolm's exit this week, check out my latest:

Diane Ravitch on No Child Left Behind NCLB

About twelve years ago, as I became more interested in school policy and began reading education policy books and articles, I ran across the work of Jeanne Chall and Diane Ravitch.  And my passion for education reform was born.  Ravitch, especially, just made so much sense in her criticisms of the field of public education.  And she was not willing to sugarcoat anything to protect teachers or any other special interest.  That critical eye led her to her work in the Bush administration and her initial support of No Child Left Behind.

In recent years, however, Ravitch's views have changed, and she is not afraid of changing her mind.  Despite a lot of criticism, Ravitch has some very sound arguments against the current state of education reform.  If you haven't Diane Ravitch's criticism of No Child Left Behind, you should consider her ideas.  In countless articles and speeches, Diane has exposed the problems of high stakes testing and free market reform efforts led by groups such as the Gates Foundation and the Walton Foundation.  Ravitch published an extensive expose of the issue in her book - The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Undermined Public Education.

For a more succinct version of her criticism, check out this piece published on the NEA website.  I ran across this link while reading Darren's post at RightOntheLeftCoast.  Darren is not a fan of Ravitch - though I'm not exactly sure why.  Regardless, Ravitch has a lifetime of credibility in education and education reform.  And even if you don't agree with all her points, she is definitely worth reading and her views are worthy of respect.

Print Newspapers - The Cost and the Benefit

My bill for the Denver Post came the other day ... and it truly knocked me back a bit.  Seven days a week for fifty-two weeks came to the - arguably reasonable - price of $206.00.

It was tough to take only because of the dramatic increase in the past ten years.  When I first moved to Denver a decade ago from St. Louis, I could not believe my good fortune.  The Denver Post was available daily for the year at a cost of less than fifty bucks.  That's an incredible deal for excellent news and commentary delivered daily to my driveway.  The once-proud St. Louis Post-Dispatch (the paper of Joseph Pulitzer) was much less of a paper for much greater price.  And the Denver Post was thriving in a city with competition from the Rocky Mountain News.

Alas, the Rocky eventually folded, and I had great hope for the Denver Post, as it could now pick up a considerable readership, which it did.   Many people carried on with Denver Post, and the paper continued to put out a rather extensive daily offering of excellent news and commentary with great features and excellent service.  Sadly, I didn't even notice the drop off at first.  A few columnists like Diane Carmen and Jim Spencer parted from the Denver Post.  And the Saturday paper, followed by the Monday and Tuesday editions became ever slightly thinner.  The op-ed pages at least three days a week became simply the ed pages - as it moved from a fold out to just one page.

More columnists left - or took early retirement - and the number of ads seemed to increase daily.  The stories became harder to find on the page.  And I began to hear of people canceling their subscriptions.  "Say it ain't so," I begged and pleaded, as I knew we couldn't afford to lose the Denver Post to the Rocky's fate.  But more people were reading online, more claimed they had no time for the daily paper, and others switched to the Wall Street Journal or New York Times delivered via the mail.  But what about the local news, I wondered.  How will they get info on local issues and votes?  Alas, that doesn't seem to be a concern for too many people these days.  And even I wince at the price.

But we need our daily newspapers, and I won't let go.  Admittedly, I have signed up quarterly at this point, as I can't bring myself to shell out the big bucks.  But it's still way less than a dollar a day.  And the Denver Post - still with all the changes - is a great city newspaper.

So, I will still sit contentedly in my kitchen in the morning, waiting for that comforting "smack" on the driveway.

But for how long?  Oh, for how long?

More on College-for-All Failure

"It's time to ditch the college for all crusade" opines Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post, joining the growing chorus which acknowledges the inefficient folly that has become our universal college access experiment.  Of course, an op-ed writer like Samuelson is going to look at the basic economics of this, conceding the values and benefits while exposing the myth of the universal bachelor degree.

Samuelson cites the importance statistics regarding how many people have college degrees of any kind - about 40% - while explaining that barely 3 in 10 jobs in this economy actually need a degree.  The greater myth of college degrees is the over-rated value of of the bachelor degree.  Certainly, many jobs in the tech field these days can be accessed with community college programs and associate degrees.  That is certainly true in health care.  And there is no denying the benefit of college degrees during the past century or so.  America's prosperity has certainly aligned itself with the progress of moving from a population of 5% college degrees to nearly 40%.

But the college-for-all myth has become the college-for-all fiasco.  And Samuelson cleverly aligns this misguided policy with the same misguided belief that every American can and should be a homeowner.  Everyone from higher ed guru Diane Ravitch to researchers Arum and Roska - who wrote Academically Adrift - have clearly exposed the problems of promising and expecting college-for-all.  It's inefficient and unnecessary.  Hopefully, some of our policy makers inside the Beltway read the Washington Post each weekend.

Did you hear that, Arne Duncan?

Coursera, College, and the On-line Learning Revolution

Skyrocketing college costs are clashing with the ever-increasing demand for college degrees, and everyone from parents to college presidents are wondering what's going to give.  Certainly, the demand for college degrees won't lessen, as employers will continue to rely on them as screening systems, and no nation wants to see its educational credentials lessen, as they are the benchmark for success and high standards of living.  And neither colleges nor governments have revealed any ability or even intention to decrease costs.  However, there may be another way, as the university system is being subverted from within.  It's all beginning with a neat little start-up called Coursera.

"Welcome to the college revolution," writes Thomas Friedman in the New York Times this week, as he analyzes the increasing trend of online education.  Notably, colleges like Stanford and MIT have begun putting their entire curriculum and syllabi online, granting access to the information to all, if not granting the actual degree.  That may change, though, or at least morph into a new credential with the offering of certificates of completion from universities.  That is the brainchild of Andrew Ng, computer science professor at Stanford who taught his entire class last semester to 100,000 online students.  This idea lead to the creation of a Coursera, an organization funded by venture capital which is devoted to offering university education, or at least certifications from major universities.  Coursera, which can be found and accessed through Coursera.org, is offering full courses and certificates of completion from Princeton, Michigan, Penn, and Stanford.

This revolutionary idea is what Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post calls "the online challenge to college costs."  Carroll joins Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times in revealing and promoting hope for greater university access at decreased cost through the use of internet classes.  Now, certainly, this idea isn't new.  The University of Phoenix has been offering such courses for decades - though with questionable results and far less credibility than Michigan or the Ivy League.  And from Coursera, the certificate will be every bit as valuable as the Phoenix degree for much less cost.  While there will always be demand for actual seat space at the major universities - and there is little doubt about the added value of sitting among colleagues in a classroom learning - Coursera as an idea may grant the necessary access to counter the emphasis on degrees which are increasingly a financial burden first.

And, who's to say that if a person can complete all the necessary coursework for a degree, he is any less qualified for a job as an accountant or attorney or engineer or computer technician or financial adviser.  Of course, as I've noted before, let's keep the doctors and nurses on campus with some hands on training.  For there are many skills and experiences that Coursera simply can't replicated online.  However, the on-line changes to education are exciting and filled with potential, even as the kinks in the road must be ironed out through trial and error.  For a more thorough examination of the situation that led to the rise of Coursera, as well as alternatives to the issue that preceded Coursera, you must also take the time to check out Anya Kamenetz's book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education.  Kamenetz's book, which followed her timely debut work Generation Debt, offers a thorough analysis of the higher ed paradigm - and paradigm shift.  Her website is worth checking out as well.

Look for more and more talk of Coursera, which might be able to do for higher ed what Sal Khan and the Khan Academy have done for all education.

Coursera, coming up.

Better Slots for the Next Food Network Star

OK, I love Guy Fieri and Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives.  Pretty much everybody does - or at least the real foodies do.  Guy is immensely entertaining, and he knows food.  He is the textbook case for the contest that is the next Food Network Star.  And when Guy was named the next Food Network Star, he rode his fame to the top with numerous shows culminating in Triple-D.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, Guy struggled a bit in the early days before hitting his stride with Diner, Drive-Ins, & Dives.  And, of course Guy's Big Bite is an excellent show is well - one that really showcases his cooking knowledge.

But the Food Network is doing a disservice to their other new Food Network Stars with the saturation of Guy-Food-TV in the prime time hours.  Guy Fieri and Triple-D is literally on all the time, and while he is certainly entertaining, I would love to see some other new Food Network Star veterans being given the opportunity to develop their brand.  For example, Jeff Mauro - or The Sandwich King - deserves some prime time exposure to develop what is arguably one of the best Points of View and new-brand shows to ever come out of the next Food Network Star.  It was the perfect niche with a great tagline - and the Food Network could certainly market a show on sandwiches - even several shows - with a big personality like Jeff the Sandwich King.

But he's buried in the Sunday morning line-up.  Just like Arti Party.

Either one of these shows could have developed into a more popular show given the right time slot.  But, while I turn the Food Network on regularly in the evenings, I rarely remember to flip on the TV on Sunday morning when I'm enjoying my breakfast, cup of coffee, and the Sunday paper.  It seems like Sunday morning would be a place you'd send a show to die - like a kill committee in Congress.  And why would the Food Network go to so much trouble to craft new shows around popular new culinary voices, and then stifle their opportunity to grow.  The Food Network should seriously consider giving the last Food Network Star - Jeff the Sandwich King - a slice of Guy Fieri's time.

Make sure the Food Network Star actually gets a chance to become a star.  Bring The Sandwich King to prime time.

Who Will Be the Next Food Network Star - 2012

On the show that brought us celebrities such as Guy Fierie and Jeff the Sandwich King, the Food Network premiered its latest season of Food Network Star - however, this time there is a twist.  Foodie icons Bobby Flay, Giada de Laurentiis, and Alton Brown have formed teams of five potential food stars, and they will compete against each other as they nurture their teams and individuals toward the ultimate prize - a show on the Food Network and status as the next Food Network Star.

Clearly, coming out of tonight's two hour premiere and competition, Bobby Flay has the most talented team with the greatest potential for victory.  Michelle - the spiky haired, nose-pierced, large personality - seems like an early frontrunner.  And it was evident from her initial interview with Bobby when she had the banter down, the ease in front of the camera, and the ability to flat out cook.  His team is skilled and confident and cool - all the qualities we'd expect from Team Bobby Flay.

Alton Brown's team was every bit as quirky as he is, and while they mostly seem to be eccentric chefs with a point of view, Alton also made the early mistake in his team choices, as his team member Christy was the first to be sent home.  And, that was the right choice, for she really had no clue what she wanted to be in front of the camera.  Sadly, she turned off the judges with her anger about America's poor nutritional health, but her idea - being "Fed Up" - was actually a great POV.  I can just imagine a more positive and free spirited personality being able to sell America on "being fed up with poor quality food and the belief that healthy can't be delicious."  She could have been the voice to say "Let's get Fed Up, America!  And let's make it taste great while we do."  Shame.

Giada clearly has the weakest team - and I was a little put off by her choices, as she seemed far more interested in being popular with her team than in leading them.  She seemed to pick the guys that fell all over her and wooed her ... and that was a little inappropriate.  Obviously, Josh almost left the show tonight, and will leave it very soon.  He is rather crass and somewhat cheesy, and I believe the only reason he made the team is because he seemed cool when he jumped up on the table.  Giada fell for some real cheap thrills with that one.  Hopefully, other team members can pick up the slack.

One interesting point from early in the show is Alton's statement that he is looking for a teacher's view.  He doesn't simply want cooks or personalities - he wants "a teacher ... someone to teach him how to cook."  In his auditions, he asked the applicants to "teach him to make Bananas Foster."  Truly, to be a Food Network Star, cooks have to be teachers, and they must have a teacher's view.  They must, in an engaging and enthusiastic manner, present information and skills in such a way that students will feel entertained and empowered - even inspired - to undertake a task they find intimidating.   That's the beauty of the Food Network Star, and that's the magic of a teacher's view.

For a more comprehensive view of the show, make sure to check out Matt's FoodNetworkGossip blog


AmericaS Test Kitchen: LetS Get Cooking For Nintendo Ds

Why Johnny Hates Football

Why might Johnny hate football?

It hurts?  It's dangerous?  It's no fun anymore?

The violence of football has taken center stage in an unprecedented way in the last year or so.  Between the lawsuits by former players alleging long-term disabilities to the suspensions related to the bounty program by the New Orleans Saints to the recent suicide of Junior Seau - who joins a list of former NFL players plagued by depression to the point of early death - football is in the crossfire for becoming our guiltiest of pleasures.  Watching incredibly large and athletic men smashing into each other intentionally at high speeds has replaced baseball as our national pastime.  But many cultural critics are having second thoughts.

The national dialogue is beginning to rise above the din of smashing shoulder pads, and many are questioning whether the sport has gone too far.  From Malcolm Gladwell and Buzz Bizzinger debating why college football should be ended to ESPN analysts discussing the issue almost nightly, the question of how to deal with our fascination with hard hits on the gridiron are becoming uncomfortable.  What to do about the violence?  How guilty should we be about our guiltiest pleasure?  We know it's a dangerous game, and we expect it to be.  But we like it, and these men are on the field by choice.  And, of course, despite the concerns raised by tragedies like Seau's suicide, aren't the majority of former NFL players functioning and as healthy or healthier than the general population?  Certainly, the analysts in the booth are not suffering from early onset dementia.  And some research has even asserted that former NFL players outlive and are healthier longer than the average man.  Could be.  Makes sense in many ways.

Most recently, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune weighed in with an indictment of the sport, claiming "U.S. football is doomed."  Kass wonders whether parents may begin asking, "Is football worth it for my child?"  At least one national sports analyst has stated publicly he will not let his son play football professionally, or, if I'm not mistaken, even beyond the high school level.  His professional gut tells him that the risk of playing football at the highest level is simply not worth it.  I know it's not a question for me.  While my son is athletic and quite successful in baseball, basketball, and running, he has shown no interest in football.  In fact, his youth hoops coach is also a football coach, and he's begged my son to play for a few years.  But we tell him, "Coach, he's not interested."  Our boy doesn't like getting bumped into and tackled.  Pushing in the lane for a rebound is enough for him.

And, I'm glad.  Having grown up in a soccer community, I was never that interested in football.  Though when my friends went out for football during high school I was tempted.  My mother had a fit, reminding me of a childhood friend who passed away at the age of twelve on the football field.  It can be that cruel of a sport.  And as kids get bigger and more athletic, it only gets more dangerous.  They are, it seems, as a friend once told me "our gladiators."  And, something about that makes me uneasy.  The pressure for success on the sports field has become a serious societal force.  And it's a key ingredient in why, more and more these days, "Johnny Hates Sport."  And that's sad because the athletic field is a source for so much good in the lives of young men.  Many great lessons can come from the football field, and we may have lost some of that as concerns about health rise.

Something has to give.  And it can't only be the helmet and shoulder pads.