Valuing Work via Technical Schools

With nearly four million jobs in skilled labor unfilled in the United States, the need to re-focus attention on career and technical education (CTE) has never been greater.  With that in mind, it's worth taking a look at the way one technical school district in Connecticut addressed the issue by focusing on school climate.  Because so many kids do not finish their degrees at two-year colleges, Patricia Ciccone sought to address the problem at an earlier point in a student's education by focusing her efforts on improving school climate at the Connecticut Technical High School District.  Ciccone believes technical education is the answer that is lacking in so many discussions about students failing to achieve post high school success and career readiness.  Students may not end up working in the career for which they trained, but they have accomplished post-graduate work, and that credential and experience is going to serve them better in the workplace and in society.  So much of what is happening in high schools - especially those hyper-focused on preparing kids for four-year universities - ends up not serving students well.  In addressing this issue, Ciccone sought to improve overall school climate and student security.  Her work is paying dividends in student achievement, and the results have become a template for school climate discussions statewide.

What's the Big Idea?

"Big Idea, Essential Question, Content vs. Skill, Teachable Moments, Standards-based" - Sometimes the terminology teachers and education personnel use to describe their craft can complicate more than clarify.  None of these concepts is new to me, though I have experienced frustration with all of them at times in my tenure as both a student and a teacher.  The struggle to define exit goals, or standards, for our core classes several years ago elicited much angst and frustration from teachers who fear standardization of content and curriculum like the plague.  

As I recently spoke of standards and the teaching of skills, one veteran teacher I know - a Ph.D - noted that he believes that too often teachers are too enamored of their "Big Ideas" and, in turn, neglect the skill and standards they are tasked with imparting.  From an English literature standpoint, he means teachers can become so focused on their themes and getting kids to simply "love the story" and engage in discussion of prejudice or maturity or love, etc.  In the meantime, they neglect the skills of literacy necessary to pull those themes from the text.  And, writing about it is neglected all the further.  However, in reviewing the concept of "Big Ideas," I like articulating it as the information we really want the kids to walk away with - an understanding rather than a memorization and regurgitation of trivial details and superficial information.  It is the point of education, and it's the what Neil Postman surreptitiously called "the end of education."  In crafting any lesson or educational system, we must ask "what is our endgame?"  What is the goal and outcome?  What is the Big Idea?

Einstein once noted, "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."  Certainly this idea is what Larry Ainsworth had in mind when he wrote, "Much of what I learned in high school and college I simply memorized for a specific test.  Once the test was over, so was my retention ..." (Unwrapping the Standards 25).  Too much of what is happening in classrooms is trivial and disconnected from a Big Idea or any explanation of making the lesson meaningful to students.  They are often so in the dark about "when they are ever going to use this" or "why we have to know this."  And the default of standards or school board policy or those tough college professors is lost on too many.  Phrasing Big Ideas as what students "need to know" and more importantly what students need to "be able to do" is integral to the success of any lesson or unit or curriculum.  Balancing the Big Ideas between content and skill is a necessary consideration, and I have seen teachers and schools that err too much in one way or the other.  Certainly, much of what we teach could be indicted as "trivial" and not in any way "utilitarian."  But Dickens discredited that approach long ago, didn't he?

As a school administrator faced with these issues in light of the Common Core, I would .... hmmmm.  Punt?  No, just kidding.  Posing questions to teachers in a non-threatening or accusatory is necessary for any administrator.  Too many teachers are on auto-pilot and too few give any consideration to standards and learning outcomes.  And I've noted before, when English teachers are asked what they teach, they often simply say, "I teach To Kill a Mockingbird."  Yes, of course.  But what do you do with it?  What's the point?  What's the goal?  What's the learning outcome?  What's the Big Idea?  Why this book and not another?  What do you want students to know and be able to do when they have finished this sublime piece of literature?  Other than to acknowledge that it is, truly, a sublime piece of literature.  Questions, questions, and more questions.  Always seeking "the point."  That is the Big Idea.

Dr. Ben Carson's Disappointingly Cliched and Divisive National Prayer Breakfast Speech

If you haven't heard the news yet, Dr. Ben Carson spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, and has set the GOP punditry afire with their drooling over his amazing speech.  The image of a successful African -American man who came "from poverty" and a "single mother" and rose to the job of neurosurgeon is certainly impressive and worthy of commendation.  However, my instinct is that Carson's veiled comments on tax policy and health care are what are really the "amazing" part of the speech.

To be perfectly honest, I don't find anything particularly impressive or powerful about his speech or message.  While Carson's success is impressive, and I do appreciate the work his non-profit has done, the message of this speech is nothing but a regurgitation of cliched ideas that have become mantra in the GOP but are rather stale as part of any real policies.   His own success is admirable, and he correctly attributes it to a very strict mother who demanded a focus on education.  How fortunate for him that his mother was so committed.  And the message that parents should be the same is important.  However, unless he has  ideas about how to achieve similar results with kids whose parents don't care or push them, then his own story is simply that.  I am glad that Dr. Carson started a educational foundation that builds reading rooms and offers $1000 scholarships to kids who achieve.  Hopefully, he will inspire more successful people to use their wealth and influence in such positive ways.  Beyond that, his words were divisive despite his implications of unity.

Despite the forum of the National Prayer Breakfast being about great messages and role models for the country, Dr. Carson chose to veer off into commentary on tax policy with no credibility whatsoever, and no great ideas to offer.  For example, his veiled argument in favor of a flat tax - potentially a 10% one at that - is rather weak, especially as it hints that the rich are "over-taxed."  They aren't.  Undoubtedly, Dr. Carson is in the upper ranks of earners and probably a millionaire.  Interestingly, according to the IRS, the average millionaire pays a tax burden of 21%.  Certainly, not burdensome - and nowhere near the 63% that Phil Mickelson foolishly ranted about last week.  While lamenting the tax burden on the wealthy is popular among GOP pundits, it's not even supported by original free market conservatives.  Adam Smith promoted the idea of a progressive income tax as correct and necessary because the rich already had an unfair advantage in the free market.

And, Carson is absolutely incorrect that people want the taxes to "hurt" the rich.  That's not the point.  Carson goes to the Bible for his inspiration on taxation and "tithing," but his "hurt the rich" comment ignores the Bible.  As Christ noted in Mark 12:41-44 with the women who gave her only "two coins," her contribution was meaningful precisely because it was all she had - it did hurt her.  When the poor and middle class pay taxes, it takes away from their money for basic necessities and living expenses.  When the rich pay, it comes out of luxury.  So, it's not that it has to "hurt" people, it's that wealthier people can literally afford to pay more.  That basic idea is that with greater benefit comes greater responsibility.  That's also a Bible lesson Carson ignores - Luke 12:48 - "To whom much is given, much will be required."  And I guess Carson isn't worried that it will be harder for a rich man to pass into Heaven.  Now, I am not necessarily a believer that the Bible should guide our laws - but Carson appears to be.  So, the problem is that he's selective about just which verses to apply.

Additionally, Carson offers the flat tax as a solution and then sort of flippantly defers that "of course, you have to get rid of loopholes."  As if that is some sort of minor issue.  In fact, that's the entire issue.  He notes that "people who make $10 billion will put in a billion."  Yet, that's not close to being true when we speak of corporate income taxes.  Companies like GE who make billions of profits often skirt their entire tax bill.  Yet, Carson grossly oversimplifies his "flat tax" platform by casually noting we'll just "close the loopholes."  Good luck.  If he had any ideas on how to do that, or perhaps started a Carson Tax Foundation to make that happen, he might have a truly powerful message and impact.  Instead, he simply notes we have to close loopholes.  No great wisdom there, and actually a rather naive belief that "we'll just close" them.

Speaking as a doctor, Carson also proposes a plan to "fix" the health care situation, yet his comments are not only nothing new, but also rather naive and removed from the realities of the health care market.  In discussing health care costs, he identifies health saving accounts as some sort of panacea for lowering costs.  Sadly, this is neither a unique or revolutionary idea, nor a powerful message, and he provides no evidence that it would do anything to improve health care or lower costs.  In fact, I would bet he doesn't have one, and I would bet he is a member of a large group plan for which he pays no out-of-pocket costs.  As a consumer of health care on the open market, I'd love to talk to him about the HSA that I have had for my family for years.  It's no panacea for controlling health care costs or spending.  While the HSA model might be marginally effective fifty years from now for people born today, it does nothing for immediate concerns and it will do nothing to cover costs for many middle and lower class people.  I'd imagine there were quite a few Medicare users and people with great group health care through their employers in that crowd, and it's rather insulting for them to cheer such a plan that will never affect them.

Dr. Carson may be a successful man and a great doctor, but he's not very impressive in terms of public policy.  While political correctness may be a bad word in his world, it often means simply respecting others whose culture and views are different.  Clearly, his desire to not be politically correct - especially in his comment about "Merry Christmas" as simply a gesture of goodwill - is simply his desire to have no respect for others with views and beliefs different than his.  I don't find that to be a powerful message about issues facing our country.  While that message seems to resonate among the GOP pundits who are writing about him - notably Hannity who interviewed him and the WSJ whose editorial claims he should be president - I don't find him to be anything special as a public speaker.  This was certainly not an "amazing speech."

The "Oscars of Teaching" & the Milken Foundation

Great things are happening in America's classrooms.

Despite a preponderance of criticism of public schools, educational success is on the rise in America, and some true education leaders are honoring it and spreading the word.  For nearly thirty years, the Milken Family Foundation has been committed to supporting and improving public education.  Through a myriad of philanthropic endeavors Lowell Milken has promoted effective educational practices, often spotlighting and honoring students and teachers who are making a difference.  One of the foundation's most well-known programs is its Milken Educator Awards.  The program was named the "Oscars of Teaching" by Teacher Magazine years ago.  It was founded in 1985 with the intention to "celebrate, elevate, and activate excellence in the teaching profession," and it has given away $63 million to educators who are making a difference.  That degree of support is extraordinary in the education world, and, like the educators it honors, it deserves some recognition.

As a Colorado teacher I was recently pleased to learn of the honoring of a Denver Public Schools teacher by the Milken Foundation.  Barth Quenzer, a devoted art teacher at the Brown International Academy was awarded an "Oscar of Teaching" last October, and the story of the Milken Foundation's presentation was covered in a great feature on 9News.  Quenzer was visibly surprised and overwhelmed by the ceremony where the school's entire student body and staff had assembled.  Colorado has been making great strides in education reform, and it is nice to know organizations like the Milken Foundation are recognizing it.  As foundation senior vice president Dr. Jane Foley said, "At the Milken Family Foundation, we don't think educators get enough recognition.  We just don't say thank you enough."  Barth Quenzer has just received one heck of a "thank you."  He is, by all accounts, an inspiring teacher who is a devoted member of their school community.  In the words of his principal Lynn Heintzman, Barth Quenzer simply "inspires our children to be artists."  That ability to inspire is at the heart of educational achievement, and it's great to see it honored.

The Milken Educator Awards are important simply for their acknowledgment of the difference an effective and inspiring teacher can make in the lives of young people.  As Lowell Milken has said, "Each of us can recall those teachers who had a profound impact on our lives."  For the most part, these actions go unheralded - they are just part of the job.  And teachers don't encourage and inspire with the goal of being rewarded.  The learning and success of the child is its own reward.  Thus, the Milken Foundation seeks to discover and honor them.  As noted in the news story, "no one is allowed to apply." Instead, the foundation uses a committee which seeks nominations from a state's department of education.   Recipients of the Milken Educator Award are then honored for their achievement with a public ceremony - often to the complete surprise of the winner - and a monetary award of $25,000 to be used in any way the teacher wants to use it.  

Check out the following video of the ceremony:

Living Healthy Is Good For the Country

Worried about the national debt?  Fretting about our deficit?  Want to see a cut in government spending?  Hoping for lower tax revenues?  If these issues are on your mind, the best thing you can do is to start living healthy.  Cut out the soda and most processed foods, walk thirty minutes a day, and save the country.

It seems like every single day reveals an article or presentation about "how to live healthier."  Just today in the USA Weekend supplement found in most Sunday papers, an article offers advice on how to Keep Going Strong: 7 Fresh and Easy Lab-tested Ways We Can All Steer Toward Vitality as We Age.  Not surprising to anyone who pays attention, "We may be living longer than ever, thanks to medical advances, but we're not living healthier."  Americans regularly put their health - both physical and economic - at risk by remaining sedentary and eating large amounts of processed foods that everybody knows are unhealthy.  Nothing in the news has reversed these trends in the past three decades.  However, perhaps a new angle regarding the pressure our weight and poor health are putting on the national pocketbook could re-direct the discussion.  Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel - yeah, that famous brother - poses the interesting assertion in the Opinionator blog that We Can Be Healthy and Rich.  Without doubt the greatest economic risk to the American budget is the unfettered growth in health care spending via Medicare.  Thus, if we simply consumed less health care - and demand went down - we could be shaving hundreds of billions of dollars off the federal budget.  Instead, retired Americans - who are virtually uninsurable in the private market - are in need of increasingly costly health care.

Alas, it doesn't have to be that way.  The federal budget is straining under the burden of health care costs precisely because Americans are entering their elderly years in need of such extensive care.  With the Baby Boom generation retiring, it was no mystery that Medicare budgets were going to be strained. And, there is little cost to the recipients with Medicare premiums intentionally low, despite the cost.  The problem is that so many health care problems are easily treatable with lifestyle - notably diet and exercise.  Countless Americans are on blood pressure, insulin control, and cholesterol medication while making no changes to their lifestyle.  These are lifestyle conditions - and much of the cost could be eliminated with healthy living.  And, it's not just Medicare and retirees.  The private health care/insurance system spreads costs across risk pools.  Thus, one person's habits affect another's costs.  I consume little to no health care, but that doesn't prevent my premiums from rising because overall costs and payouts still go up.  The problem is that so many of the payouts are for preventable conditions.  The best way to save money via health care spending is to simply not need to spend money on health care.  Or more importantly, spend the money on health - and not sickness.  Yes, cliche as it is, "an apple a day can keep the doctor away."

Public - and personal - health is a national security issue.  Anyone who seeks to save money - both at a personal and federal level - should be doing everything possible to decrease consumption of health care.  And that starts with decreasing consumption of empty carbohydrates and poor food quality via processed foods.

Our health - and the health of the nation - depends on it.

Colleges Deny AP Credit for No Good Reason

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes would seem to be one of the most efficient and innovative of developments in the American education system - a system long-entrenched in rigid inefficiencies.  Based on the idea that many students are well prepared enough for college to "pass out of" general admission requirements like freshman writing, AP classes eased the load and the cost of education for many students.  In reality, it allowed them to avoid basic level classes that were, in all honesty, a waste of their time and money.  However, that has changed in recent years as AP classes have flourished nationwide.

The trend among some colleges is to deny credit for AP, a disturbing problem most recently implemented at Dartmouth University and spotlighted by Jay Matthews of the Washington Post.  Dartmouth and many other top-tier universities have taken the position that the AP classes at high schools - and the national AP exam developed and administered by the College Board - can not possibly match the rigor and quality of their freshman classes.  The decision by the Dartmouth faculty was based on no research and was just an instinctive response by the faculty.  This knee-jerk reaction makes sense, considering it is the professors' classes that the students are avoiding.  And from the university's standpoint, it is a financial problem to excuse kids from gen ed classes, which are the cash cows for most colleges.

Clearly, colleges have a right to accept or deny any class and offer their students any incentive.  But there is something suspicious and unseemly about the decisions by elite universities to dismiss the validity of AP and IB classes and exams.  On a purely anecdotal level, I have been sending students to elite universities for more than a decade, and my students are always, in their words, "over-prepared" for the rigors of college classes.  While many have been required to take freshman writing from a college prof - or, sadly, a teaching assistant - despite earning As and Bs in my class and 4s and 5s on the national AP exam, none has struggled or even found the classes remotely necessary.  Often they may enjoy them simply because the class has engaging material and the student is motivated.  Yet, there is little doubt that the requirement was an unnecessary time and financial burden for students.

Many students - especially top students attending elite colleges - are coming out of high school more well prepared than any high school students in history.  While some AP classes in high school may not have a Ph.D. at the front of class, there should be little dispute about the validity of a student's score on the national AP exam.  With costs ever increasing, many students could successfully complete college in less time, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Universities may need to be forced to comply.  The state of Colorado has legislation that requires any state school to accept CE (concurrent enrollment) credits earned by Colorado students.  They don't have a "choice" on whether to accept the credit, as schools do with AP scores.  Thus, if colleges continue this unresearched bias against AP which is costing students valuable time and money, states may need to take broader action.  For example, any college accepting state and federal funds could be required to comply with AP/IB/CE qualifications.

This might be bad for some introductory algebra and composition teachers at Dartmouth - but we shouldn't be too worried about that.

Gatorade Removes Disgusting Ingredient - Still Unhealthy

Gatorade is not a "healthy drink."

It never has been, and it certainly didn't become healthy through mass marketing via the Pepsi Company.  And, it's still not good for people even after the recent news that it will remove a disgusting ingredient after consumer questions and petitions.  Obviously, most consumers never would have expected a "sports drink" to contain brominated vegetable oil.  However, it was clear to any consumer who bothers to check a label.  The reality is that anything mass produced and mass marketed is going to make it unhealthier.  This product is a long way from the "Gator-ade," developed for the University of Florida football team.  Keep in mind, it was developed for athletes going through intense workouts in high humidity, and the glucose-fructose syrup was designed to rehydrate.  That's not what is in the product on shelves today.

Years ago I noticed brominated vegetable oil on the label of a Mountain Dew that my student brought into class.  We had a rather amusing discussion as the class inquired what the heck the ingredient was and why it would be in a soda.  Our investigation turned up some disturbing news about bromines, including potential side effects including impaired concentration, impaired coordination, and acne-like symptoms.  Basically, ingesting products with brominated vegetable oil makes you clumsy, stupid, and zitty.  And drinking Gatorade will not make you healthier after a workout.  And even without the BVO, Gatorade is still made with chemical coloring and flavoring, as well as high fructose corn syrup.

Very few athletes need the sort of re-hydration that Gator-ade was meant to provide.  And, no one needs the garbage being peddled by Pepsi Co. these days.

Maybe Milk Prices Should Go Up

As the nation recently veered toward the fiscal cliff, and critics warned of economic catastrophe if taxes increased or spending decreased, consumers were faced with another potential crisis: rising milk prices. According to business and political commentators, if Congress failed to pass an extension of dairy subsidies contained in the Farm Bill, milk prices could rise to as much as $7 a gallon. Congress avoided this problem by passing the bill and extending the dairy subsidies. However, that has not brought an end to the discussion, as the situation has led many Americans to question farm subsidies, especially in a time when the government is facing a shutdown due to disagreements on excessive spending. 

The federal government has subsidized dairy farmers for more than 50 years, and the expense to taxpayers reaches hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Without federal subsidies, milk prices would be guided by a milk law from 1949. At that time, following World War II, the government supported dairy farmers until prices reached market standards. Today that could mean prices of $7 a gallon or greater. However, many people believe milk subsidies should end,and the dairy industry should be forced to compete in a more open market where basic supply and demand will determine prices. A libertarian think-tank, the CATO Institute, has long argued against dairy subsidies, and they estimate total farm subsidies cost taxpayers as much as $35 billion each year. There are plenty of reasons to oppose federal subsidies of consumer goods, not the least of which is the creation of artificially high prices for industries that wouldn't be able to compete in a truly free market. 

The dairy industry has obviously been in favor of the continued subsidies, and many Americans view milk as a necessary staple of the American diet. Proponents of dairy consumption have long recommended milk consumption by children as a source of calcium, necessary for strong teeth and bones. And the health benefits of dairy products have long been promoted in the ubiquitous Got Milk campaigns, which have made drinking milk part of the national culture. However, others ask whether milk priced at $7 a gallon is really a bad thing for consumers. Not everyone believes that milk is a fundamental and necessary part of the diet. In fact, milk might actually be contributing more to America's health crisis in terms of obesity than it helps in offering consumers a regular source of calcium. 

Critics of milk consumption argue that higher milk prices would decrease consumption of a product that is not healthy in the first place. Milk's considerable levels of fat and sugar are cause for concern among the health conscious. Medical professionals like Dr. David Katz have commented on the potentialnegative effects of dairy while not actually arguing that people should or should not drink milk. One primary criticism of the dairy industry's health claims is that no research has proved milk is a necessary part of a healthy diet. On the other hand, anti-milk advocates also cite research by Harvard University that refuted the health benefits of dairy consumption and claimed the vital nutrients in milk could be better gained from other food sources such as vegetables like collards or even fortified soy milk. 

Clearly, America's dairy consumption---aided at least in part by subsidies that keep milk prices low---will remain a topic of debate as the government reviews the cost of its spending programs. And Americans are likely to seriously reconsider their support of the dairy industry both through taxpayer supported subsidies and consumer purchases. 

Got milk at $7 a gallon? That remains to be seen. 

Ray Lewis' Character & Wes Welker's Wife

Ray Lewis is undoubtedly one of - if not indisputably - the best linebackers in the NFL.  His competitive spirit and intense play is the type of NFL legend, and he is widely known for his presence on the field and in the locker room.  With the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl run coinciding with Ray Lewis' impending retirement, the success of Lewis' Ravens has become a feel good story.

Except for that character issue.  Which was shamelessly called out on Facebook by Patriot receiver Wes Welker's wife after the recent AFC Championship game.  Anna Welker was clearly relieving some frustration over the Patriot's loss - so she went after an opponent's personal character.  Much of the news coverage has criticized Anna for mean spirited and "nasty" comments after she pointed to Ray Lewis' Wikipedia page for "anyone who is bored." That page reveals all the sordid details of Ray Lewis' life, including being acquitted for murder.

The news of Lewis' suspicious past and less than admirable responsibilities regarding parenting and fidelity is not new for any NFL fan.  Ray Lewis has been called "the murderer" by many a disgruntled fan trying to explain away his team's loss.  I mean who hasn't felt that "it's easy to win football games when you have a true killer on your team."  And, I will admit that Ray Lewis' character issue bothers me.  Even if he is not supposed to be a role model, I am still bothered by any person who has "six kids from four wives."  Even if that's none of my business, and even if it doesn't matter on the football field.

There is still something to be said for the serious lack of character in professional sports.  When I consider Ray Lewis' past and Lance Armstrong's confession and Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens' failed bid for the Hall of Fame, I almost don't fault Anna Welker for pointing out the shortfalls of these sports heroes.  Granted, she wasn't doing anything other than complaining about her team's loss - and that's just sour grapes.  And, it's worth noting that Anna Welker doesn't possess the purest reputation as well - Anna Burns is a former Hooters waitress who holds the dubious honor of being Miss Hooter's International.

But, with the recent passing of Stan "The Man" Musial, the issue of character in sport should be on everyone's mind.  Ray Lewis may be a great football player, but that doesn't make him a great man.  And, it's not surprising that "Baseball's Perfect Warrior, Baseball's Perfect Knight" has finally gone to glory.  He's too good for this world, especially today's sporting world.

Obama's Inaugural by Newt Gingrich & David Brooks

The world has been turned upside down when President Barak Obama's Second Inaugural Address is praised by Newt Gingrich but challenged by David Brooks.  Both of these conservative commentators have been praised and criticized by their own party at times with Newt Gingrich doing commercials with Hillary Clinton and criticizing Paul Ryan's budget, and David Brooks being called a "liberal's favorite conservative."  What these situations mean is that they are either truly moderate individuals in seek of consensus and solutions, or they are completely full of it.

Certainly, the pragmatism generally displayed by David Brooks is genuine, as he is a former hippie turned conservative who writes for the New York Times.  And, he has been enamored of President Obama's political abilities for quite some time.  Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been credited with spawning the vitriolic attitude the current GOP has toward compromise with the Democrats.  Yet, he truly is an ideas man who is willing to discuss any political issue on both a practical and philosophical level.  You just never know what Newt might say, whereas Brooks' ideas are pretty clear.

Newt Gingrich surprised me with his comments that he "liked the speech" and didn't think "it was very liberal."  Other than a few sentences about gay rights, Social Security, and climate change, Obama's speech was "emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together."  That is a pretty fair summation.  David Brooks by contrast calls out Obama for "misunderstanding the moment."  He worries that Obama is not "facing the fact that we do have to choose between the current benefits to seniors and investments in our future, and that to pretend we don’t face that choice is effectively to sacrifice the future to the past."

Interestingly, when you get past all the ideology and partisanship, both Gingrich and Brooks are right.

Gun Control - Regulating Hairspray But Not Guns & Bullets

In the United States I cannot buy a house or a car or cold medicine or farm fertilizer without the government knowing about it and registering the purchase.  Additionally, the government is legally allowed to track the books I check out of the library as well as keep an indiscriminate record of emails and texts and cell phone calls.  Yet, the government is not allowed to require a license or registration of gun ownership and bullet purchases.  And, no one who opposes gun control legislation can explain the discrepancy.

Gun rights proponents have vociferously opposed any attempts to restrict gun ownership in any way, including the basic licensing and registration of guns and ammo.  The question is why.  The GOP - who adheres to the gun rights ideology - argues that any limits of gun ownership somehow violate the privacy of law abiding citizens.  However, what would be the problem of such citizens merely making their ownership public knowledge.  Apparently, it's a move against tyranny - which is such an extreme argument, it's tough to rationally discuss the issue.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, the nation reacted quickly to prevent such weapons of mass destruction from ever being assembled and used against Americans again.  Law abiding citizens agreed to the regulation of farm fertilizer purchases.  Similar tracking has been added to the purchase of hairspray after a Denver-area man attempted to create a bomb to set off in New York City.  These restrictions have been put in place as a way to "protect us from terrorists."  Yet, the would-be terrorists could purchase thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition without drawing the attention of any law enforcement agencies.

And, that's just crazy.

Glenn Beck Plans Hippy-Dippy Utopia

Glenn Beck is at it again with his strange Utopian dreams of "how America is supposed to be."  Living in his own little fantasy world, he has let his naive fascination with Ayn Rand and his loose grasp on reality convince himself that he could start the country from scratch and make it work.  Thus, we learned today of Glenn Beck's plan for Independence, America.  Announced on his show and reported on by Mike Krumboltz of Yahoo News, "Beck-town USA" will be a self-sustaining community of real Americans, and I can only assume it will be located somewhere between Brigadoon and Shangri-La.  This paradise will allow all the John Galts of America to escape the progressive hell they currently occupy, and it will also free them from the horrors of consumer culture.  Apparently, Glenn Beck has some contempt for successful American corporations like The Gap and Ann Taylor, as he plans to ban them from his Eden, saying "if you want the Gap or Ann Taylor, go someplace else."

Beck-ville is supposed to be self-sustaining - like the hippie communes of the 1960s - for it will also feature a ranch where people will "grow food" and "teach others" how to grow food.  Hmmm.  Sounds like Glenn Beck is going a little Mao Ze Dong on the country.  Perhaps all Beck-ville-ites will smelt their own iron and sew their own cotton into their own clothes as well.  These happy little "nationalists (?)" will be entertained, of course, by shows featuring Glenn Beck running the Beck media center.  I'd imagine that HBO and ESPN and Hollywood films will be unavailable because they are all products of the commie elite in this country.  Sounds like a great little paradise that Beck has plans for.  Where it will be, I'm not sure.  However, I'd bet the states of Mississippi or Alabama would love to be freed from the chains of all the federal aid they currently receive.  Or perhaps Beck could just convince the state of Texas to secede with him.

This isn't the first time that Glenn Beck has revealed a colossal misunderstanding of history and economics.  Last time, he stole from Founding Father Thomas Paine and bastardized the classic tome Common Sense.  Of course, I don't think Glenn Beck really has a plan for his utopia.  However, he is all but too happy to sell a bunch of Republican conservatism to under-educated or ideologically naive people for a nice little profit.