Closing the Book on This One

Looking back, I realized I did not blog at all in the month of December, 2019. There are good reasons for that. And, now I've blogged pretty much every day this month, and that feels right. I have a habit of setting large unrealistic goals and silly timelines for writing and art and personal growth during the regular breaks I get from school. This year was, of course, no exception; and despite good intentions I have not finished three paintings, though I did one, and I have not practiced and perfected a song on the piano, though I am further along than I was last month. And, I did not finish editing my collection of essays and op-eds -- which incidentally was a goal for all of 2020. 

Oh, well. 2020.

As we bid farewell to an arbitrary collection of 365 days, we know nothing really changes tomorrow. And the same goes for me the next day when I turn fifty-one, though I like to tell myself something is different, or could be. As far as final thoughts on this year, I have to share an annual tradition in journalism and commentary that is one of the few enjoyable things about looking back on the worst year of our lives. To that I give you Dave Barry's "Year in Review: Trying to Find some Humor in a Tough 2020." While there wasn't much to laugh or even smile about these last ten months, it helps to look back on the absurdity of it all. And no one exposes and ridicules absurdity better than he.

Beyond that, with an eye toward how we somehow heal and get better, get further down the road in 2021, I've been reflecting on David Brooks' column "2020 Taught us How to Fix This." Brooks is, in my opinion, an incredibly bright and erudite thinker who poses some relevant and interesting insights for us. In this piece, he is addressing the vast divides we have found between us, and he exposes the downside, or perhaps inadequacy, of the trainings and education we believe can heal our prejudices and biases. Hint: they probably can't. But I will counter that they may for any one individual make a difference. And if they do, then they're always worth it. The key, I think, is to try, and we can only do this by being together, which is Brooks' other point, being together and communicating. For, as I noted in one of my better pieces of writing this year, "As Long As We're Talking," there is hope.

And for one final little chuckle, I have to give a shout out to Avenue Beat, some girls from Peoria, IL, for their song "F-2020" all too relevant goodbye and kiss off to the year none of us wanted, and all of us want to forget. 

Exercise for 4 Minutes? How 'bout 4 Seconds?

The news on working on out just keeps getting better.

This year, Gretchen Reynolds of the New York Times has been covering the research on the benefits of brief bursts of high energy interval workouts. Who knew the benefits could come from as short as four seconds of intense exercise? I've been a fan of the interval workouts for a while now. A few years ago, I ran across a piece in the paper about the "7-minute workout," which I modified as my own 9-minute workout. Now, I have a few different short but intense workouts that I believe are an asset in my overall good health as a 50-year-old.

Live as He Lived

So, in glancing at the First Reading from today's liturgy, which comes from the first epistle of John chapter two, I had an interesting thought about faith and how we live. The verses I'm thinking about advise:

But whoever keeps his word,
the love of God is truly perfected in him. 
This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
whoever claims to abide in him ought to walk just as he walked

And, I have to say, not meaning to offend but merely to ponder, that in the contemporary world, especially American society, we seem to have many more "pharisees" than we do disciples, and it seems that these people of implied superior sanctity have potentially turned attendance at services and the reading and study of scripture into their own version of the golden calf. Does that sound strange, that the actions of the service and the reading of the Word could actually become a sort of false idol, so to speak? I don't think so. The public profession of faith and the practice of the service would seem to me to ring a bit hollow if we did not act in accordance with the model, for "This is how we know we are in him; whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Now, of course this observation is obviously influenced by the Catholic school kid in me -- the idea that actions matter and that actions are the ministry we are called to. And, I have to say, I don't see enough of that ministry in the world today, nor granted, do I exhibit it enough myself. For it is written "anyone who hates a brother or sister is in darkness." And there is no shortage of darkness going around these day. It's worth noting a little further into the epistle is one of my favorite and to me perhaps the most important of verses:  "God is love." Yep, that pretty much says it all - love, compassion, empathy, charity, and service. But above all love.

So, while this post is a definitely a departure from my usual fare on this blog, these thoughts were on my mind, and so I thought I'd share. 

Billionaires: Please Buy Us. Love, Print Newspapers

In reading former journalist Tom Zoellner's new book of essays, The National Road: Dispatches from a Changing America, I was particularly struck by his nostalgic ponderings of print journalism, small town newspapers, and his job at the Appleton Post-Crescent. Small town print newspapers like the Post-Crescent or the Alton Telegraph are certainly in danger of going under, especially when big city newspapers like the Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times are facing dire times as well. And it doesn't help that beyond the fading interest in buying and reading a daily print paper among the general population, the large scale papers are being gutted and bled dry by soul sucking hedge funds such as Alden Capital, which are run by shallow soulless business vampires like Randall Smith and his next generation clone Heath Freeman. These men are determined to almost singlehandedly destroy print journalism and daily papers in the United States even if the market doesn't decide to and if many readers still want a daily paper.

So, daily newspapers, which have long been the life blood of an educated electorate, need a savior. For, even though many people choose TV news or random blogs, remember that all the information contained in an hour-long TV show can be found on a single page of a newspaper, and all those bloggers still check the daily papers like the New York Times before logging on to share their view. Yes, print journalism and small town papers need a sugar-daddy, like Jeff Bezos has done for the Washington Post , local philanthropist Paul Huntsmen did for the Salt Lake Tribune, eventually turning it to a non-profit, and Glen Taylor did with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. There are enough billionaires who must have, at one time, enjoyed a print paper with their cup of coffee, or at least recall watching their parents and grandparents enjoy that. Surely, they could find it in their hearts and conscience to park some of their assets in newspapers like the Denver Post or St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Even if the papers don't make money, they could provide a valuable service in terms of information, culture, .... and jobs for goodness sake. 

So, come billionaires, whattaya say? Do it for the little guy. Save the newspapers.

The Way Pete Souza Saw It -- It's about Dignity

Late in the documentary The Way I See It from Focus Features, the former White House photographer of the Obama administration Pete Souza says something to the effect of "I wouldn't be doing this if it were Jeb Bush or John Kasich. It wouldn't be necessary. This is not a partisan issue." The "this" he refers to is his political activism via Instagram posts aimed at challenging, mocking, even trolling the unsavory, embarrassing, and even dangerous behavior and tweets of outgoing President Donald Trump. Basically, Souza counters Trump tantrums, rants, and threats with positive and moving photos from the Obama years as a way of demonstrating how the President is supposed to behave -- with dignity. 

Pete Souza is spot on, and the documentary, which spotlights both the Obama and Reagan years, is a beautiful work of art that reminds us of the way things ought to be, and I highly recommend it. The Obama era covered eight scandal-free years and dignified leadership from a true man, a mensch, a good person who honored the office and the legacy of Washington and Lincoln. Outside of his politics -- and he was a true politician and Democrat -- Barack Obama was a man of character. And that is the non-negotiable quality we must have in a President. And that is why the current administration is so unsettling and simply so .... wrong. It's why the GOP is in a ethical conundrum, it's why Never Trumpers rightfully voice their concerns, it's why many people are "conservative but not Republican."

Barack Obama was a very good man and president. As was George W Bush. As was Bill Clinton. As was George HW Bush. As was Ronald Reagan. As was Jimmy Carter. As was Gerald Ford. As was Richard Nixon ..... and so on. And I pause with the inclusion of Clinton and Nixon, for these were men with ethical lapses, to be sure. And they undoubtedly tarnished their legacy, their years in the White House, and the very office of the Presidency. But those mistakes were exactly that -- mistakes. Those good men made bad decisions. They were not undignified and embarrassingly so on a daily if not hourly basis. They were not woefully unfit for the highest office in the land. They were not the truly sad situation that has burdened our nation for past four (actually closer to five) years.

Regardless of politics, Pete Souza is right. It's about dignity. Thankfully, that virtue will soon return to the Oval Office. Hopefully it returns to the rest of us as well.

 

In Pursuit of the Ideal

 "Neither joy and not sorrow,

Is our destined end or way,

But to act that each tomorrow,

Find us further than today.

In one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite poems, American transcendentalist poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow advises us to seek progress on the path toward enlightenment -- basically work each day to simply get better. We will never be a perfect person, but we might become a better one - a better husband or wife, a better son or daughter, a better student, a better teacher, a better employee or boss, a better community member, a better citizen, a better friend. That pursuit of the ideal is at the heart of romantic thought, no doubt, but it has a place among classical thinking as well. 

The ideal, and a "defense of ideals," is at the foundation and starting off point for one of Mark Edmundson's most important and moving works, Self and Soul. Edmundson, a humanities professor at the University of Virginia, is a writer and thinker I deeply admire and enjoy for his work in exploring and explaining the point of the liberal arts and the question of why we read, why we write, why we study, and why we seek to learn about the human condition. In a world increasingly and unsettling moving in the direction of technological progress, economic growth, utilitarian focus, and material gain, I join Edmundson in worrying and wondering about the cultivation of the spirit. The humanities and the arts, I believe, are our source for understanding why we live -- the development of virtue and values.

If we seek to heal, if we hope to start fresh, if we seek a new path, if we desire some sense of unity and community in the future, we would benefit from returning to the humanities and the traditions of the classical world, the cultivation and pursuit of three ideals -- courage, compassion, and contemplation.  

At risk of "a mere existence based on desire, without hope, fulness, or ultimate meaning ... We can do better," Edmundson tells us. We can do better.

Let's do better. Let's be better.

Could We Start Again, Please?

At times, we all would like a do-over, a reset, a second chance. An opportunity to start again. And this year, which has at times seemed like we're on a perpetual loop of uncertainty and despair, the idea of starting new and fresh is at times unsettling and appealing. But I'm thinking about that fresh start, re-birth, that do-over, that reset on December 25, 2020, on Christmas. 

Christmas is a time to celebrate new life, a new life which came to us with news of light in darkness, of warmth in the cold, of truth in a time of despair. While we know that Easter and the spring equinox are the holidays and times associated with re-birth and the earth awakening from slumber, it's also worth thinking about the message of Christmas and the winter solstice as a celebration of life. The birth of Christ remembered during winter is a reminder that in the dark days of winter, or in the dark days of a pandemic, or in the darkness of a divided nation and society, or in the darkness of violence and uncertainty, that we always have the chance to start again. 

In the troubled times we've been facing, I have tried to be hopeful. Perhaps it's the sappy romantic in me, but I believe in the pursuit of the ideal. And I have faith, just like light in the darkness and warmth in the cold and a birth in the middle of winter, that we can always start again. With our friends, with our community, with our politics and our economics and our struggles for truth and understanding, we can start again.

 I've been living to see you

Dying to see you, but it shouldn't be like this
This was unexpected, what do I do now?
Could we start again please?

I've been very hopeful, so far
Now for the first time I think we're going wrong
Hurry up and tell me this is just a dream
Oh could we start again please?

I think you've made your point now
You've even gone a bit too far to get the message home
Before it gets too frightening, we ought to call a halt
So could we start again please?

I've been living to see you
Dying to see you, but it shouldn't be like this
This was unexpected, what do I do now?
Could we start again please?

I think you've made your point now
You've even gone a bit too far to get the message home
Before it gets too frightening, we ought to call a halt
So could we start again please?
So could we start again please?

So could we start again?

Where I'm Supposed to Be

 After the Buffalo Bills' relentless scorching of the Denver Broncos last week, Bills quarterback Josh Allen was asked about John Elway's decision back in the 2017 NFL draft to pass on picking Allen at number 5, and instead picking an outside linebacker Bradley Chubb.

"I'm where I'm supposed to be," was Allen's simple reply.

There's a lot of wisdom in that statement, and also a significant amount of subtext. Should the Bronco's have taken the young QB in the draft? The Broncos' endless struggles at that position since the departure of Peyton Manning, and John Elway's apparent inability to measure and judge talent and potential at his former position indicate that Allen was a missed call at the line by Elway & Co. And, for that reason, Josh Allen has every right to be miffed at the Denver Donkeys. Thus, it's not surprising the game meant just a bit more for Allen than a regular season game, and it's not a stretch to think the Bills QB and coaching staff relished running roughshod over the increasingly hapless Broncos.

So, is there a place we're "supposed to be"? Sure, it was just a quip, and a clever response to the media. But I like the confident comfort Allen has taken with his position. Certainly, it's not a question of fate or destiny -- we all have choices and options and myriad paths lie before us. The important point, I believe, is remembering that wherever you go, there you are.

My wife and I had a nice chat last night about where we are, and of course, where we could have been. The road to our life in suburban Colorado, in a nice little community, working at an excellent school, has been circuitous as well as fortuitous. I might have taken a job at my old high school upon graduating in 1992, we might have opened a bakery and surf shop in Kenting, Taiwan in the mid '90s, our jobs and Julie's culinary education could have gone different ways in the city of Chicago, we could have ended up buying my grandmother's house and opening a B&B, I may have gone the Ph.D route following my Master's degree and the birth of our son, Julie's pastry catering business could have become something more than it was, I might have sold one or two of those screenplays to a Hollywood production company that was tantalizingly interested (for a few minutes), .... and so on and so on and so on.

But wherever we went, here we now are. And, like Jake Allen, no matter where I've been, it's "where I'm supposed to be."

How Educated Are We?

As we struggle through this bizarre year, and worry quite honestly about what is being missed and who is falling behind and what the fall out will actually be, I think we need to scrutinize every bit of data and truly reflect on what is really going on in schools. And what has been for the past fifty years ago. So, here are a few things to consider:

As of 2020, we can assert that the US is more educated than ever before:
90% of people 25 and over have graduated high school. In the 1940s it was 24%
Additionally, approximately 70% go onto 2-4 year college
And, according to Gallup Polls 82% of parents are satisfied or very satisfied with their child’s education, as well as their own education. 50% are satisfied with the education system in America. So, that’s kind of like congressional approval ratings, right? Everyone despises Congress, but not their own representatives.

It’s also worth noting that in many ways, kids are learning more than ever before. For example,
The standard 9th grade math class is Algebra I, but many students now finish that in middle school. I took AlgebraII/Trig in 11th grade, but my daughter took the same class in 8th grade. And my son took AP Calculus in 8th grade. Today, nearly a million students take calculus every year. And, perhaps the most impressive development is Advanced Placement classes offered by the College Board. AP Classes are college classes taken in high school.

In 2018 = 1.25 million 2018 grads took 4.2 million AP exams. 40% of class took at least one AP out of 38 possible AP classes. My AP English Lang & Comp students regularly do the type of writing I didn’t achieve until graduate school.

Just some things to consider about the state of education.

Cabinet Posts, Pete Buttigieg, Ben Shapiro, & the Politics of Nonsense

So, in another entry about the abysmal state of infotainment in political talk show commentary that is literally hurting America, I have to say I'm as disappointed in Ben Shapiro of the DailyWire as I am in Tucker Carlson of FoxNews. Their schtick represents a genuine emptiness in both Gen X and Millennial conservatism, and that's a real shame because they are both smart, well-educated men with a gift for commentary. It's their choice of subject matter that lacks depth and authenticity. Case in point - these recent Tweets from Shapiro:

• For the record, my four-year-old son also loves trains. He should not be Secretary of Transportation.
• I proposed to my wife in her college residential housing. This does not mean I should be either Secretary of Education or Housing & Urban Development

Now, on a purely logical and rational basis, and in a theoretical sense as well, I agree with the insinuation about President-Elect Joe Biden's nomination of Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation. I don't believe he is qualified to lead that department, certainly not like the current secretary Elaine Chao. And I don't believe Mayor Pete is the best choice for that role. Of course, I understand the politics of building a cabinet and the often dubious nature of the word "qualified" for some of those positions. I think Pete Buttigieg is a brilliant young man who has an impressive education and record of professional experience. And I think he is a skilled politician who will bring an important voice and degree of insight to the Biden Administration. Truly, in terms of patronage jobs, I think an ambassadorship would have been a great role. 

But what about the politics of Shapiro and his denigration of Biden's picks?

The problem is the inconsistency of the standard from which he's criticizing. If Shapiro hadn't been silent for the past four years in regards to the qualifications of cabinet members, he might be pursuing a legitimate line of debate. And it's an interesting and important discussion to have. But he has been silent and complacent even when equally or more egregious appointments of unqualified people for cabinet posts have been conducted by the Trump Administration and the McConnell Senate. So, obviously Shapiro doesn't really care about cabinet posts and qualifications or experience in those roles. Thus, his current line of social media attacks and podcast rants simply emphasizes how he's really just a political hack trying to score points, views, and hits on social media. And again, like with Tucker Carlson, that's a real shame. We need to be better than this. And both Shapiro and Carlson are smarter than that. Sadly, they remind me a lot of the kid I was at eighteen, talking big politics with mostly bluster in my briefcase. And, that's the problem -- they've never grown beyond that.

And, as I've written this, Shapiro tweeted again about Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert interviewing Obama and Biden, and we're right back where we were in 2004 with Tucker in the Crossfire. Shapiro ironically notes he is "happy our age of entertainment-first politics is drawing to a close." In fact, he is just another textbook example of entertainment-first infotainers who obfuscate issues and genuine debate or discussion in pursuit of ratings, money, viewership, and, of course, power. Truly, as I noted before, I believe both sides are hurting America, and the Don-Lemon-Rachel-Madow-Lawrence-O'Donnell versions are every bit as deleterious as the Carlson-Ingraham-Hannity-Shapiro lane. And, really, if we want to talk qualifications or experience, does Ben Shapiro truly feel justified in challenging and criticizing people like Buttigieg? He shouldn't. And he ought to be a bit embarrassed by his attempts to demean a rather successful and influential politician. The four-year-old playing with trains comparison and the college dorm reference were just silly. That's not quality commentary; it's simply juvenile hectoring.

The tradition of conservatism running back to Barry Goldwater and Russell Kirk deserves far better than what Shapiro and Carlson are selling to audiences today. And that is hurting America. And it is a real shame. Let's hope someday, Shapiro and Tucker Carlson will stop following the legacy of media clowns like Morton Downey Jr., Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, and will instead look to conservatives like David French, Jay Nordlinger, David Frum, and Ross Douthat for guidance on generating reasoned, rational arguments that promote positive discussion.

 

Baseball Doesn't Need the DH, the Shift, or Progress of any kind -- It's Perfect

"There has been lots of progress in my lifetime, but I'm afraid it's headed in the wrong direction," said Ogden Nash on April 4, 1959 in The New Yorker. "Progress may have been all right once, but it's gone on too long."

I'm thinking about those poetic and prophetic words as I consider baseball, America's pastoral sports tradition and the forces of progress that seek to change, nay "improve" it. And I'm having none of it. When America's past time undergoes changes in terms of rules and tradition in the next few years, it will be just one more symptom of the creeping shadow of progress on that one thing that "reminds us of all that was once good, and could be good again." And in the short term, it will also be just another lingering side effect of the Covid pandemic that led to a shortened major league season and the sly imposition of the designated hitter on the National League. 

In today's Denver Post, old school small ball manager Bud Black discussed changes in baseball and conceded that he is coming around to support the addition of the designated hitter. That really hurts a purist and a traditionalist like me. Though Buddy did please me by also saying he would consider rules preventing the shift. I've never liked the DH, and the shift is new enough that I had to pause for a while to consider its benefit and authenticity. And I don't like it either. The shift, to me, is simply the absurdist silly end result of the over-reliance on tech and computer algorithms in managing an old game, a tradition reaching back to the nineteenth century. Thus, just like rules in football against illegal formations, ineligible receivers, and illegal men down field, a rule against the shift would preserve the tradition laid out by the inventors of the game with sound reason and good intention all those years ago. We need not improve on the nearly perfect geometry of the field and the established positions.

While the addition of the DH across both leagues this season was grounded in common sense rationale of health for players, the addition of it universally is driven not by safety but by money. Progressive forces and bean counters assert the game must evolve in order to keep audiences engaged, that it must liven things up to appeal to younger generations. That, of course, is a nonsense argument outside of the nature of sport and competition, if only because it's not really about improving the game but increasing ticket sales and television ratings. For the notion that baseball is slow and boring has always bemused me, as I sit through endless stretches of downtime on Sunday afternoons watching football which, to be perfectly honest, has very short spurts of action in between long stretches of standing around. The simple reality is that there are many things we don't need to improve, and wouldn't bother trying if the business side weren't involved. For didn't we all grow up playing endless whiffle ball games that could stretch for hours? If you don't understand this, then, for the love of the game, watch The Sandlot, and do it soon.

Writer and public intellectual William F Buckley once said, "A conservative is a person who stands athwart history, yelling Stop!" And these days we have far too few people who ask whether this innovation or that development is actually such a good idea. I recall hearing of the reasoning behind Howard Schultz's decision to buy back his controlling ownership of Starbucks. Basically, the corporate owners had been focused on endless expansion, opening more stores and developing more new products, all in pursuit of ever-increasing quarterly profits and shareholder prices. And while Wall Street financiers will always take that route, sometimes the purists like Schultz realize that most of us just want a good cup of coffee, and we want it to taste like coffee.

Is the World Causing Learning Disabilities?

I've been in education too long to not wonder whether our technological world is a factor in, if not the outright cause, of many learning disabilities we see in far too many young kids. Granted, there is a strong argument that these disabilities have always been present, and society is simply getting better at identifying, diagnosing, and accommodating for them.  From dyslexia/dysgraphia to ADD/ADHD to processing speed disparities to anxiety and more, there is no doubt that every year it seems more kids struggle with learning from conditions that literally inhibit them from accessing curriculum and learning on a level playing field.

I think a lot about cognitive psychology and its ability to explain what is going on, and when I think about cog-psyche, I always think about Dan Willingham, who has taught me much about how people learn and the importance of core knowledge in building brain development. The simple truth for me is there is very good reason that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends zero screen time for kids under the age of two, and for no more than thirty minutes a day until the age of six. The negative impact of these blue-LED, two-dimensional light shows on young brains is just not a good idea. And truly, it doesn't seem like anyone legitimately says such tech is a good idea -- at least not since the days the mother who parked her baby in front of the TV for hours at a time, and made millions off of what could only be a truly unsettling lack of parenting. The whole idea creeped me out.

Think about human development and the slow methodical way that humans learn to understand the world. They spend the first three-to-six months literally on their backs looking up at the world, taking it all in, processing info at incredible rates, and building synapses like wildfire. The world is a three-dimensional place, and the brain needs vast amounts of time to synthesize all the information and stimuli. 2D flashy lights are not what the world is or should be, and taking away from the basics of depth perception can't be anything but deleterious for kids. Rather than playing with a cell phone or tablet, babies need to be staring at something like this:

They should be playing with toys, not tech. And I worry that parenting choices made mostly out of convenience, distraction, and naivety are literally hurting their kids' brains. And they may be a root cause of learning disabilities.