Love, Actually Turns Ten as Critics Declare Death of the Romantic Comedy

For five or six years now, our Christmas Eve tradition has been to wrap presents and drink eggnog while watching what has quickly become a holiday classic, Love, Actually. The British ensemble rom-com has reached the decade mark in 2013, and that milestone seemed to touch off debate about the health of the genre Love, Actually so perfectly encapsulates. Is Love, Actually a really great movie? Or is it the worst romantic comedy every?  Is it destined to become a Christmas holiday classic on par with It's a Wonderful Life or Christmas Story? Or is the movie overrated and deserving of all the controversy?  As Love, Actually turns ten, have we seen the apex, decline, and death of the romantic comedy?

The romantic-comedy is a truly classic American film genre which actually has its roots at least as far back as Shakespeare and his classic "Much Ado about Nothing." The romantic-tension fueled bickering of Beatrice and Benedict is the foundation of practically every version of how "Harry Met Sally."  While the genre has often been derided as fluff filmmaking and nothing more than "chick flicks," the rom-com can be an incredibly rich character study that frames the battle of the sexes as representative of the human condition and the struggle for identity. And contemporary filmmakers can provide entertaining satire and social criticism as well as any Jane Austen novel. In fact, when I begin teaching her classic Pride and Prejudice, I open the discussion with several clips from the non-fiction-book-turned-romantic-comedy He's Just Not that Into You. And despite contempt from some critics and the claims by many men that they would never watch such films if their girlfriends didn't make them, nearly everyone has a favorite scene or example of the genre.

Movies like Annie Hall, When Harry Met Sally, Crazy Sexy Love, or 500 Days of Summer are tough to criticize as nothing but cheesy romance. They are often deeply philosophical and psychological studies that ask tough question and do more than tug at our heartstrings - they can rattle our existential existence. And some would argue that in the contemporary age, the romantic-comedy is getting even better.  With the philosophical beauty of movies like Enough Said - the full film from gone-too-soon actor James Gandolfini - Kevin Craft argues at Salon.com that "The Romantic Comedy Is Not Dead." I would argue the same about a nice little small-release gem starring Greg Kinnear and Jennifer Connelly called Stuck in Love. More than a Rom-Com, it is a story of complicated relationships in a family led by a writer and his dysfunctional family who seemed to have "lost their plot." The story which contains some great writing about the metaphor of writing and storytelling is more than just a romance.

Of course, like any genre, there are plenty of really poor examples which tend to taint the field. And contemporary studios have begun to dilute the genre as much as they blur it when the rom-com becomes the rom-com action flick.  And any genre is ripe for cliche when Hollywood finds something that works.  Often the films are just cheesy escapism.  And, maybe that's OK.  As far as Love, Actually is concerned, the "carol singers" scene may be ripe for criticism as cheesy and overdone , but for me it is a classic rom-com romantic moment on par with John Cusack blasting Peter Gabriel's In Your Eyes outside Ione Skye's window.

The Affluenza Defense Tests the Bounds of Sanity

The term affluenza was first coined - at least as far as I know - by John de Graff whose book began to spotlight the negative effects of wealth on humanity. Truly, lives of excessive privilege can blind individuals to any understanding of fairness and personal responsibility. And such conditions can cost people the basic empathy that must reside at the heart of any civilization.  The term "affluenza" gained new attention in recent weeks as news of the Affluenza Defense made headlines when a teenage drunk driver responsible for the deaths of four people was basically freed by a judge who bought the defense's argument that the defendant's wealth had left him unable to exercise proper judgment.

Basically, Ethan Couch is not guilty or responsible for the four deaths he caused because he grew up with such privilege that he never learned right from wrong.  It is, I know, the most preposterous argument you've probably ever heard, and it distorts the American justice system in ways rarely so explicitly blind. Certainly, we know there is a disparity between wealth and justice, a situation most clearly defined decades ago by the OJ case, when OJ Simpson was freed in the deaths of his ex-wife and her acquaintance Ronald Goldman.  Most Americans have little doubt that OJ's wealth bought his not guilty verdict. For, no average citizen could have mounted such a high powered defense with the likes of Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey.

Now, Ethan Couch is the new poster child for the wealthy's ability to kill with impunity.

Power of Dreams - Best Irish Band You've Never Heard Of

When nearly anyone mentions great Irish rock bands, U2 is obviously the first one that springs to mind. Other names that might arise are The Alarm - if you're from the 80s and were looking for more after U2 arrived. The Dropkick Murpheys are certainly a great choice, and Flogging Molly is pretty well known, too. Some people might reference The Pogues or The Waterboys, and fans of Irish rap might bring up Black 47. However, one the best Irish rock bands I've ever known - and one whose career ended far too soon after only a few albums - are Power of Dreams. Their first release was an EP titled "A Little Piece of God," and they followed that with an excellent debut album, "Immigrants, Emigrants, and Me." The band only lasted for through the early 90s, disbanding after a tour in 1995. Here are some of my favorites from this great Irish band:

The Jokes on Me:

 

 

My Average Day

 

 



 

1000 Ways to Kill a Love

 

 



Rain Down

 

 

 

Where is the Love?

 



 

Stay

 



 

 

Had You listened

 

 

 

See You

 

 

 

Does It Matter

 

 

 

 

Speech & Debate Students Defy Stereotypes and Criticism of Teens

Despite the negative commentary on teenagers and the state of American education - especially in the aftermath of the most recent PISA test results which criticize the US schools as average and stagnant - the high achieving intellects of American students are alive and well and on display at speech and debate tournaments across the country on a regular basis. After spending the weekend at the 10th Annual Patriot Games tournament hosted by the Forensics Department of George Mason University, I couldn't be more impressed with the talents of America's ambitious and motivated and high achieving students. There is something truly impressive and inspiring and reassuring about spending time with students who are committed to competing against each other in tests of intellect and performance art.  Judging a public forum debate on the resolution that immigration reform should contain a "path to citizenship," I was overwhelmed with the knowledge and insight and rhetorical prowess of so many young people. These students are as well informed on the issue of immigration - perhaps better because they know both sides so well - as anyone on the country. That is impressive. Judging the Lincoln-Douglas (LD) on the precedence of truth seeking over attorney-client privilege, I was amazed at the profoundly philosophical banter and exchange between these young people. They've thought long and hard about issues of truth and justice, certainly more so than the average American.  And that's every bit as important, and more so, than their ability to answer math and reading questions on a standardized test for which they have no context or motivation.

Ask yourself if you can do that?

Eating Healthy Is Not Too Expensive

Whole Foods is really "Whole Paycheck," right? Or is it really just an extra $1.50 a day?

Can people eat healthy, nutritious, and delicious food for an added cost that is less than half the price of a Starbucks latte? That's the consensus from a review of more than twenty studies across numerous countries. The overall cost separating a healthy choice from an unhealthy one is less than two bucks a day. Granted that equates to more than $500 a year. However, the added benefits that come from a healthier diet should certainly cover the cost. I can recall watching a story of the working poor struggling to afford a decent meal, as the issue was featured in the movie Food, Inc. And I was so bothered by the assertion that the family could not afford healthy meals when, at the same time, they were featured spending enough money on one family meal of fast food that could have purchased days' worth of meals at the supermarket. The reality is that people can afford to eat healthy, but they have to have the information to make the right choices. And overly processed foods are never the right answer.

Of course, it won't be easy to reverse a century-long march to an unhealthy, unnatural, processed foods diet. However, it's certainly worth the investment, no matter the cost.

PISA Tests and the Problem of International Tests

By now the news of the latest "international test rankings" are out to the general public, and the "sky-is-falling" hysteria about public education is set to begin again.  Sadly, Americans will continually cite this shocking news without any knowledge of what the rankings really mean, or even how they are derived. While nearly two-thirds of Americans had no knowledge of the CommonCore national standards even a couple months ago, I would bet that more than 90% of Americans have never heard of the PISA test or the TIMSS test, even as they refer to America's educational struggles in "international competition." Alas, the international comparison is fraught with faulty logic, not the least of which is comparing vastly different countries and cultures based on single assessments. While some countries perform better on small student samples of standardized tests, that doesn't mean much beyond the ability to take a test. So, while Singapore's students may perform twice as well on the test, ask yourself if their doctors are twice as effective at healing, or if their buildings are twice as high and strong. Are their poems and paintings twice as beautiful? Is their economy twice as strong? And where is Singapore's Apple or GE or Tesla or SpaceX or Microsoft. Bill Gates is a big CC proponent, but he never had it as a student, so how was he successful? We need to think carefully about these questions before accepting that radical change is the answer. Or that it would even change anything.

Donate to Wikipedia

It's that time of year - time to pony up for all the great content you've been accessing on the internet through the largest open-source encyclopedia in the history of the world. That's right. Wikipedia is asking for donations to help support the platform and keep the source of information commercial free. Each year the founders and managers of Wikipedia campaign for support, and it's up to the users and curators to support the cause. Despite criticism and admonitions from teachers who tell students they "can't use Wikipedia," the online encyclopedia is an extensive and reliable source of information that is constantly being updated and refined to offer the most comprehensive source of content. Certainly, readers know that when they do an internet search for anything from Lady Gaga on MTV to Lady Catherine in Austen's Pride and Prejudice one of the top sites will always be Wikipedia. That is true because of the unique nature of open source editing by millions of content area experts. The pages of Wikipedia are constantly under review and revision by the very people who are most interested in the content. Thus, on the basis of pure factual information, Wikipedia is a great site. Of course, teachers do have a point in that Wiki should not be used as a primary source for research. The open-source nature of the content means that a single page can't be cited as a source. However, that doesn't mean students shouldn't use it. They should. Wikipedia is a great place to begin research, and students should become skilled at following the sources at the bottom of each page to extend and deepen the process. And with the support of readers, Wikipedia can remain the excellent launching point that it is. And, if you have questions about the "reliability of Wikipedia," you should check out the best source for a comprehensive list of studies on it - Wikipedia.

The NHL Needs to Ban Fighting

I went to a fight once ... and a hockey game broke out.

That joke doesn't seem so funny now in the era of concussions. As the NFL deals with increased scrutiny over the mental damage done to players, and parents fret about whether they want their son to play football at all, the spotlight on head injuries in sports has expanded to the ice rink with news of a major lawsuit against the NHL.  Several days ago, ten former professional hockey players - notably the enforcer types known for fighting - filed a class action lawsuit agains the National Hockey League (NHL), claiming the league did not do enough to protect players from the long term damage from head injuries. This legal move comes not long after the NFL settled a $750 million suit with its former players over the same issue.

Certainly, it's no surprise that hockey players suffer a fairly high rate of concussions, especially the players who are basically "paid to fight."  The grinders and enforcers are not on the ice for their prowess with a puck or grace on skates. They are there to hurt people.  And this just may have to change.  While hockey players and fans have long defended the practice of fights as "part of the game" or necessary "payback for cheap shots," those excuses are wearing thin as modern medicine learns more about the long term effects of multiple concussions.  And, it's become unacceptable in sports where the suicide rate is going up for players suffering symptoms of a brain wasting disease that results from repeated head trauma.

Perhaps the sentiment of hockey fans and players will change if we continue to put a human face to the dangers inherent in fighting and repeated concussions. The issue is being raised in the Denver area with a recent series of articles from Mike Chambers and Adrian Dater of the Denver Post.  The Denver Post is focusing on the head injury issue with a profile of former Avalanche player/enforcer Scott Parker.  Since being forced into retirement as a result of head injury side effects, Parker has seen his personal life and mental health unravel.  In a rather shocking story, Parker reveals that he was in 400 fights and took probably 4000 punches to the head during his career.  And that's just crazy.

There are many issues to be resolved, such as whether rules against fighting deter violence in the game. But it seems pretty obvious that the issue of fighting - and repeated gloveless punches to the head - is not in the interest of the game. It's certainly not in the interest of the human beings who play it.

Engineering Instruction for Kids: Start Innovation Early

It's said that in engineering lies the future of mankind. Every innovation, every grand design has its roots entrenched in engineering knowledge. All things considered, this is a dynamic and hugely diverse field to join. Currently, forward thinking educational forces are realizing that in order to progress children's education and learning at a faster rate, it's necessary and beneficial to introduce kids to the basics of engineering as early as possible.

The benefits of this early introduction to computer science and engineering are plentiful. While it is highly unlikely that every child will go on to become an engineer, it has been proven that being taught to think like an engineer at an early age increases brain function and problem solving skills. It is skills like these that will help developing children to become more successful. Early training in problem solving helps to broaden developing minds and creates a structured approach to learning that will be invaluable even when studying other subjects at school and beyond.

When teaching young children engineering skills, there should be no pressure and no criticisms. One of the most successful methods involves children exploring the ins and outs of common, familiar items. These items include building blocks, marbles and strips of shaped wood. Desks are moved aside to create a zone where young engineering students can explore the possible combinations of these materials to complete set goals. The goals are as simple as ensuring that a marble reaches a bucket, but it's essential that students use the materials provided to make this happen. They are given free reign as far as creativity goes, which often results in some truly spectacular, sprawling arrangements. Children are encouraged to explore new, different ways of getting the marble to its destination.

With such promising programs in place, it is important to find out what types of environmental support structures could be introduced. There are four useful steps that have proven hugely useful in promoting this early learning and problem solving ability.

1. Involve Young Children in Solving Design Problems.

Young children will benefit from being encouraged to find solutions to challenges that have been placed in front of them. The sense of purpose is a great driving force that in itself encourages children to formulate solutions to the problems set before them. The danger lies in over-simplifying the tasks so that the challenge is diminished. It is far better to pose a real challenge and offer a supportive environment where questions are encouraged.

     2.   Models That Enhance Learning

When explaining concepts that may be a shade too complex for children to immediately grasp, it is invaluable to have a visible, real world example solution to demonstrate. This helps children grasp what is expected of them and gets them excited to get their hands dirty. It is one thing to stand in front of a class and lecture them about the way a ball rolls down a hill, but actually showing them the ball rolling is an entirely different approach which has been shown to be massively beneficial. Young minds learn better through observation, not by instruction.

    3. Repetitive Work Is More Effective.

Engineering is a highly repetitive occupation that requires designing and revisiting designs in order to find the best operational solution to any given problem. It is this repetition that is so helpful to young learners, who learn to refine and improve designs until they are satisfied that they have mastered the task. By reaching the same solution by differing methods, lateral and creative problem solving skills are instilled.


    4. Take Your Time.

It is important that time becomes less of a factor in the problem solving process. Time constraints result in undue pressure and feelings of imminent failure, which effectively switch the learner's brain off. The learning process is far more effective when the focus is switched from time limits to task completion. At a young age, a child is far more likely to succumb to pressure. It is when this happens that learning ceases and is replaced only by panic. Allowing a pressure free environment allows the full absorption of the material at hand.

Common Core Math Problems

In a feeble and rash attempt to defend Common Core math standards, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan apparently insulted millions of middle class suburban moms by saying opposition to the Common Core is simply a result of "“white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.” That's certainly not the diplomatic approach I would suggest, especially when critics are raising legitimate concerns about the Common Core drafting and implementation. Arne Duncan seems to be expressing an ignorance of just what the standards say and why they may present problems.

On the other hand, Washington Post education blogger Valerie Strauss offers an extensive and valid criticism for "Why Young Kids Are Struggling with Common Core Math." And her criticisms are worth considering. The most serious issue is, of course, the potential ignorance that the standards reveal about the learning stages and styles of young children. While the Common Core proposed to offer deeper and more thorough teaching, it may simply be inappropriate. Strauss has addressed this issue regularly, notably in her Eight Problems with Common Core. And all concerned parties should at the very least have knowledge of her criticisms. That said, it's also important to acknowledge the claims that the Common Core is simply a step in the right direction in terms of standards actually being learning goals, as they should be.

That said, CC in theory is not a bad idea. It was an attempt by people to create a standard "floor" per grade level, so a kid who moved from Arizona to Illinois would be at roughly the same "grade level" no matter what. And it was an attempt to align grade level standards in literacy and math to some "standard" common to high performing nations, as well as better prepare kids for college and career. And, at least in math, the claim was that kids would "go deeper" and understand math "conceptually" in order to achieve "mastery" at each level. Thus, in theory, it's not a bad idea. And, in many ways, I am not opposed to CC, and have actually done a fair amount of promotion and staff development for at.

However, critics are crying foul for numerous reasons. The "standards" have never been tested with any data to prove they produce better results. They are not actually linked with any "international standard," of which there is none. They were created by a consortium of private interests, including textbook and resource producers and private testing organizations like the College Board. Thus, experts in the field including school districts and state boards were not consulted or involved. Two of the prominent voices on math verification committee, including a Harvard math prof, who were asked to sign off on the results (but were not included in creating them) refused to do so. They criticized the standards as a "move to the middle" that has lower expectations and is geared toward preparing students for community colleges and lower level institutions. Thus, the needs of advanced students are greatly compromised by this approach.

The standards were basically adopted and implemented in 45+ states with simply the signature of the governors, and there has been little support for training on the new standards. And if the teachers don't buy into the ideas, it's certainly a tough sell. Additionally, the very concept of "mastery" at any given level is seriously disputed, and it contradicts much research into how people actually learn. For example, we intro paragraphs and topic sentences at third grade, but as material complexity increases, so does the challenge of crafting a topic sentence. Thus, I have no expectation that my students "master irony" in one year. Finally, there is a serious pushback against the federalist component, as local control of schools is a foundation of the republic. We don't have a national education system, but the White House used Race-to-the-Top funding as basically a bribe - or stick - to force adoption. So people have a big problem with the federal government dictating to individual school districts what they have to teach.

It is a complicated issue, and while I actually support the theory, I am suspicious and disappointed in the manner in which the CC has been forced upon schools.

Can ACT-Aspire Challenge PARCC on State Assessments

Since the adoption of the Common Core, a primary concern for many educators and parents has been the impending assessments associated with the "national standards." For, if state governors and school chiefs have determined the need for continuity of standards - in case a kid moves states and because all kids are applying to the same colleges - states will need some way to confirm proficiency.

Enter the PARCC Consortium.

PARCC, the Partnership to Assess Readiness for College & Careers (as well as SB, the SmarterBalanced testing group, and also an artificial butter substitute), was commissioned and given a grant of somewhere around $350 million to develop standardized assessments for grades 3-11. It has been, apparently, a monumental undertaking, as seen by the long years it has taken to even get a few samples. Of course, Bill Gates claimed that this new system of accountability would also bring competition to the marketplace to testing.

Enter ACT with a new program designed for grades 3-10 called ACT Aspire, which leads logically to the ACT for 11th graders. The benefit of something like ACT is that it is familiar, and it leads logically to a test that kids and parents understand. It also leads to the only test that kids, parents, and colleges care about. Additionally, ACT Aspire can be given any time during the year, and it can be taken care of for all grades in less than a day. For these reason, among many others, ACT Aspire seems like a reasonable and viable alternative to the PARCC.

Of course, the idea of ACT challenging PARCC is now a moot point, after the huge educational conglomerate Pearson, Inc. won the contract to produce PARCC's tests. Pearson also produces and manages ACT.

So, what now?

Country and Hip Hop "Mixing" It Up for Some Good Tunes

It may seem like the strangest pop culture marriage around, but the recent - and increasingly common - collaborations between the stars of country and hip hop are producing some quality music that is fresh and classic at the same time. This merger of uniquely American musical styles caught my attention today, as I was driving across the Dam Road in Denver on a beautiful day and heard the song Cruise by Florida Georgia Line with a remix featuring Nelly. And I really liked it:

The blend of country and hip hop is actually a lot more obvious and reasonable than many would expect. Both genres represent a culture of inveterate story telling and exceptional rhythms and choruses.  They are also both distinctly American genres, telling truly vivid American stories. Themes of pride and love are integral, and it was only a matter of time before a couple of renegades in their genres would cross the lines. The first examples I heard were Brad Paisley and Nelly getting together for Over and Over, and Kid Rock joining Sheryl Crow for Picture.

With Nelly now joining the Florida Georgia Line, he is establishing a niche for collaboration, and opening up whole new audiences. I am impressed with his openness to such innovation. Of course, growing up in the Midwest, Nelly was always going to have bit of a country drawl to his songs. And his use of Smokey and the Bandit motifs in his video for "Ride Wit Me" indicated a bit of country even in his earliest writing. And I would say that his collaboration with Kelly Rowland on Dilemma, while truly an R&B song, actually had a real "country" feel to the tone and story.

Of course, we shouldn't forget other collaborations that fuse the genre for one singer. In that I'm thinking of Jason Aldean's Dirt Road Anthem. Aldean's collaboration with Ludacris on this song actually angered many country music purists, but in true renegade fashion, both artists persisted and produced a quality song.

Finally, no discussion of this cross-cultural collaboration would be complete without mentioning the most controversial example - The Accidental Racist featuring Brad Paisley and LL Cool J.

So ...

Secession is the New Thing in Tea Party Politics

Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

 

So, Thomas Jefferson said - but he never expected (irony) the rise of the Tea Party in contemporary American politics, where every political disagreement is a "Sky-is-Falling," "country-is-ruined" sort of conversation.  These days, some Americans believe the nation is so politically divided that a divorce is the only solution.  Thus, secession talk has rumbled up from the fringes, and it has begun to gain attention in nearly every political conversation - especially in Texas and Colorado.

While in Texas, more than a hundred thousand people favored seceding from the United States, the secession forces in Colorado simply want to create a 51st state out of some rural counties because they don't like laws being made by the urban centralized government in Denver. Apparently, it mostly comes down to gun laws and alternative energy regulations. You know, not any "light and transient causes." This is real end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it sort of stuff. If people in Weld County, Colorado can no longer buy ammo clips with more than fifteen rounds, they're going to need to radically alter state lines for the first time since 1820. As it stands, the future of the 51st state of North Colorado is in limbo, as the eleven counties split on the decision to secede.

As a Coloradan, I find the whole secession talk a bit ridiculous, especially for the "light and transient causes" argument.  Of course, as I've noted before, there's a cynical part of me that simply wonders why we don't let Texas secede.  And, I'm not the only one who feels that way. A recent piece for the Huffington Post ponders the issue of Texas, and almost satirically comments on 10 Things We'd Lose if Texas Secedes.  Obviously, if we consider seriously the criticisms made of Texas, it might not be a bad thing to be done with the Lone Star State. And it might be fun to see yellow roses go it alone. Certainly, it has been the fantasy of many, and it's worth imagining, if just for posterity's sake.

Truly, secession talk really is the sour grapes of the political world, and in direct conflict with the American spirit. It reminds of the kid who doesn't like the way the game is going because he's losing, and so decides to "take my ball and go home."

Pomegranate Season is Back - Don't Miss Out

As we head into the fall season each year, I always lament the end of the summer fruits. That is until I remember that pomegranate season is coming. If you haven't noticed the luscious red fruits of Greek myth in the supermarket yet, keep your eyes open for the ruby goodness. For there is good reason to give in to the temptation of Persephone.

The taste of the pomegranate is reason enough to dive in, but we'd be remiss if we didn't recount the numerous reasons to eat the fruit of the fall. Rich in antioxidants - as if it weren't apparent by the rich, ruby red color - the pomegranate is a vitamin unto itself. And, healthy choices gurus like Dr. Mark Fuhrman offer plenty of support for why you should eat pomegranate.

Certainly, the best way to eat pomegranate is seed-by-seed.  However, pomegranate is a great accent for many things as well, and the phrase "pomegranate flavor" is infused with everything from tea and desserts to delicious lamb dishes at the finest of restaurants.  And, we all know the marketing of pomegranate juice by Pom, which was well-documented by Morgan Spurlock in the Greatest Movie Ever Sold. Pom took an obscure fruit that many people were wary of and turned it into the hottest new product on the supermarket shelves. It was truly a bit of masterful marketing.  In the end, though, eating fresh pomegranate is the best way to enjoy it. However, if picking the seeds apart is too much for you, pomegranate seeds can be purchased already separated.  It will cost you, though.  Whole Foods is selling containers of seeds for ... $17 for less than a pound. Wow.




 

Going Postal & The American Dream

Another mass shooting this week …. several actually. And, as Colorado prepares for the trial of James Holmes' of the Dark Night shooting, and the town of Sandy Hook levels the elementary school where its shooting took place, and Los Angeles tries to figure out why a guy from New Jersey targeted TSA agents at LAX, we continue to question and wonder, "Why?" What the heck is going on? And, for those versed in mass shooting lore as writer Michael Kimmel is, "Why Is It Always a White Guy?"

Michael Kimmel, a distinguished sociologist, attempts to answer his own question in a new book, Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. And, he has some fascinating ideas - and data - about the "roots of modern violent rage."  Certainly, people have heard the eerie background of serial killers in American history - most, if not all, are middle class suburban white males. Generally, though, there is a common history of abuse in the families, or at least something that may have instigated the development of a sociopath. Mass shooters, Kimmel posits, also have common backgrounds, and he believes it has much to do with the contemporary age economics of America.

Interestingly, mass shootings were pretty rare - even non-existent - up until the 1980s. And now they happen with frightening regularity.  Even the phrase, "going postal," associated with such mass violence has historical precedence.  As Kimmel notes, Between 1986 and 1997, forty people were murdered in at least twenty incidents involving postal workers. Before 1986—nary a one.  So what happened? According to Kimmel, it has everything to do with economics and the frustrating myth of the American dream:

No, they were driven crazy by the sense that the world had spun so far off its axs that there was no hope of righting it. Underneath that sense of victimhood, that sense that the corporations and the government were coconspirators in perpetrating the great fleecing of the American common man, lay a defining despair in making things right. And under that despair lay their tragic flaw, a deep and abiding faith in America, in its institutions and its ideals. Like Willy Loman, perhaps the quintessential true believer in the ideology of self-made American masculinity, they believed that if they worked hard and lived right, they, too, could share in the American Dream. When it is revealed that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you work, that dreams are for Disneyland, then they morph into a tragic American Everymen, defeated by circumstances instead of rising above them.

Stack and Sherrill believed in that America. They believed that there was a contract between themselves, and guys like them, and the government “of the people” that is supposed to represent us. They believed in the corporations that they worked for, confident in the knowledge that they could support a family, enjoy a secure retirement, and provide for their families. That contract was the stable foundation for several generations of America’s working men—an implied but inviolable understanding between businesses and workers, between government and employers. They had kept the faith, fulfilled their part of the bargain. And somehow their share had been snatched away by faceless, feckless hands. They had played by all the rules, only to find the game was rigged from the start.

It is disturbing to say the least. And with the current state - and direction - of the American economy, it may appear we should expect more, not less, carnage.

Is Jon Stewart "Just a Comedian"?

Jon Stewart is a tremendously talented, incredibly witty, brilliantly insightful ... what?

Without doubt, Jon Stewart is a well-known former stand-up comedian who has crafted a unique brand of humor grounded in mostly political satire and social criticism. The Daily Show is a top-rated commentary and interview program that is popular among the younger news watching set, and it undoubtedly serves as a source of "news" for many. And among politicians and other news commentators, Stewart is hard to ignore. Yet, occasionally his commentary - especially when it seems to depart from his own ideology and criticizes Democrats and social programs - becomes fodder for the right-wing who declare that when "even Jon Stewart" criticizes the issue, it must be bad.

Stewart takes exception to this caveat, and regularly reminds people that he is "on the Comedy Network" and he is "just a comedian."  This back-and-forth banter has been front and center in recent weeks, as the Affordable Care Act comes under fire for huge problems for people seeking to enroll via the government's website. In response to the media using his criticism as "evidence of failure" of the ACA, Stewart has responded harshly. However, some are not willing to let Stewart off the hook so easily, even as we laugh at his response to a call for owning up to responsibility. To the issue, Elias Isquith calls out Stewart in a piece for Salon.com, arguing "Sorry Jon Stewart: You're Not Just a Comedian."  Isquith argues - with reasonable credibility and criticism - that Stewart is not simply another late night joke teller in the vein of Leno or Letterman or O'Brien. And that much seems obvious. Whether Isquith is correct or not, this issue is not new. For, any Stewart fan must recall his infamous pleading with the overmatched hosts of CNN's Crossfire during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Stewart made many logical claims - and was wildly entertaining even if he didn't mean to be.  Since the earliest days of The Daily Show, Stewart has been mining the political world for the richest of humor via satire and scathingly sarcastic criticism. However, the presence of a sharp political mind with a clear agenda has always been clear. So, what is it:  comedian or political commentator. Or both. Or neither.

Maybe we should ask Bill O'Reilly:

Should We Boycott Enders Game?

How to separate the artist from the art?

For as long as people have been crafting entertainment for others, the viewing public has faced a dilemma when the beauty of the art is seemingly contrasted by the flaws of the creator.  That controversy comes front and center this weekend with the release of the film version of Ender's Game, a hugely popular sci-fi story first published in 1985. So many sci-fi fans grew up on the brilliance of Orson Scott Card's story of a child who must save the world - a theme common throughout literature and most recently developed in Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and The Hunger Games. This challenging theme is well analyzed by Laura Miller recently in a review for Salon.com.

The problem with the release of Ender's Game is all the press coverage of Orson Scott Card's other writings which are aggressively anti-homosexual. Card - a devout Mormon who grew up in Salt Lake City and graduated from Brigham Young University - has been an outspoken critic of gay marriage and has written some rather disturbing views on homosexuality.  These views have led to a call to "boycott the movie" so Card does not receive any further royalties.  And, this is the point at which fans and critics alike must conclude how to deal with unsavory elements of an artist that seem so disparate from what fans love about the art.  Sean Means of the Salt Lake City Tribune analyzes this complicated issue with some great history of troublesome artists.

Certainly, artists can be tortured souls whom make themselves difficult to love.  But does the life of the artists outside the art compromise the value of the creation? Sean Means poses this question about Card's life against examples such as composer Richard Wagner and his alleged anti-Semitism, Michael Jackson and his alleged sexual abuse of children, and Roman Polanski who was accused of sexual assault of a 13-year old girl and fled the United States to avoid charges. Certainly, artists can live edgy and controversial lives. Ernest Hemingway was a notorious drunk whose abuse of women and prejudiced views make him difficult to defend as a man. But does that compromise the art? What if the art seems to so beautifully contradict the public image of the artist?

As Means argues, "Ultimately, it will be the viewer's choice whether to embrace the tolerance message of Ender's Game or reject the film" based on a decision to not separate the man from the art.

More Trouble with Common Core

Even as two-thirds of Americans remain clueless and aloof to incredibly significant changes to public education in the country, the troubling stories of the downside to the implementation of Common Core State Standards continue to mount.  In the latest anecdotal evidence of poor planning and shoddy implementation, child psychotherapist and parent Katie Hurley blogs for the Huffington Post about the absurd lesson planning in her six-year-old daughter's first grade class. Certainly, Hurley's post is simply one person's experience which is neither the intent nor the inevitable result of Common Core State Standards. However, her concerns should not be dismissed. The greatest problem with the Common Core is the myopic focus on basics of literacy and math and the overemphasis on standardized tests to confirm some nebulous concept of "mastery." The Common Core has been authenticated and implemented by states and public education systems with very little training and even less general knowledge of what the goal and intent and standards actually are. I remain baffled that something so significant could have passed all the screening without an incredible amount of training to avoid the inevitable misapplications of the like mentioned by Katie Hurley. This result is not good for education.

Oh, where are you John Dewey and Jean Jacques Rousseau and Maria Montessori and Sir Ken Robinson???

Halloween Is Not What Most People Think

Lisa Morton is no expert - or at least that's what she'll tell you - but she certainly knows more than most about Halloween, perhaps "the most misunderstood holiday."  As all our little ghouls and goblins - and probably zombies this year - prepare to suit up and storm the neighborhood front doors begging for a sugar fix, while threatening mayhem, Scott Pierce of the Salt Lake Tribune profiles the woman who has literally written the books on All Hallows Eve.

Among the revelations Morton offers: trick-or-treating is only about ninety years old, the connection to Satanic worship is thin at best (and probably linked to one man's shoddy research), there is somewhat of a relationship to the Catholic tradition of All Saints Day, the holiday is spreading outside the United States, and Halloween's colors used to be brown and yellow.

Are People Naturally Good at Math ... or Art?

"I can't draw."

"I'm no good at math."

Americans have long seen the world in terms of absolutes and natural ability, rather than an uncertain world of potential and possibility. And that naivete and prejudice has been one of the nation's greatest weaknesses. These myths are increasingly challenged by the likes of Ken Robinson and Daniel Pink and, now, Miles Kimball and Noah Smith who are writing about "The Myth of ..." being bad at math. As in Daniel Coyle's book The Talent Code, it's becoming more clear that success has much more to do with hard work and the simple belief that ability is a result of effort and attitude. Of course, there is certainly evidence on the side of biology as well, and this is nowhere more evident than in David Epstein's fascinating book The Sports Gene.

One of the key components for improving performance in any task or skill is the idea of "deliberate practice."  This concept was well-extrapolated in Malcolm Gladwell's well known book Outliers in which he brought the concept of the "10,000 hours to true mastery" into the public's consciousness.  However, the 10K hours was only effective - or perhaps most effective - when it was deliberate practice.  That is, the practitioner challenges himself with the most difficult practice regimen with the express intent of "getting better."  Drake Baer of FAST Company summarizes a lot of this when he argues "Why Deliberate Practice is the Only Way to Get Better." Perhaps if we started focusing on these concepts in school, we might be much more effective in motivating students toward successful paths.

So, whatever we do know about skills and mastery, it's certainly not just nature or nurture - that much is true.

Are Standardized Tests and School Rankings Unreliable

The American school system is not "falling behind" the rest of the world - or if it is, we don't really have any reliable measurements to conclude that. For years, we have heard that American students trail many industrialized nations when comparing international test scores and test rankings.  Of course, most people don't have the slightest idea what they mean when they refer to such measurements. I've had too many conservations with educated adults who make these claims, yet have no idea what NAEP, PISA, or TIMSS are.  Those acronyms refer to some of the standardized tests by which some people like to compare countries.

That on-going debate continued this week with the release of a federal report that, according to some, indicated "most American states surpass" the scores of countries long believed to outperform America. By many measurements, American students in many states do outperform other countries. And, when American schools with greater than 25% poverty are removed from the equation, American students scores often lead the rest of the world, including countries like Singapore and Finland. The problem with any of these comparisons is the inconsistency in gauging student performance on tests that have no student accountability. Many have long argued that the NAEP is a rather weak indicator of American students' academic skills because American students simply may not try. And that's not the last word on the topic.

Education writer Marc Tucker has some more thoughts on the supposed NAEP-TIMSS study.

Best Analysis of Cardinals-Red Sox Bizarre World Series Ending

The Fall Classic has produced many bizarre and improbable games endings - from Bill Buckners' "booted ground ball" to Don Denkengers' blown groundball out to David Freese's late inning heroics - and many of them have included the St. Louis Cardinals and the Boston Red Sox ... or both. And the baseball folklore only added another twist and wrinkle that will be talked about for years after last night's bizarre ending with an infield obstruction call leading to the Cardinals' winning run in the bottom of the ninth for a walk-off win.  It's being called the "Trip-off Win," "The Classic Fall" and the "Walk-off Obstruction."

This win - or whatever we call it - is truly one for the ages that will be fodder for sports commentators and fans for years to come. It was just such a bizarre play that will and should be replayed in the minds of all involved.  Of course, there really isn't that much debate because the general consensus is that umpire Jim Joyce got the call right.  There is, perhaps, no better explanation and commentary than the analysis provided by Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci who argues, "Obstruction Wasn't the Rule that Cost the Red Sox." Verducci offers a step-by-step explanation of why the Red Sox objections don't hold water. But more importantly, Verducci indicts the entire American League for the use of the designated hitter as the reason the RedSox made many errors leading to their loss in the pivotal game six. Kind of reminds me of the beliefs of Crash Davis:

There absolutely should be a Constitutional amendment outlawing the designated hitter.  Because the mental game required of National League managers is the heart of baseball. The American League's silly little rule just ... isn't. The fans and the players and the commentators have been writing and talking non-stop on the issue, and certainly we have to start with the local sportswriters.  In St. Louis, you have to start with St. Louis Post Dispatch sportswriter Bernie Miklaz who coined the phrase "Classic Fall" deciding the Fall Classic.  Bernie sings the praises of Allen Craig who stumbled, hobbled, limped, and dragged himself to the plate for a run that had already been awarded. It was ... exciting to say the least. And, of course, it's important to give the Boston sportswriters, such as Dan Shaugnessy, to weigh in on the instant classic of game 3. Regardless of your point of view, this was a game not to have missed.

In the end, there is not much anyone else can do, other than to simply shake our heads and reflect. Sam Miller of Slate Magazine does his best to help us do that.

Game 4 on the agenda. Play ball.

President Obama - "The Insurance Salesman"

It is doubtful that when he was a young man studying political science at Columbia or law at Harvard that President Barak Obama was considering a future as an insurance salesman. Yet, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act - or Obamacare (note: Obama "cares") - and the recent challenges to it with the recent government budget shutdown, the job of "selling health insurance" is basically what Obama must do now.  At least that's the assessment of William Saleton, as he outlines it in a recent piece for Slate, "Barak Obama, Insurance Salesman: The President Peddles Health Insurance - and Pounds the GOP." This theme will probably run through the media for a while. Garance Franke-Ruta makes a similar claim for The Atlantic with his piece, "Barack Obama: Insurance Salesman-in-Chief." Clever guys, those media types.

The framing of the job as "selling insurance" is certainly an entertaining look at the health care battle, and it's not an entirely unrealistic or exaggerated claim.  The President's signature piece of legislation has faced many challenges, not the least of which was a challenge to the Supreme Court, which upheld it as a constitutional "tax." And, of course the persistent GOP-controlled House of Representatives has voted to overturn it some 200 times.  The budget showdown - and government shutdown - was Ted Cruz's attempt to make his political career by defeating it.  And, finally, the roll-out of the website has been plagued by mishaps and technical difficulties - which may be a result of its popularity, but don't make the President look good.

So, we will see how effective the President is at sales. And the 2014 midterms is probably the barometer by which we'll measure his "salesmanship."