Healthy Living would make America Great

My latest column for The Villager:

Worried about the national debt? Fretting about our deficit? Want to see a cut in government spending? Hoping for lower taxes? If these issues are on your mind, one of the best things you can do to play your part is to start living healthy. Cut out the soda, avoid most heavily processed foods, walk thirty minutes a day, and save the country. Of all the spending in the United States at the federal level, it’s healthcare that is the true budget buster, accounting for nearly 25% of the budget.

It seems like every single day the news features another article about how to live healthier, and the benefits are not surprising to anyone who pays attention. Yet while people are living longer than ever before thanks to medical advances, most are not living healthier. Americans regularly put their health, both physical and fiscal, at risk by remaining sedentary, eating large amounts of processed foods, and relying on medications to treat conditions which could be improved through lifestyle choices. 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 redirect the discussion.

Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel, brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Immanuel asserted in a column for the New York Times 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, predominantly via Medicare. Thus, if Americans simply consumed less health care and demand went down, the federal government could shave hundreds of billions of dollars off the federal budget. Instead, older and retired Americans, who are virtually uninsurable in the private market, are in need of increasingly costly health care. And, it affects those still working as well, for according to billionaire philanthropist Warren Buffett “medical costs are the tapeworm of American competitiveness.”

Medicare accounts for more than 15% of the federal budget, and hospitalizations are more than 40% of the cost of Medicare. 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 later years in need of increasingly extensive and expensive care. Once Baby Boomers started retiring, with Generation X following soon, it’s no surprise the Medicare budget was going to balloon. 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 medications while making no changes to their lifestyle. These ailments are often predominantly lifestyle conditions, and much of the cost could be eliminated with healthy living.

Of course, the problem is not just an issue for government spending. The private health care and insurance system spreads costs across risk pools. Thus, one person's habits affect another person’s costs, and all consumers are intrinsically linked to each other whether they want to be or not. While many Americans consume little to no medical treatments, that doesn't prevent their premiums from rising annually because overall costs and payouts still go up, and they do so at a rate which far outpaces inflation. Granted, a broad range of illnesses and health care costs cannot be avoided. The problem is that so many of the payouts are for preventable conditions. Thus, 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 not sickness, and on true health care, as opposed to sick care.

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that health care is nothing short of a national security issue. Anyone who truly seeks to save money, both at a personal and federal level, should be doing everything possible to improve the overall health of the nation and decrease the need for and the consumption of health care, or more accurately “sick care.” Health care is, or at least should be, the steps we take in life to avoid needing medications, doctors, and hospitals. And that starts with increasing physical fitness while decreasing consumption of empty carbohydrates and poor diets of processed foods. Our health, and the health of the nation, depends on it.

Permanent Olympic Cities

In 1972, via a statewide referendum, the people of Colorado rejected funding for the 1976 Olympic Games, becoming the only city ever awarded the games to turn down the chance to host. It wasn't a surprising move for anyone who knows the voters and taxpayers of the Rocky Mountain state, and knowing what we know now about the fiscal nightmare the Games can be for some cities and countries, it was in some ways a surprisingly prescient and prudent move. 

Hosting the Olympic Games is an incredible honor and opportunity, but that benefit is overshadowed by the corrupt history of the bidding process at the International Olympic Committee and the potential for bloated budgets prior to the event followed by potential blight afterwards. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Instead, the international community should establish permanent locations for the Olympics, where all countries contribute to maintaining the sites as the premier athletic facilities in the world. Athens is the obvious choice for one permanent summer location. Salt Lake City or Lillehammer are good bets for the winter.

This idea is not new and has been thoroughly investigated and discussed for years by various contributors at the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, and others. Now, we need for our political and business leaders to take the discussion to the IOC and make it happen. With many future games already assigned and planned, there is plenty of time to develop and implement this logical change to the Games.

Should There Be a Permanent Site for the Olympics

What If the Olympics didn't Move Around?

Who Wants to Permanently Host the Olympics?

Is there really a Generation X or Millennials or Boomers or Gen Z

Born in 1970, raised on Punk, New Wave, 80s Rock, & Grunge, weaned on sitcoms and John Hughes movies, and having written my master's thesis on the novels of Douglas Coupland, I certainly consider myself to be a member of Generation X. And, of course, that means that I believe Gen X is actually a thing which means more than a book by Coupland, a cover story on Time Magazine, or the first band of Billy Idol. However, Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland, disagrees with me, and in a piece for the WashPost, he argues "Generational titles mean nothing. It's time to retire them."

The practice of naming “generations” based on birth year goes back at least to the supposed “Lost Generation” of the late 19th Century. But as the tradition devolved into a never-ending competition to be the first to propose the next name that sticks, it has produced steadily diminishing returns to social science and the public understanding.

The supposed boundaries between generations are no more meaningful than the names they’ve been given. There is no research identifying the appropriate boundaries between generations, and there is no empirical basis for imposing the sweeping character traits that are believed to define them. Generation descriptors are either embarrassing stereotypes or caricatures with astrology-level vagueness. In one article you might read that Millennials are “liberal lions,” “downwardly mobile,” “upbeat,” “pre-Copernican,” “unaffiliated, anti-hierarchical, [and] distrustful” — even though they also “get along well with their parents, respect their elders and work well with colleagues.”

Ridiculous, clearly. But what's the harm? Aren’t these tags just a bit of fun for writers? A convenient hook for readers and a way of communicating generational change, which no one would deny is a real phenomenon? We in academic social science study and teach social change, but we don’t study and teach these categories because they simply aren’t real. And in social science, reality still matters.

While I can acknowledge and even support many claims Cohen makes, I'll still argue that designations like Generation X, Millennial, Boomer, and even Gen Z mean something. At the most basic level, I think generations have a lot to do with whatever cultural and historical references seem familiar to a reasonably large age-based demographic. Generations have common allusions that, despite our varied experiences, seem to resonate and evoke common feelings. That cohesiveness can be comforting to our sense of self, placing us a certain time in a general community of people who might just get us, so to speak.

Of course, the divisiveness and blame-gaming that goes along with generational labels is something we can do without. And the associated problems of labeling people that Cohen criticizes are reasonable criticisms. Still, I think there's a place for such identifications.

CRT in Colorado - a primer from the Denver Post

"Denver doesn't teach Critical Race Theory -- but that hasn't stopped the complaints," reported the Denver Post on July 6 in response to the rising tide of tension and conversation about race and public education nationwide. Seemingly out of the blue, especially for an idea that has been around since the 1970s, the topic of critical race theory in education is on many minds, is being discussed publicly at school board meetings, and is even driving new legislation in some states banning the topic in education. Of course, many people have little knowledge or understanding of what the term even means and why it's so controversial.

To that end, a couple of journalists at the Denver Post have put together a couple of thoughtful, well-balanced, and comprehensive articles about the topic and its local relevance. John Aguilar has written the lead story which frames the topic and the current discussions happening around the Denver area.

The combustible intersection of race, equity and education is fueling late-night school board meetings across the Front Range, where parents, teachers and students sound off about a phrase and concept that’s suddenly everywhere in the U.S.: critical race theory. The loudest of the discussions is in Douglas County, where a newly adopted “equity policy” has set off a firestorm of accusations that the 67,000-student, mostly white district south of Denver is embracing the controversial theory. A similar debate happened last month at a Cherry Creek School District board meeting.

Critical race theory has morphed from its roots as a lofty academic notion into a catchphrase for those sensing the long-term power structure being under challenge by traditionally marginalized communities, University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Jennifer Ho said. She pointed to conservative filmmaker and commentator Christopher Rufo, who was recently profiled in The New Yorker as the architect behind turning critical race theory into a potent political weapon. In lambasting the “elites” for “seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race,” Rufo concluded that appropriating the left’s own terminology could make critical race theory “the perfect villain.”

Additionally, Post reporter Conrad Swanson has put together a succinct but informative primer or explainer for the question "What is Critical Race Theory."

Critical race theory suggests that racism and other prejudices are social constructs embedded in legal systems and laws, not the product of individual biases, according to Education Week.

Think of the theory as a “remix” of the civil rights movement, Reiland Rabaka tells his students at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The professor of African, African American and Caribbean studies said the theory suggests that American culture, religion and institutions are inextricably linked with race, gender, sexuality and physical ability.

But it’s more than that: Critical race theory says institutions like the criminal justice or education systems have systemic failures — like the intentional segregation, or “redlining,” of neighborhoods across the country — built into the way those things work, according to Debora Ortega, a professor of social work at the University of Denver. Those failures or acts of discrimination might be attributed to a single racist or a misogynistic administrator or worker, but critical race theory asserts there is a broader and more complicated reason for them.

These two pieces reflect some really solid journalism that contribute important information and perspective on a timely topic.

"Punk is ..." -- A Punk Manifesto by Greg Graffin

So, as I've noted here before, I have long introduced the works of Henry David Thoreau to my students by describing him as "America's original Punk." This hearkens back twenty years to when I was speaking with a colleague about the overall Punk aesthetic, and he introduced me to "The Punk Manifesto," written by Bad Religion's Greg Graffin. The work of Thoreau was just so evident in the tenets put together by Graffin, and the two men and their ideals have just always seemed connected to me. The Punk Manifesto was originally published by Graffin in the band's newsletter, and I believe it was re-published in a magazine, though I can't recall where. Anyway, as I've been working on my piece about Henry David Thoreau and Punk, I've realized that finding the text for the Punk Manifesto can be a bit challenging. So, I am re-posting it here.

Punk Manifesto by Greg Graffin

I have never owned a record label, nor directed a successful merchandise company, so I don’t pretend to be an expert on marketing. I have evolved through my craft as a songwriter, but others have labeled it and marketed it and made it neat for consumption.

Although I have made money from Punk, it is a modest amount when one considers the bounty that has been bestowed on the companies that promote Punk as some sort of a product to be ingested. It has always been my way to de-value the fashionable, light-hearted, impulsive traits that people associate with Punk, because Punk is more than that, so much more that those elements become trivial in the light of human experience that all punkers share.

Since it has been a part of me for over half of my life, I think the time has come to attempt a definition, and in the process defend, this persistent social phenomenon known as Punk. It is astounding that something with so much emotional and trans-cultural depth has gone without definition for so long, for the roots of Punk run deeper, and go back in history farther than imagined.

Even in the last two decades, it is difficult to find any analysis of the influential effect that Punk Rock had on Pop Music and youth culture. And rarer still are essays detailing the emotional and intellectual undercurrents that drive the more overt fashion statements that most people attribute to Punk. These are some of the wants that compelled me to write this. If my attempt offends the purists, collapses the secrecy of a closed society, promotes confidence in skeptical inquiry, provokes deeper thought, and decodes irony, then I have done my job and those who feel slighted might recognize the triviality of their position. For I have nothing to promote but my observations on a sub-culture that has grown to global proportions, and through visiting much of it, I have found threads of common thought everywhere.

Common thought processes are what determine the ideology that binds people together into a community. There is desire among Punks to be a community, but there needs to be some shape imparted on the foundations of the punk ideology, and where it comes from. The current Punk stereotype is scarred by mass-marketing and an unfortunate emphasis on style over substance. But these ills don’t destroy the Punk sentiment, they merely confound the education of the new generations of people who know they are punk, but don’t know what it means. It is a long road to understand what it means. This essay is part of the process.

PUNKS ARE NOT BEASTS:
Punk is a reflection of what it means to be human. What separates us from other animals? Our ability to recognize ourselves and express our own genetic uniqueness. Ironically, the commonly held view, among the marketeers and publicity engines, stresses the “animalistic”, “primitive” nature of punks and their music.

They assume that violence is a key ingredient in punk music, and this assumption is easily perpetuated because it is easy to market violence and news items about violence always get column space. This focus on violence misses a key element of what Punk is all about:

PUNK IS: the personal expression of uniqueness that comes from the experiences of growing up in touch with our human ability to reason and ask questions.

Violence is neither common in, nor unique to punk. When it does manifest itself it is due to things unrelated to the punk ideal. Consider for example the common story of a fight at a high school between a punk and a jock football player. The football player and his cohort do not accept or value the punk as a real person. Rather, they use him as a vitriol receptacle, daily taunting, provoking, and embarrassing him, which of course is no more than a reflection of their own insecurities. One day, the punk has had enough and he clobbers the football captain in the hallway. The teachers of course expell the punk and cite his poor hairstyle and shabby clothing as evidence that he is a violent, uncontrollable no-good. The community newspaper reads “Hallway Beating Re-affirms that Violence is a Way of Life Among Punk Rockers”. Spontaneous anger at not being accepted as a real person is not unique to punkers. This reaction is due to being human, and anybody would react in anger regardless of their sub- cultural, or social affiliation if they felt de- valued and useless. Sadly, there are plenty of examples of violence among punks. There are glaring examples of misguided people who call themselves punks too. But anger and violence are not punk traits, in fact, they have no place in the punk ideal. Anger and violence are not the glue that holds the punk community together.

IN UNIQUENESS IS THE PRESERVATION OF MANKIND:
Nature bestowed on us the genetic backbone of what punk is all about. There are roughly 80,000 genes in the human genome, and there are roughly 6 billion people carrying that genetic compliment. The chances of two people carrying the same genome are so small as to be almost beyond comprehension (the odds are essentially ½ 80,000 times the number of possible people you can meet and mate with in a lifetime! A practical impossibility)

The genes we carry play a major role in determining our behavior and outlook on life. That is why we have the gift of uniqueness, because no one else has the same set of genes controlling their view of the world. Of course cultural factors play the other major role, and these can have a more homogenizing effect on behavior and world-view.

For example, an entire working-class town might have 15,000 residents who are raised with the same ideals, work at the same factories, go to the same schools, shop at the same stores, and like the same sports teams. As their children develop, there is a constant interaction of opposite forces between the social imprinting their culture imparts and the genetic expression of uniqueness.

Those who lose touch with their nature become society’s robots, whereas those who denounce their social development become vagrant animals. Punk stands for a desire to walk the line in between these two extremes with masterful precision. Punks want to express their own unique nature, while at the same time want to embrace the communal aspects of their cookie-cutter upbringing. The social connection they have is based on a desire to understand each other’s unique view of the world. Punk “scenes” are social places where those views are accepted, sometimes adopted, sometimes discarded, but always tolerated and respected.

PUNK IS: a movement that serves to refute social attitudes that have been perpetuated through willful ignorance of human nature.

Because it depends on tolerance and shuns denial, Punk is open to all humans. There is an elegant parallel between Punk’s dependence on unique views and behaviors and our own natural genetic predisposition toward uniqueness.

THE BATTLE OF FEAR AND RATIONALITY:
The compulsion to conform is a powerful side-effect of civilized life. We are all taught to respect the views of our elders, and later when we realize that they are just dogmatic opinions, we are taught not to make a commotion by asking difficult questions. Many just go along with the prevailing notions and never express their own views, which is analogous to a premature death of the individual. Our species is unique in the ability to recognize and express the self, and not exercising this biological function goes against the natural selection gradient that created it in the first place. This complacency combats a fear of failure. It is easy to assume that if everyone else is doing something, then there is no way to fail if you just go along with it. Cattle and flocks of geese can probably recognize this advantage. But the entire human race could fail because of this mentality. Thinking and acting in a direction against the current of popular opinion is critical to human advancement, and a potent manifestation of Punk. If an issue or phenomenon is found to be true only because other people say it is so, then it is a Punk’s job to look for a better solution, or at least find an independent variable that confirms the held view (sometimes the popular view is just a reflection of human nature, Punks don’t live in denial of this). This ability to go against the grain was a major part of the greatest advances in human thinking throughout history. The entire Enlightenment period was characterized by ideas that shunned the dogma of the time, only to reveal truths in nature and human existence that all people can observe, and that are still with us today.

Galileo fought the church, the church won the battle, by putting him in jail for life, but ultimately lost the war; few people today believe that the sun orbits around the earth, and thus God didn’t create the earth as the center of the universe. Francis Bacon insisted that human destiny is equal to understanding. If we deny this fundamental principle of what it means to be human, he reasoned, then we descend into the depths of mere barbarism.

Charles Darwin, wrote after the heyday of the Enlightenment, he nonetheless was directly influenced by its tradition, was trained as a theologian and yet still was driven to understand the underlying order that connected biological species he observed in his travels. His views threw into question many of the Bible’s tenets, yet his reasoning was sound, and through a process of self-improvement (the struggle in his own mind to understand) he improved mankind by establishing a new benchmark of human knowledge.

The dogma of the church was further marginalized. The fear of repercussion from the church was overshadowed by the wave of understanding that his views created in people, and by the truth to his observations.

The modern-day Punk thought process, driven by this desire to understand, is a carbon-copy of the Enlightenment tradition. The fact that so many historical examples exist that reveal a will to destroy dogma leads to a powerful tenet: It is a natural trait of civilized humans to be original. The fact that uniqueness is so rare reveals that our nature is stifled by an equally potent opposing force: fear.

PUNK IS: a process of questioning and commitment to understanding that results in self-progress, and by extrapolation, could lead to social progress.

If enough people feel free, and are encouraged to use their skills of observation and reason, grand truths will emerge. These truths are acknowledged and accepted not because they were force-fed by some totalitarian entity, but because everyone has a similar experience when observing them. The fact that Punks can relate to one another on issues of prejudice comes from a shared experience of being treated poorly by people who don’t want them around. Each has his/her own experience of being shunned, and each can relate to another’s story of alienation without some kind of adherence to a code of behavior.

The truth of prejudice is derived from the experience they all share, not from a written formula or constitution they have to abide by. Punks learn from this experience that prejudice is wrong, it is a principle they live by; they didn’t learn it from a textbook. Without striving to understand, and provoking the held beliefs, the truth remains shrouded behind custom, inactivity, and prescriptive ideology.

WHAT IS TRUTH?
Philosophers distinguish between capital “T” truth and truth with a small “t”. Punks deny the former.

Truth with a capital “T” assumes that there is an order prescribed by some transcendental being. That is to say that truth comes ultimately from God, who had a plan for everything when he created the universe.

Little “t” truth is that which we figure out for ourselves, and which we all can agree upon due to similar experience and observations of the world. It is also known as objective truth, from within ourselves, revealed here on this earth; as opposed to big T truth, which comes from outside and is projected down to us, specifically for us to follow. Morality need not be thought of as a product only of big “T” truth. Objective truth lends itself just as readily to a moralistic, spiritual culture.

PUNK IS: a belief that this world is what we make of it, truth comes from our understanding of the way things are, not from the blind adherence to prescriptions about the way things should be.

Punk’s dependence on objective truth comes from the shared experience of going against the grain. Anyone who has stood out in a crowd feels the truth of the experience. No one had to write a doctrine in order for the outcast to understand what it meant to be different. The truth was plain enough, and that truth could be understood and agreed upon by all those who shared a common experience.

WHAT IS FEAR?
The fears that drive people to conform have caused dismal periods in human history. The so-called Dark Ages, were tranquil and without upheaval, but also dismally quiet and pestilent, nary a contrasting view to be found. The pseudo-comfort and tranquility that the people of the Dark Ages experienced, by conforming to a rigidly enforced bureaucracy enforced by the king and church, was masked entirely by the misery they had to endure in their day to day life. Life is easy as a peasant, no direction, no purpose, just produce more goods and offspring for the benefit of the king. But using fear to control peasants (or modern-day blue-collar workers for that matter) is just a short-term foul exercise, because peasants have the same mental equipment as the royalty.

The deeply ingrained biological traits of self-recognition and the desire to express the self cannot be quashed for long. Eventually peasants realize that life without the practice of reason is as good as being a farm animal. Being controlled by fear is the same as being biologically inert, unable to take part in the human drama, merely wasting away. The fear that controls human behavior is learned. It is different from the immediate, reflexive, run-away-from-the- nasty-stimulus response that other creatures employ to stay alive. We have motor reflexes like these as well, but fear of failure, and fear of speaking out come from the limbic system.

The limbic system is a network of neurons in our brain that control our most deep-seated emotions. It connects two parts of the brain together: the midbrain, where sensory information is sent (i.e. sight and hearing stimuli) and the forebrain, where that information is processed. Although the forebrain has been around for at least 480 million years (it was present in the earliest vertebrates), it evolved special functions with the advent of humankind.

A specialized portion of the forebrain, called the cerebral cortex, is highly developed in humans. 95% of our cerebral cortex is responsible for associative mental activities like contemplation and planning. The other 5% is responsible for processing motor and sensory information. By comparison, a mouse (also considered a higher vertebrate), has a cerebral cortex with only 5% of its neurons devoted to associative functions, while 95% are devoted to motor and sensory functions.

The highly developed limbic system is at the core of what it means to be human. We differ from other animals in the amount of time we spend planning, contemplating, and expressing ourselves. Our limbic system is very powerful. It can over-ride primitive emotions, and suppress deep desires. Anyone who has ever seen a sad movie with friends, and willfully held back tears because they didn’t want their friends to see them crying, employed the power of their limbic system. They contemplated the repercussions of their friends reaction to crying, and shut off the emotional cascade that would have brought the tears.

In the same way that rationality is the product of the limbic system, fear is also centered in the same neurons of the limbic system. Fear is usually rational behavior, based on irrational thoughts, and it can freeze the processing power of the cerebral cortex. Denial and fear go hand in hand, and both are examples of how our limbic system can suppress obvious stimuli and promote behavior that is safe and conforming.

The limbic system is like any other organ in the sense that it can operate unchecked to produce detrimental results. Being in touch with our bodies leads to overall general health, and the limbic system needs constant attention in order to master it. To overcome fear, one needs to be in touch with their limbic system, and recognize when it is suppressing the obvious.

Etiquette and “being nice” are forms of limbic-system repression, necessary at times, but ultimately demeaning of human originality. Lying is the ultimate form of limbic-system repression. It is a denial of the obvious. Truth-tellers, those who are authentic and trustworthy, have learned to master their limbic system. They recognize the desire to lie, but rationalize the futility of advocating something that is not true. Liars, on the other hand, are slaves to their limbic system, out of touch with their most basic mental capacities. Their behavior is guarded and shifty because they let their flawed reasoning, to cover up the obvious, control their entire makeup. They eventually have to give in to the truth and concede defeat, but only after every possible avenue of deception and twisted logic has been advocated in the interest of hiding their fear. Politicians, Clergymen, Business leaders, and Judges are masters of twisted logic and promotion of fear. They make good intellectual targets for Punkers because they don’t respect people who have learned to master their limbic systems. And Punkers are not afraid to point out that which is obvious, even if it means their social status might be jeopardized.

PUNK IS: the constant struggle against fear of social repercussions.

THE PUNK MOVEMENT:
I have tried to enumerate some of the factors that make Punk a movement, in the cultural sense. The typical stereotype of a feeble-minded ruffian vandalizing, destroying, stealing, fighting, or arguing in the name of some empty, short-lived cause is no more punk than the pretty-face-empty-head image of today’s pop stars.

Because it is so easy for record companies to sell images of violence, sex, and self-importance, many bands have taken the bait and portrayed themselves as Punks, without realizing that they were actually perpetuating a stereotype of conformity that is wholly un-punk.

The “come join us” attitude that seeks to attract followers, usually results in a rabble of weak people who think that their power lies in the large numbers of like-minded clones they have compiled. There is no strength in numbers however, if the people are glued together by a short-sighted, self-serving, fear-induced mantra that promotes factions and exclusionary principles. Strong ideologies don’t require a mob, they persist through time, and never go away, because they are intimately connected to our biology. They are part of what it means to exist as Homo sapiens. Punk typifies that tradition. It is a movement of epic proportions, that transcends the immediacy of the here-and-now, because it is, was, and always will be there-and-forever, as long as humans walk the earth.

As we enter a new era in the voracious march of culture, Punks will have their day. The internet has allowed people to communicate directly once again. On the web, human behavior is interactive, like it was before the advent of mass-media.

People now focus on ideological discussions and lifestyle issues, as opposed to the classic 20th century behavior of closing oneself off from cohorts, and adhering to a network’s, or commercial’s prescriptive code of acceptable behavior. The lies, and mysteries of elitism will erode quickly as the global conversation that transpires daily on the web invades more people’s lives.

The world population will be more receptive to alternative ideologies because they will be creating them. People will be less receptive to ideologies of out- dated institutions because the holes and flaws in their logic will be ever more amplified when they are broadcast instantly around the world as they become revealed.

The “Strength-In-Understanding”, and “Knowledge-Is-Power” ethics that Punks maintain will become the norm. The rigidity, brutishness, and futility of secret agendas will be made obvious, paving the way to an appreciation of human uniqueness, and a new era of originality.

WHO IS PUNK?
Everyone has the potential to be punk. It is much harder for someone who comes from a placid, un-challenging, ignorant upbringing, because they don’t see the value in questioning or provoking the institutions that gave them such tranquility. But such examples of carefree existence are rare in today’s shrinking world.

Eternal questions still burn in the minds of most people. What it means to be human is becoming more clear every decade. Sometimes, people are trained to follow the safe path to an early grave by consuming and repeating the dogma of a fearful aristocracy.

On the other hand, the human spirit is hard to kill. Punk is a microcosm of the human spirit. Punks succeed with their minds, not their brute force. They advance society by their diversity, not their conformity. They motivate others by inclusion, not domination.

They are at the front lines of self-betterment and by extrapolation can improve the complexion of the human race. They adhere to unwritten universal principles of human emotion, obvious to anyone, and shun elitist codes of behavior, or secret agendas. They embody the hope of the future, and reveal the flaws of the past. Don’t tell them what to do, they are already leading you.

PUNK IS: the personal expression of uniqueness that comes from the experiences of growing up in touch with our human ability to reason and ask questions.

PUNK IS: a movement that serves to refute social attitudes that have been perpetuated through willful ignorance of human nature.

PUNK IS: a process of questioning and commitment to understanding that results in self-progress, and through repetition, flowers into social evolution.

PUNK IS: a belief that this world is what we make of it, truth comes from our understanding of the way things are, not from the blind adherence to prescriptions about the way things should be.

PUNK IS: the constant struggle against fear of social repercussions.

-Greg Graffin, Bad Religion

Institutions and the Bonds that Unite Us

In thinking about the state of the union as I read a couple works of non-fiction by a couple favorite writers, I've been thinking about institutions. By that I mean the structures and systems and connections and foundations that help us establish and maintain a civilized society. Here's this week's column for The Villager. 

Society is built upon institutions, and when faith and trust in those institutions weakens or wavers, the foundations of society are at risk. Family, church, neighborhoods, schools, civic duty, government, these are the heart of any society. They are glue that binds communities together and the systems which allow them to thrive. And Yuval Levin is worried about the rising mistrust in institutions.

Levin, an esteemed scholar at The American Enterprise Institute, recently published A Time to Build: How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream. For many years, Levin has worked in government and public policy, and as he witnessed leaders come and go and political parties move in and out of power, he has relied on institutions to preserve continuity and stability. The problem in contemporary society is that because people have become so comfortable living under the stability provided by institutions, they often fail to understand and appreciate their benefits. Levin hopes to restore America’s faith.

The fourth estate of journalism is one of the most important institutions for a free society, and also one most at risk. Disparaging the media and journalists has practically become a sport for commentators and the public alike, with a rising number of people claiming to not read or watch the news while simultaneously criticizing and questioning the coverage of issues. Sadly, the talking heads and political leaders actually depend upon the very newspapers and reporters for the news that they then comment on, even as they disparage the source. As interest in the news goes down and media companies struggle financially, the one institution with the reach and resources to hold people accountable begins to fade.

In a column for the New York Times entitled “What Life Asks of Us,” David Brooks also emphasized the stabilizing and unifying nature of the institutions. Institutions have rules long established precisely because they work. There is prudence and caution in institutions which believe the old and established can often be trusted in ways that the new and untested can not. As such, institutions are society’s hedge against radical change, disorder, and ultimately chaos. What nineteenth century scholar Edmund Burke called “the little platoons” are the first and most personal institutions in which we place our trust. They are “the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.”

At times the stability and order offered by institutions can seem to be at odds with the self-reliance and rugged individualism at the heart of the American spirit. Yet, as individuals in increasingly larger and more diverse communities, we can’t know everyone personally. And for society to work, we have to be able to trust people we don’t know. Institutions help support and promote that trust. Institutions are what enable us to trust, yea to know, that when we wake up in the morning, the lights are going to turn on, the water in the shower will be hot, the food in the fridge will be safe to eat, and our fellow commuters will stop at the red lights as we drive to work.

The schoolhouse is one of the first institutions outside of our homes in which we place our faith. A free and public education has long been the foundation for growth and mobility in American society, yet Americans have incredibly conflicted attitudes about schools. While the average person will bemoan the state of education, Americans have a surprisingly high faith in and support of their own schools and their own personal education. Thus, the perception of the institution is often disconnected from the personal experience.

Writer Michael Lewis is also concerned about the strength of and faith in our institutions, and his recent book The Premonition: a Pandemic Story explores the challenges facing them and the potential catastrophe that can result when institutions fall short and faith in them is strained. Lewis has always been fascinated by the quiet heroes who go about doing the work without praise. And having explored topics as vast as data metrics changing the game of baseball to the complicated financial instruments that caused the 2008 economic catastrophe, Lewis has become fascinated by the stories of the people who used their institutional knowledge to identify solutions long before the public ever knew there was a problem. Sadly, people often wait too long before listening to them.

Can Debate Class Save America?

In the past ten years I have been involved with our high school's speech and debate program, though I was never a debater in high school. As an administrator I have travelled with our team numerous times, as an English teacher I have often served as a judge at competitions as well as a promoter of the program in news coverage for the Denver Post's YourHub, and as a parent I have supported my children in the program, as well as my wife who is a "debate mom." Here's my latest column for The Villager on the value of speech and debate.

“Anyone who bemoans the state of public education need only spend a weekend at a high school speech and debate tournament to have their faith restored.” That perspective from Curt, a debate coach at a suburban high school outside Denver, was shared with me one bright Saturday morning as thousands of students descended upon a local school where they’d spend the day doing what they love, arguing. People who grew up with memories of John Hughes’ “The Breakfast Club” might think spending all day at school on a Saturday would be a punishment. But that’s not the case with competitors in the world of high school Speech and Debate, and the spirit of community and intellectual engagement found in the debate world might be just what America needs.

Jason Kosanovich, a local civics teacher and debate coach, believes passionately in the power of debate to engage kids. “Community is the key,” he told me, “because they have an open respect for each other” even as they compete over divisive topics. Debate is also one of the most inclusive activities found in school, for it’s open to everybody who is willing to put in the time. One of the strengths of the speech and debate tournament scene is the collegiality found among the students as they gather at local high schools for numerous weekends during the year. Debaters spend hours of downtime in the hallways and cafeterias conversing about their performances and supporting each other as they prepare for their next rounds.

Debate tournaments have numerous styles and events ranging from strict public policy debate to extemporaneous speeches about international issues and even dramatic interpretations or personal commentary. It’s in the head-to-head events like Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum that politics, argument, and rhetoric reign supreme. Yet, decorum is the rule and debaters “have to ignore their biases, drop their personal opinions, and leave their egos at the door” when they enter the debate room because they’re going to flip a coin to determine which side they argue in that round. Having the ability to effectively defend any position has a calming influence, a feeling shared by a team of public forum finalists, who once told me, “The structure of debate prevents anyone from getting too heated. If you get crazy, you lose.”

Clearly, many adults could learn from the maturity of these teens when discussing political issues. And being required to competently argue both sides of an issue definitely informs their own views. Undoubtedly, these kids exemplify the classic characterization by novelist Henry James of being “a person on whom nothing is lost.” In competition, it’s not surprising for students to repeatedly cite references to numerous research studies and news sources like The Atlantic, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and more as they make their cases with the poise of veteran attorneys arguing before the high court. Extemporaneous speakers might be tasked with defining the challenges of the next Congressional session, explaining the complicated relationship of China and Taiwan, or analyzing the impact of the Boko Haram terrorist group on central African politics.

Regardless, speech and debate kids are knowledgeable of the world and thoughtful about it. They are also self aware and confident in their own skin. It’s not unusual at a tournament to encounter kids in the hallway talking to lockers, walking the halls citing statistics and quotes, huddled in groups comparing notes, or simply encouraging and challenging each other. In rounds they can be heard smoothly pulling quotes from obscure UN studies and journals of scientific research, and they display a mature command of their topics. That’s what impresses coaches like Kosanovich who explains “Walking into an interview with confidence, being able to focus and think clearly, maturely organizing their days and weekends, these are skills and qualities that will ripples throughout their lives.”

Those worried about the motivations and abilities of Generation Z to lead and improve their world should consider attending a speech and debate tourney. Walking the halls of a debate tournament, it’s hard to be critical of teenagers and public education. While many of these kids aren't always challenged by the academics of the classroom, competition is where they show off what many educators and employers believe to be the most important skills people can develop – critical thinking and the art of public speaking. These tournaments are great places to find the state’s best and brightest young people as they gather to “geek out” on being smart.

My Philosophy of Teaching

I was recently asked to articulate my "teaching philosophy," something I have thought about often and had crafted years ago. Now, nearly thirty years into my career, I have revised an updated my views.

When my high school age daughter was very young, one of the first full sentences I recall her saying is “My dad teaches students how to read and how to write.” What I loved most, other than the sing-songy rhythm with which she recited it, was her use of the transitive verb, or more specifically the direct object: My dad teaches children. She didn’t say he teaches English or grammar or books or any curriculum-related words. She focused on the children. I teach children. I’ve always loved the direct and honest authenticity of that description. In being a responsive educator, I don’t teach English or literature or composition or rhetoric or Pride and Prejudice or the American Dream or irony – I teach students. The essence of my instruction is an emphasis on cultivating the arts of reading, writing, and thinking. That singular focus on teaching the craft and the beauty of the English language has been my calling from my earliest days teaching language classes in Taiwan to my time in a middle school in Chicago where half of my students spoke Spanish in their homes to my current position teaching AP English at one of the top high schools in the country.

If I aligned my teaching philosophy with two literary works, they would be Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s poem “I Am Waiting” and Kenneth Burke’s passage “The Parlor Metaphor.” Each of these works are featured as introductory lessons in my various classes to set the tone for the year. The key reference in Ferlinghetti’s piece which informs my instruction is his hope for “a renaissance of wonder.” A sense of wonder and inquiry and curiosity is what I hope to evoke and engage in my students with each lesson in every class. From Burke I draw upon his reference to the unending conversation which exists in the relationship between writer, subject, and reader. The work on the page preceded us and will outlive us, but as students, we engage in the conversation with the text, hoping to glean understanding. Because the works we study can be so vast in scope, I guide my students to become what Henry James called “a person on whom nothing is lost.” Regardless of the subject, context, time period, or purpose, my students will hopefully learn to engage with the works as part of their education.

From the Sage on the Stage to the Guide on the Side, from the classical instructor to the learner facilitator, from direct instruction and rote memorization to child-centered learning and Socratic seminars, the education world has seen numerous models and philosophies in teaching, and over the past thirty years I have learned, practiced, and incorporated most of them in my lessons. Regardless of the lesson and my chosen approach, however, the goal of student engagement and growth remains the key and the non-negotiable factor. In teaching kids rather than content, my intent is always to be a responsive educator. In that regard, I aim to focus on the specific abilities, needs, and goals of the unique students in the classroom at the time and to be fully present for them. Obviously the content and curriculum also guide my approach to the lessons and the students, but the philosophy of responsiveness and engagement remains the same.

The point of education is to gain knowledge and understanding of content which is not already natural and familiar to the students. Thus, I must understand and respond to my students’ backgrounds, interests, and needs. The one thing I truly love to do is to teach students how to read and how to write. Additionally, one of my greatest gifts is that of editor, a talent I inherited from my mom, a newspaper editor and feature writer. So, whether I am introducing young writers to rhetorical analysis and argumentation or helping upperclassmen craft and develop college application essays, I am happiest and most successful in helping students develop their facility with the craft of language.

Which Story is the Story of hiStory?

The teaching of history at the K12 and secondary level is getting quite a bit of attention in the news and at the community level lately. Here are my thoughts from my column in The Villager.

Have you ever heard of the Armenian Genocide?

I hadn’t until I was almost thirty years old, having not learned about the pivotal event in any of my history classes throughout school, including my time as a history major in college before switching to English. The Armenian Genocide first came to my awareness twenty years ago when I was teaching in Illinois, which at the time was reviewing its state social studies standards.

“How can you not teach the Armenian Genocide?” a colleague of mine strongly asserted. It’s widely believed by historians to be the blueprint the Nazis used in planning and implementing the Holocaust. In that regard, it’s an indispensable piece of information in the study of history, which should focus not just on knowing facts but also understanding how history evolves over time and how one event influences others.

Recently on the Denver Post editorial page, two local writers argued the time was long past due for the United States government to recognize the Armenian Genocide, an action which was vigorously opposed by the government of Turkey. Just a week later, the Biden administration publicly acknowledged the monumental historical event, something none of previous White House occupants had ever done. The news was an important step forward toward increasing deeper knowledge of the multiple perspectives necessary to ensure authentic understanding and wisdom about the past.

The Armenian Genocide is not the only history lesson many Americans have received recently. Millions of people are just now learning of profoundly significant historical events like the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 which culminated in the burning of an entire neighborhood known as Black Wall Street. Similarly, the commemoration of Juneteenth is finally on the minds of most Americans after its official adoption as a national holiday, despite being recognized and celebrated in states for decades. One key problem of teaching history is the significant influence held by textbook companies, and the ambiguity of determining what content is taught. For, the social studies standards of most states don’t actually identify specific events that must or should be taught.

Do you know who Samuel Gompers is, and if you don’t, can you really understand the history of business and labor in the United States? Do you know who Elijah P. Lovejoy is? Historians have called him the first casualty of the Civil War, as he became a martyr for freedom of the press and the abolitionist writing which was so instrumental in bringing about the end of slavery. Can you really understand the first amendment and the history of journalism if you don’t know who he is? Have you heard of Joshua Chamberlain? Some historians consider him one of the most pivotal figures of the Civil War, for without him, the Battle of Gettysburg, a turning point in the war, would likely have been won by the South. Did you know that the FBI was primarily formed to investigate the race-based murders of numerous affluent indigenous people in Oklahoma?

Perhaps the key to the conundrum of teaching “history” is that any discussion of what should be taught can quickly devolve into a trivia game like Jeopardy!, and insight to the goal of education is quickly lost as people toss “gotcha!” questions back and forth. That little game conveniently misses the importance of teaching perspective in history. For, truly, the goal of education is to become what Henry James called “a person on whom nothing is lost.” Thus, viewing all history from multiple perspectives is the antidote to what Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie warned about in her TED Talk and essay called “The Danger of the Single Story.”

In a nation that often appears embarrassingly ignorant of history, there is actually a significant interest in history, as noted by the large number of non-fiction texts that continually top best seller lists. Many adults feel compelled to correct the unfortunate fact that they “Don’t Know Much about History,” the name of a popular title from writer Kenneth C. Davis. Others are fascinated by learning all the history they didn’t know until after they read “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James W. Loewen or “A People’s History of the United States” by esteemed historian Howard Zinn.

Clearly, if you only know the history you were taught, you’re likely missing what journalist Paul Harvey liked to call “the rest of the story.”

Restaurants plan to Replace Tipping with a 20% Service Charge

I approve of and support US restaurants eliminating a reliance on tipping and instead establishing a standard 20% service charge on all orders.

Because gratuity can only legally go to workers who come in direct contact with customers, restaurant owners now are using the “service charge” as a way to bump up pay for those who can’t share in tips, such as line cooks and dishwashers. In November, Padro and his partners introduced a 20% fee on customers’ bills, explaining to diners that the restaurants had switched to a “service-included” model.

“I think in the U.S. there’s this perception that the customer is in charge of their experience based on how much they tip,” Lee said. “In other parts of the world, I love the model where the price on the menu is the (true) price, and that’s all you pay. That’s what the pricing of a restaurant needs to be, but I know people have sticker shock … “It’s just funny to think that someone who would normally tip 20% sees 15% added to their bill (and gets upset),” he added. “If you’re complaining about 15%, you probably shouldn’t be eating out now.”

As someone who worked many years for $2.01/plus tips, I can tell you the system is quite flawed and outdated. The restaurant owners and industry associations are establishing the surcharge to bring overall checks in line with the true cost of the meal, something that tipping has enabled consumers to ignore for far too long. The tip is not a nicety or a gift you bestow upon the people who serve you -- it's part of the wage. The problem has long been paying servers less than minimum wage on the assumption that full compensation is made up through tips. But there is no guarantee of adequate tipping, and a paycheck should not be so arbitrary.

Now, with restaurants switching to service charges, customers are certainly free to continue tipping above the actual meal service cost, but this change will allow restaurants to survive and adequately compensate all staff: hosts, bussers, cooks, dishwashers, bartenders, and of course servers. And, of course, people are always free to not patronize stores they feel are now too expensive. I will support this change fully and am happy to make a daily choice on what I'm willing to pay for. 

I'll take the approach of Steve Martin in the hilarious 90s film, My Blue Heaven -- "Hey, what can I say, I tip everybody."

Swimming in a Pond in the Rain with George Saunders

George Saunders and I approach the teaching of literature and writing in the same way. But he has written it all down in a wonderful exploration of how we read. Saunders' latest book is a called A Swim in the Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, & Life. I just purchased the book after reading the first section on my Kindle from the library, and I simply fell in love with what Saunders is doing. For, really it is Saunders who is giving the master class on how to write and how to use the reading of great writers and, actually, also how to read. 

Any English teacher would benefit from reading this book -- it will inspire and invigorate you for the return to the classroom in the fall.

What I love most is how Saunders walks us through seven classic Russian short stories and shares his thinking (and thus teaching) just as he would if we were in his classroom. As a professor at Syracuse, he teaches a class on the Russian short stories as part of the creative writing program, and he walks students through the stories as an exercise in how to write. It's a requisite class for students who want to become writers, and it centers on the dialogue that exists, or should always exist, between an author and reader.

Basically, Saunders starts with the blank slate idea that a reader has when he first picks up a book, and then proceeds to query along the way about what we know once we start reading. It's the same approach I take when I introduce "reading at the high school level" to my honors ninth graders with Goulding's Lord of the Flies. We usually spend the first day on the first paragraph of the novel, and roughly half that time is often devoted to the first seven words -- "The boy with the fair hair lowered himself down." As we read, I continually ask questions like "what do we know, what do we wonder, what do we suspect, what do we hope ...?" Basically, I want students to think about their thinking while they read as a way of creating an active experience. For, great authors are always asking these same questions as they craft their stories from one line to the next.

Heavy Metal Power Ballads - a genre unto itself

The heavy metal rock ballad became a unique genre of music in the late 80s and early 90s. Also referred to as the "power ballad," these slow emotional songs became a mainstay of the hard rock/heavy metal bands of the 1980s such as Poison, Bon Jovi, and Motley Crue. In fact, it was an oddity for a hard rock band in the late 80s or early 90s to not have a song which, when played in concert, would prompt the most hardcore of fans to hold up a lighter and sway to the music. 

I don't know that there is a definitive beginning of the genre or pioneer of the song style, but if I were to identify a prototype, it would probably be "Beth" by Kiss, from the 1976 album Destroyer. Some people have noted that earlier acoustic-based songs from Led Zeppelin, such as "Going to California" or even "Stairway to Heaven" are early versions of power ballads, but these don't really fit the mold to me. They aren't specifically romantic in a way the most well-known heavy metal ballads are. 

"Beth," on the other hand, fits the style quite well, though it doesn't build in tempo like some. And, it's interesting that the song is basically just Peter Criss singing with a piano and orchestral sounds in the background. It's also interesting to dig in to the history of the song, which has several stories and disputes about origin and authorship. Regardless, it's a great song that actually became the band's biggest hit, despite reservations from several members who didn't want it on the album. And, for me, it's the starting point for the genre that peaked in the late 80s.

My top three songs for the heavy metal ballad are: 

“Patience” - Guns N' Roses 

“Every Rose Has Its Thorn” - Poison 

“Home Sweet Home” - Motley Crue