Kids Caring about Kids

So, here's some good news about the world for a change:

This week Cherry Creek High School had our spring Spirit Week - normally a kick off to spring sports. This year, Student Senate teamed up with the Make a Wish Foundation and changed Spirit Week to Wish Week. CCHS students accepted the task of raising money to grant the wish of a seven-year-old boy battling cancer, whose wish is to go on a Disney Cruise.

The Senate set a goal of $5000 to grant this young boy's wish, and they organized various events all week. I was co-host of our first talent show at Creek in nearly twenty years - and that night brought in almost $2600. The Senate also coordinated fundraising at our musical, choir concert, and various school activities. Today, we held a pep rally to present the money to him.

At the rally, Student Senate announced that in this week, CCHS students raised a whopping $17,500 for the Make a Wish Foundation. From what I understand, that amount set a new national record for a single week of fundraising by a high school group. The amount has allowed Creek to grant the wishes of two other Make a Wish children who are also battling cancer.

Let me tell you - it was pretty wonderful to watch a very happy seven year old boy run through a tunnel of arms from our cheer squad into our gym where he received a huge standing ovation from a couple thousand high school students. He also took great joy in throwing t-shirts to the crowd and joining in some of the activities such as spraying Silly String in the faces of more than a few teachers and students.

There is a lot of negativity out there these days, and a lot of criticism of young people. And, so, it's important to acknowledge that we are raising some pretty amazing kids - kids who look out for each other, kids who, quite simply, care.

I am so impressed with our young people these days. They are hopeful, optimistic, caring, tolerant, and more. Feel free to spread the news of this really neat and hopeful moment.

No One Supports Bad Teachers

Several news stories of education gone terribly wrong are circulating lately, and once again the perception of what went wrong is far too narrow. One story is the failure of Kansas City Public Schools failed attempts at reform, despite massive funding. The other story is Newsweek Magazine's call to "fire all bad teachers." While no one can dispute the facts in these articles, the interpretation of cause and effect needs to be clarified.

The Kansas City story is simply what happens when money is mis-spent and mis-managed. The issue is always administration - with the ability to impose high expectations. However, more funds can make a huge difference when well managed - witness Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone. When extra funds are used to feed and clothe the kids, provide basic health care, after-school programs, Saturday school, extensive tutoring, longer school days, and greater attention, student achievement among the poorest improves.

Of course, it also only happens if the expectations of kids and families have consequences - a key component of public charter schools - with the demand accountability of the student with the possibility of dismissal. It's not about the funds - it's about the management. And public schools can manage the money well. My school district does. Canada's schools do.

The "money helps" versus "money doesn't help" is oversimplified. Clearly, the KC program was a mess - but it doesn't prove anything other than that the program was incredibly poorly managed. Put Joe Clark or Geoffery Canada or Jaime Escalante or even Michelle Rhee in charge of those public schools, and the result is different.

Newsweek is far more egregious in the errors of their subjective evaluation of education's problems and the necessary reforms. The crux of the article was "poor teaching." And we all know that it is out there. Yet the focus of Newsweek's criticism was on teachers, with only passing nods to the idea that 99% of teachers receive satisfactory evaluations.

Thus, the emphasis on the responsibility of school administration was seriously understated in the article. And then its praise of KIPP charter schools quickly glossed over the key to their success - contracts that the students must sign and expectations they must meet. The article emphasizes that the schools don't "cherry pick" their students - the take "all comers." Yet, the point is they do "cherry pick" which students they keep, and they don't keep "all students." They show non-performers the door.

The article implies that the charter schools succeed because they are non-union. That is absolutely wrong. If the public schools could also require a contract and show non-performers the door, then the traditional schools could be as effective. But they can't. When the charter school kicks the kid out for not meeting his contract, where does he go? The public school without such measures.

Thus, I completely agree with getting rid of bad teachers. And I've endlessly cited schools with tenured union faculty that do that. So, the emphasis should be on higher expectations for administration. And the addition of performance contracts for students as well as teachers. Then, we're getting somewhere.

So, while I concede the premise, the article was rather ridiculously disingenuous in the way in which it "cherry picked" its data.

Limbaugh Prefers Costa Rica's National Health Insurance

Rush Limbaugh has offered this juicy tidbit: if the US Congress passes its health reform bill, he will leave the country. Really? Where will he go?

It's unclear if he'll leave for good, or just to get health care.

Incidentally, he says he'll go to Costa Rica. That's a country with a well respected blend of public and private care that is held together and fueled by national health insurance and national health care mandates.

Interesting.

National Reading Day

I did it.

I celebrated National Reading Day in my classroom today by giving over the class period to reading. I don't know that I have ever done that before - and I had to sacrifice a Julius Caesar quiz to do it - but it was truly wonderful, time well spent. Class began with me reading a story to my classes - it was Little Bo Peep Can't Get to Sleep, which was recommended by my four-year-old when I told her it was "reading day." The class really enjoyed the book, and I enjoyed sharing it with them.

There are times when the un-interrupted opportunity to read is just so special. We brought in some comfy chairs, and some kids sat on the ground. It is the only time I've ever let students put their feet on the desk or chairs. And we listened to some wonderful contemporary classical piano music by Colorado musician Alex Grant.

All in all, it was a day well spent.

Team USA Hockey Players are Brats

Having finished watching one of the most exciting hockey games in recent memory - and acknowledging that the better team clearly won the game - I was profoundly disappointed in the glum, sour, pathetic faces of the American team as the received their silver medals. That's SILVER MEDALS!! For representing the country IN THE OLYMPICS!! After playing in THE GOLD MEDAL GAME!! That no one expected them to be playing in.

I understand disappointment ... and I also understand being a man. And I would have expected the players to honor their country and honor some of their professional teammates who clearly beat them. They could have smiled. They could have nodded. They could have shrugged. But they pouted. In post game interviews, when asked what he "will take away from the whole experience," Ryan Miller glumly and pathetically mumbled something like, "Oh, I don't know. I guess it was cool to play in a big game."

That's what he got? From the whole Olympic experience. A professional athlete who has had twenty years to get used to losing big games and learn to deal with it like a man. What a shame.

I say bring back the college players and let them play their hearts out and be honored by the opportunity and have enough class to acknowledge when they were beat by a better team.

"Guvmint" and the Bogeyman

A quick thought:

As I've noted before, the big problem for voters these days is manipulation by metonymy - that is substituting a term for that which it is closely associated. For example, "Bush invaded Iraq" or "The White House said .."

The biggest metonymic bogey-man is "the government." That is an abstraction. People can't or shouldn't complain about or be mad at or blame "the government." They can criticize a law or a congressman or a president or even a ruling and action by an agency. "The guvmint" can't and doesn't do anything. People do.

But, as I've noted with the budget initiatives in Colorado, interest groups have manipulated voters into enigmatic criticism of "the government." That is integral to the problems we have in American society. Voters in Colorado vote to restrict taxes and spending based on some "ambiguous" ideal that "government is too big" and government spends too much" when the voters are unaware of congressman granting the very expectations of their constituents.

"Government" didn't do it. Voters and their elected representatives did. Don't criticize "too much spending" - pick a specific expenditure. Don't criticize the "government" - pick a specific agency or act or bill or congressman.

Just saying.

Youth Sports and the Dark Side of Man

Well, I'd heard about it, and read about it, and now I've experienced it - insanely pathetic parents. My seven-year-old son is playing youth basketball, and at the last game of the season, I listened to a referee warn a coach who was cursing at his players, and I watched, open-mouthed, as a mother stormed on to the court to yell at the ref during the game after her son fouled out and was sent to the bench for unsportsmanlike conduct after he shoved a player to the ground while pushing through a screen.

And, I realized, if we are going to be in youth sports, then we are on the right team with the right group of kids because our coach and parents were shocked and would never do that.

A colleague who coaches, and whose girls have been through youth and club sports, told me, as I signed up for the team after years of decrying this kind of behavior for years, "You've entered the machine. Be careful."

Yes, exactly.

My State of the Union

My Fellow Americans,

January 27th, 2010 is an incredibly exciting time to be alive, and days like today represent all that American has been, all that America is, and all that American can become. Today American's first African-American president will deliver his first State of the Union speech. And, today Steve Jobs and Apple premiered, the iPad.



The nation which John Winthrop, and later Ronald Reagan, described as "a shining city upon a hill" was founded on hope. President Obama was elected on that idea of hope and change. Hopefully, he will offer a vision today of how he is going to change, and how that change will create a better future for all Americans. Steve Jobs has already done that.

Jobs and Apple have changed the game again, creating a niche where there was none. The innovation that is constantly percolating in the mind of Jobs and in the rooms at Apple represents all that is good and distinct about America. America is the land of innovation, and it's where the future happens. And people like Steve Jobs, and companies like Apple, have always done it. They don't need any incentive to create and innovate. They don't need the encouragement or a grant or a handout or a hand-up. They just need the freedom and the opportunity. They don't ask. They just do.

Granted, there is conflict and concern in America. Many would claim our government is a mess and the two factions just can't get along. But think of how awful it's been in the past, and think of how horrible it is in many places around the world and across time. We are in conflict. But we're working it out. We're talking it out. And it's messy. And it takes a long, long time. And it often seems like we're not getting anywhere. But we're still here. The republic survives, and democracy thrives. And the roads are firm and the buildings are sound and the water is safe and the electricity works and men and women stand at post all night long defending our country and our cities and our communities and our homes from threats both near and far, real and imagined, man-made and natural. And they do it for all Americans. And they do it well. And when tragedy strikes in some corner of the world, the world looks to America to help. And we do. We do because we can, and we can like no other country in the history of mankind. And we will continue to do so. Always.

Granted, it is not easy for many of us on a daily basis. People are struggling and disagreeing and blaming and wondering and worrying and complaining. And they have good reason. But in the morning, they are going to get up and get back to it. It might be a job or a job search, but they are going to get after it. Because that's what we do. In the face of adversity, Carl Sandburg reminds us, the people will live on. In the night ... they march: Where to? What Next?

"Next" is what America is all about. It's why the colonists settled here. It's why the people moved west. It's why we went to the moon. It's why we're talking about going to Mars. It's what's next.

And, so, my fellow Americans. The State of the Union is what it has always been. It's a state of potential. And I have great hope for the future. I have great hope because I have great faith in the hearts and minds and strong backs of the American people.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Good night.

Deficit Dithering

The cold, hard reality is that the United States government has accrued $12 trillion in debt. Most of that came in six years when the Bush Administration proposed and passed two unfunded tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a huge unfunded expansion of the entitlement system with a prescription drug plan for Medicare - one that is now being asked to expand to close the "doughnut hole." While the debt went from $3 trillion to $10 trillion during that time, government spending did not increase by $7 trillion. Thus, any competent middle school math student can conclude that the budget deficit has ballooned the debt primarily through a cut in revenue. However, spending most certainly played a role. It played a huge role. In no way should this post be construed as absolving the Democrats of responsibility, especially for wasteful spending.

Thus, as David M. Walker and the Concord Coalition have argued since 2003, the debt and deficit will not be addressed without spending cuts AND tax increases, and significant entitlement reform. It is that simple. It's so simple. It's astoundingly obvious. Cut spending AND raise taxes while reforming entitlements. That is what the proposed Fiscal Responsibility Committee would have done. That's what a new bill in Congress to re-institute "Pay-as-you-go" would have done.

Yet, the GOP has vowed and voted to defeat these attempts because it will raise taxes. Of course, it will. It has to. And, then, Senator McCain responded to ABC news today by claiming the spending freeze might be OK, but he would "cut taxes" so that revenue would increase. Even though cutting revenue is the majority of the problem. Ugh! Does everyone in the GOP misunderstand the lessons of the 1980s and 2000s, and the inherent flaws in supply-side economics. Or are they just that pathetic in their fear of PACs and "think tanks" that threaten to derail the career of any Republican voting for tax increases.

It's $12 trillion.

I want to see taxes at the 1992 and 1983 levels. That's where the economy can be strongest. That is absolutely the goal. And, to do so, spending will have to be cut and entitlements reformed. I know that. I get it. I want the spending to go down, so the taxes can go down. But the debt and the deficit have to go, too. And taxes will have to go up, for some time, in order for that to happen.

This is our problem. There are no, or few, fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party. No one is willing to be pragmatic about this. Fiscal conservatives are not conservative if they think the deficit and debt can be handled without tax increases. Just crunch the numbers. Really. Do the math. Lower taxes are preferable. Less wasteful spending is the goal. But do the math. Be honest with yourself.

It's $12 trillion.

Legalized Bribery

I have never given a dime to a candidate running for political office. And I never will.

When I ran for city government I didn't take a dime in donations. I, of course, lost. However, in the race I was in, no amount of money would have made a difference, and I didn't run to win, just to raise awareness of the issues.

The reality is that money corrupts nearly everything, but it holds a special place in its heart for politics. And we can be clear on one thing: from a Constitutional point of view, there is absolutely no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution never intended money to be protected as "speech." Jefferson and Washington would have vehemently - if not violently - opposed such nonsense. Adams and Madison are a little tougher to gauge. Franklin never would have taken a donation, but he certainly wouldn't have opposed someone buying him a drink over which to "discuss" legislation.

From a purely practical point of view, here's a good question: if I can give a candidate $10K and you can give him $10K, and then we can form a "corporation" and give him a million, then how is that not double-dipping and circumventing restrictions in the first place? How can the "corporation" fully represent the views of its employees and its stockholders when there is certain to be disagreements? If you can't give a politician $90K in cash to vote on a bill, but you can give him an equal amount "for his re-election campaign," how have we not completely abandoned rational thought.

Judicial activism or not, money has become "free speech" - irony of ironies - and nothing is going to change that or control that. Thus, it simply becomes more of an imperative for voters to be well informed in the area of policy, as well as argumentative strategies used to manipulate them.

Never gave a dime. Never accepted a dime. Never will. And now I will just continue to vote my conscience.

Taxes and Society

So, here's a thought, as I continue to debate my Burkean conservatism with the voices of "Libertarian Populism." As I've mentioned before, Edmund Burke effectively argued that "the revenue of the state is the state." Little or no revenue = weak or non-existent society.

Consider this:

Alabama and Mississippi - and many southern, or red, states - have low tax rates. They also have poor quality education, poor health, poor roads, less industry, less wealth, lower quality of living, higher crime, weaker family structure, fewer college educated people, and they accept the highest levels of federal aid.

Connecticut and Massachusetts have higher tax rates. They have high quality education, better health and health care, better roads, more industry and finance, more wealth, higher quality of life, less crime, less divorce/social problems, more colleges and college educated people, and they pay the most in federal taxes at the same time they accept the least amount of federal aid.

Where would you want to live?

Polar Bears and Pollution

I don't think too much about the "global-warming-climate-change-cap-and-trade" debate that rankles so many people these days. Though, I certainly don't make or support ridiculous statements about the recent cold spell being the proof that climate scientists are wrong. For me, it's really not about that. It's not about the polar bears, or the ice caps, or ocean front property, or carbon limits, or the effects of those limits on industry. Those aren't on my mind when I take my position. Here's what is.

It's the (cough! hack! ugh!) pollution, people.

The other day I was walking to school, as I do each day, across the student parking lot to our school. The lot is just east of the school district's bus parking lot, which is incidentally, just north of my house. As I made my way on a two-minute walk to the West building, the buses were warming up, and I could barely breathe. Several were belching some black smoke, which was wafting east, and I could barely make it across the lot.

Halfway through the school day, my lungs still hurt. Hurt. They literally hurt from the ingesting of noxious fumes from engines burning fossil fuels. And these were diesel, supposedly burning cleaner than most. My lungs hurt ... here in the beautifully clear Rocky Mountain air.

We simply need to stop burning fossil fuels at the present rate, and I support restrictions. Whatever happens to the polar bears, I care about my health. There is no way to argue that moving away from oil and gas is a bad idea. And, the concerns that restrictions will be hard on business is dubious at best. Some businesses may go under? Good. Better them than my health. I know we heard the same complaints after the founding of the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the 1970s. Of course, those arguments were secondary to the fact that the Cuyahoga River had caught on fire several times in a week.

Did restrictions cause those polluters to go out of business. Who cares? Did the economy crumble? Did the world come to an end? Uhmmm. The answer is no. Thomas Friedman was on the news the other day talking about his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded. He pointed out that there is no doubt the earth is warming and it's causing "problems." There's a pretty good chance that man's industrial output is playing some role. How big is debatable. But, regardless, when we face potential disasters, we buy some insurance. That's what climate change legislation and polices are. They're insurance.

I'd like some insurance against the lung cancer I may have contracted. If that helps the polar bears, too, then good.

Wooly Worms and Sunspots

Last fall, the meteorologists around the country were calling for a warmer and dryer than normal winter across the country, especially in the Northeast and upper Midwest. According to all the computer models and latest technology, the coming winter was set to be pretty mild. On the other hand, the Farmer's Almanac, drawing from its centuries old secret formula using natural signs such as sunspots, predicted a frigid winter across the same areas with heavy amounts of snow.

I have to go with the folk logic at this point.

In Colorado we haven't even been near the average temperatures, as we are freezing and my furnace is kicking on all night long. More snow is coming tomorrow, and the last bout from Christmas week hasn't even melted yet. That is unheard of for suburban Denver, where we rarely worry when it snows because it (usually!) melts off in a couple days at the most. Last winter, we were able to go sledding only once, as the snow often melted by the time I got home after school to pick up the kids.

Of course, I am not going to go with the snarky comments from my neighbor who comments every time it snows "So, what about that global warming?" Obviously, just because there is still some cold and snow somewhere doesn't mean that a consensus of science experts are wrong about the warming trends and man's probable role.

But, it is, no doubt, cold. And no computer models can tell me it's not.

Ridiculous Comments on Health Care

In the past couple days, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Colorado Republican Congressman Mike Coffman have been hospitalized - and both have used the incidents to make rather crass and ridiculous statements about the health care situation in America. Limbaugh was hospitalized for chest pains and Coffman broke his ankle. Both responded to the press that they have "tested" the American health care system and found it to be working perfectly.

How crass.

The only thing Limbaugh and Coffman have learned is that the health care system works for people worth $400 million dollars and for Congressmen who have government administered, taxpayer funded health insurance. That health care is available and high quality for the wealthy and upper middle class who have good - and untouchable - benefits has never been in doubt. Coffman, by the way, went on to note that he pursued a second opinion at a specialty clinic, for which he paid the additional $350 out of pocket, and it was "well worth it." That, of course, is not difficult for a man earning a salary of $175,000 of taxpayer-funded salary.

And it is to be expected that Limbaugh to comment this way. However, Coffman's comments are beneath the dignity of his office, and he should consider the many of his constituents who can't afford their premiums, or who have had their insurance eliminated by employers, or who can't get any policies, or who can't afford hundreds of dollars for second opinions.

I voted for Mike Coffman, but I am profoundly disappointed in his flippant, insensitive comments to the media, and I will be letting him know.

Taxes Ceiling and Floor

As we come into 2010, the telling statistics of the decade are that the Dow is almost exactly where it was ten years ago and the decade amounted to almost zero job growth. Yet at the same time, families earn less overall and are worth less overall, at the same time they are more vulnerable to economic crisis due in no small part to lack of security in terms of health care and health care costs. This is taking place at a time when, overall, America's tax burden is about as low as it has ever been, across the board.

And amid this, Sarah Palin told Greta Van Sustren last night that America needs to learn the lessons of Ronald Reagan and the Eighties by cutting personal taxes to free up the private sector to create wealth and easing corporate taxes so they won't export jobs. Sadly, Van Sustren completely ignored the opportunity to ask the reasonable but tough questions. For example, have Palin and Van Sustren forgotten that when Reagan cut taxes the marginal rate was 89%? Have they failed to notice that taxes are at historic lows? Are they not aware that the average American corporation pays no corporate taxes and those that do average about 5%, which is far below the countries that Palin thinks are taking American jobs. Do they not know that payroll is the primary expense of any company, and that is the reason they move and offshore jobs? Do they fail to note there is no specific identifiable link between taxes and job growth? Have they no knowledge of the impact of the oil embargo and the Fed's breaking of the inflation cycle? Are they really that ignorant, or just that partisan.

As a Burkean, fiscal conservative, I sympathize with many concerns about government spending and growth. However, the one thing I cannot cop to is outright ignorance of historical facts. There is both a ceiling and a floor to revenue for the government - that is the greatest lesson for current state budget crises. Thus, while I am still too disgruntled to be a Democrat, I will remain a recovering Republican.

Lucid Thoughts on the Future

Once again, divorcing himself from partisan and ideological hackery, David Brooks offers perhaps the most lucid commentary out there on business, government, and the future. Far from a "Yes" Man for the Administration, Brooks identifies the positives in an economy and country that has become the whipping boy of cynics and ideologues. Ultimately, rationale usually wins out at the ballot box, and Americans will hopefully respond to these ideas by doing what Americans do best - get to work.

Rachel's Challenge

I recently had the opportunity to attend an assembly for our students called Rachel's Challenge, given by Craig Scott, whose sister Rachel was the first student killed in the Columbine shootings eleven years ago. Rachel's Challenge is an extraordinary foundation and movement devoted to teaching and inspiring students to create a permanent positive culture change in their school by starting "a chain reaction of kindness and compassion."

Ironically, in the same week that Rachel's killers were in their basement creating a video in which they claimed they were about to start a "chain reaction" of violence and hate, Rachel was turning in an essay for English class called "My Ethics: My Codes of Life," in which she wrote that she "had this theory that if one person could go out of their way to show compassion, it can start a chain reaction of the same." She asked, "How do you know that trust, compassion, and beauty will not make this world a better place to be in?" "Test them for yourself," she wrote, "You just might start a chain reaction."

Craig Scott and his father have chosen and committed themselves to the idea that her short life will not be defined by tragedy, but instead by the kindness and compassion with which she lived her life. Her father posted a sign at her memorial that read "Rachel, your death will not be in vain." After her death, her family found an image of her hand that she had traced on the back of her dresser in which she had written, "These hands belong to Rachel Joy Scott and will someday touch millions of people's hearts."

As a teacher and a parent and a person, it is still difficult to recount the tragic events of that day, and I cannot fathom the depths of despair that have been faced by people like Craig Scott. He was in the library where two of his friends were killed in front of him. He later led a group of students to safety, shortly before the killers returned to the library, only to learn later of the loss of his sister. Yet, from this tragedy, Craig has become a man of uncommon courage who is committed to his sister's message of kindness and compassion. It is rare that I have seen one person convince a group of 900 seventeen-year-olds to stand up, arm-in-arm, many with tears in their eyes, and sing "Lean on Me" ... three times in a row. Yet, he did it. And that message rings true.

In Craig's presentation, he challenged us in five ways. They are:

1. Choose positive influences in your life.

2. Keep a record.

3. Practice acts of kindness daily.

4. Eliminate prejudice.

5. Tell people how much you love and care for them.

Craig closed with a video montage of his sister to a song called "Hands" by Jewell. She sings:

If I could tell the world just one thing it would be - we're all OK
And not to worry 'cause worry is useless in times like these
I won't be made useless
I won't be idle with despair
I will gather myself around my faith
For light does the darkness most fear

In the end only kindness matters.


That is the truth. Happy Thanksgiving.

Center Right or Center Left?

Like many Americans, I don't consider myself ideological, and in survey after survey, I often end up right where I'd expect - moderate. That's why I'm a "recovering Republican" and a "disappointed Democrat." I'm part of the trend in Colorado, especially in the sixth district, of unaffiliated, independent voters. Colorado (and I), in that regards, are about as purple as can be. Though while the GOP likes to declare emphatically that America is a conservative country - or center right - to be more specific - and while some polls show the country moving slightly to the right, there is an ambiguity to that desire for ideological dominance. As EJ Dionne points out:

It’s important to note that there is a debate over what these ideological labels actually mean to voters. And polls that give respondents the chance of calling themselves “progressive” produce a substantially larger number on the left end of the spectrum, since many who won’t pick the “liberal” label do call themselves “progressive.” A study earlier this year by the Center for American Progress found that when progressive and libertarian were offered as additional options, the country was split almost exactly in half between left and right.

That discrepancy is key to the debate - and one that will never truly be addressed by what George H.W. Bush calls "the cables." [???] The reality is that whatever the parties want to say about the leanings of the country, the voters are choosing Democrats lately because the GOP just seems to have nothing to offer. This is more well articulated by David Brooks, but I get the gist of it.

Realistically, voters seek out what is real and valid in their lives. They support what works and they abandon what doesn't. That's pretty much the way it should be.

Most Prosperous And Free Countries Socialist?

For those who value their freedom of expression as much as health, wealth, and prosperity, then Finland is the place to be, with an index ranking the Nordic nation the best in the world.
The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, published on Tuesday and compiled by the Legatum Institute, an independent policy, advocacy and advisory organization, ranked 104 countries which are home to 90 percent of the world's population.

The index is based on a definition of prosperity that combines economic growth with the level of personal freedoms and democracy in a country as well as measures of happiness and quality of life. With the exception of Switzerland, which came in at number 2, Nordic countries dominated the top 5 slots, with Sweden in third place followed by Denmark and Norway.

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity really ought to check this out. Of course, I remember an interview on the O'Reilly Factor years ago where Bill was discussing life with the Swedish Minister of Tourism. O'Reilly said, "OK, give me one good reason why I should move to Sweden."

The Swede responded, "Well, hopefully you won't."

Booyah!!!!!

College in Three Years - or Less?

According to Lamar Alexandar's piece in the latest edition of Newsweek:

Hartwick college, a small liberal-arts school in upstate New York, makes this offer to well-prepared students: earn your undergraduate degree in three years (six semesters) instead of four, and save about $43,000—the amount of one year's tuition and fees. A number of innovative colleges are making the same offer to students anxious about saving time and money. The three-year degree could become the higher-education equivalent of the fuel-efficient car. And that's both an opportunity and a warning for the best higher-education system in the world.

Finally, the word is spreading. With the average time for a bachelor's degree taking an astounding and baffling six year and seven months, a little shorter for some programs from on-line universities, it is time for a change. The acceptance of AP and IB scores for advance progress in degrees and the expansion of dual-credit, or concurrent enrollment, classes are imperatives. And schools who shun giving the credit where credit is due should be shunned and avoided at all costs.

Now, if we can get K-12 down to K-10, and the blending of 11/12 - 16, we will be getting somewhere.

Who Are We?

According to this report, The Secret Service is facing "unprecedented" threats to the President's life. They may have to relinquish all other duties with the Department of Treasury so they can devote full resources to keeping our President alive?

Sadly, it's shocking to even acknowledge that President Obama's message of hope of change and a better America could be considered as a factor in this sort of scary, disturbing, despicable news. That this could somehow be his fault - that he has somehow asked for it - is a reprehensible idea.

What has happened to this country when a man's message of hope and change can be considered to be responsible for this sort of insanity? If that's the case - and the news seems to imply it is - then the thing that happens if some nut takes action is that America will have lost her soul. We will have met the enemy, and the enemy will be us. What have we become when a leader's attempts to reform a damaged system can be met with such vitriolic contempt, forecasting catastrophic change to America? What a terrible gut check to even consider that the Secret Service's fears are even possible in this day and age. If President Obama responds to this news by coming to a realization and changing his course, then we will have seen the victory of truly homegrown terrorism.

I don't listen to much of the "noise" these days as the anti-Obama atmosphere has reached such a toxic level that it has departed from rational discourse. And, it simply feeds on itself. It feeds on this absurd notion that America - as a nation and an idea - is at risk. The fact that every action and every word and every initiative seems to draw hysterical responses about the need to "take our country back" is completely baffling, and truly, truly sad. The sort of discourse that scares people into believing their way of life is threatened and they have no choice but rash actions is terrifying.

People calmly and publicly talking of "watering the tree of liberty" is a image I never thought I'd live with. Some people are outraged, some news reports it, and then nothing. The fact that we don't vehemently denounce such terror, the fact that we don't run from such craziness, is beyond my comprehension. That sort of environment contributes to a rising hysteria that could become the proverbial straw, and I am deeply saddened by that realization.

The Secret Service is facing "unprecedented" threats to the President's life. They may have to relinquish all other duties with the Department of Treasury so they can devote full resources to keeping our President alive?

Where are we? What have we become?

Why Johnny Hates Sports

Years ago when I was living in Chicago in the late 1990s, the big news at the start of the school year was that Chicago Bears legend Walter Payton's son - who was an All-American soccer player as a junior - had surprised the sports community by going out for football his senior year at Barrington high school. He not only went out, but won the job of starting quarterback, no doubt due to his excellent athletic ability. Yet, the question remained as to why he quit soccer, a sport he'd played all his life and would assuredly have been playing in college, and even professionally. The reality, which he revealed in a press conference, was that he was "burned out." In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, he literally said he come to "hate soccer."  The rise of club soccer had led to such an overload in time committment, that he came to hate the sport he loved. This is a phenomenon well documented in the book Why Johnny Hates Sport by Fred Engh.

While I didn't know this phenomenon all too well when I first read Engh's book, I was somewhat familiar with the intense competition and the growing force of club sports in youth culture.  Now, after working in coaching in high schools and raising two kids who are reaching the competitive levels, I am on board with Engh's criticism and concerns.  As an advocate for restraint and common sense in youth athletics, Engh documents the anxiety kids are facing as they are asked to choose a sport and specialize by as early as sixth grade.  As club sports expand all seasons into year round, a thirteen--year-old is threatened with losing his spot on one team because another sport has a tournament out of state during the tryouts for the first sport and .... ugh!  It just gets that crazy.  And Engh argues for a return to the good-natured fun of youth sports that focuses on the fundamental skills of the game, as well as the equally important aspects of teamwork, good sportsmanship, discipline, and fair play.  Engh's book is filled with anecdotes and insights about the foundations of youth sports and the problems of "Coaches Gone Wild."  In addition to this book, Engh is also affiliated with the National Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS), where he serves as president and spokesman.

Additionally, the issue has a new voice in Denver-area high school student Scott Martin who recently published a piece of commentary in the Denver Post, where he revealed "Why I Can't Stand Youth Sports Anymore." It is an honest and sincere plea for some sanity in the world of youth sports, and a very well written argument at that. Scott begins by sharing the tragic stories of high school students who were "practiced to death," and then offers detailed commentary on the culture that has led to such situations. He also comments about his own struggles with the culture and laments the fact that parents at pee-wee sports competitions have to be urged, "Relax, it's just a game."

I must admit, I don't hold out hope for change in this arena, as the sound of youth coaches screaming at children makes me cringe every time I hear it. The stories of long weekends and short summers traveling around with club teams make it even worse. Certainly, any one has the opportunity to opt out of these "optional activities." But that doesn't make it any easier, especially for kids who just want to play for their school. Perhaps with future leaders like Scott, generations down the road will figure out the madness and stop killing "the love of the game."

Perhaps, hope can be found in the direction coaching takes, as coaches would seem to be the best hope for a change in the culture, as noted in this New York Times profile.  If more schools and athletic organizations would commit to the goals of the Positive Coaching Alliance, the focus and direction of our sports-obsessed youth could be redirected in a way that wouldn't lead to contempt and regret over that activity which once inspired joy and passion.  The Positive Coaching Alliance is an organization of coaches and leaders in youth sports who recognize the imperative of a positive and uplifting message on the athletic fields.

Sports are a wonderful part of our lives and culture.  The lessons learned on the athletic field as members of a team can be integral parts of character education, and we should take steps to guarantee that benefit.  There should never be a reason Why Johnny Hates Sports.





Picnic Time Sports Chair

More Praise for Mike Rowe and "Work"

Gail Pennington, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is the latest to discover the important commentary coming from the mouth of Mike Rowe, star of the Discovery Channel's shows World's Dirtiest Jobs and Most Dangerous Catch. Pennington's recent column gives voice to Rowe again and his message that "America has declared war on work," and this attitude is detrimental to our future.

Rowe asks an important question: "Doesn't it seem strange we can have a shortage of skilled labor, a crumbling infrastructure, and rising unemployment? How did we get into this fix?"

How indeed.

It is particularly troubling that we continue to ignore the needs of our economy and assume that all Americans need a college degree or that America should lead the world in college degrees. Interestingly, according to the Department of Labor, the average four-year college graduate in this country makes $45000/yr while the average plumber/electrician makes $49800. Of course, we shouldn't forget that only 29% of Americans have a bachelor anyway, and many of them are over-educated for what they do.

However, I am not going to argue for or encourage kids to pursue career and technical education in this country if we continue to not only declare war on work, but also continue to devalue work by continually padding the corporate bottom line by decreasing wages and benefits. Europe and Asia can effectively increase education while maintaining skilled labor because they support their workers.

Hopefully, Americans will actually get a clue about what makes America "work."

Actual Conservative Health Care Reform

Knowing that something happening is going to be better than nothing happening, I'll settle for some version of the Baucus health reform plan, though I'm not completely in favor of it. I'll side with heart surgeon and former senator Bill Frist on that. Ultimately, something as logical as the Healthy Americans Act isn't going to happen, and many provisions in the legislation - like preventing the insurance companies from dropping my family when they get sick - are good ideas. Beyond that, it's a good idea to provide a marketplace where Cigna or Kaiser or United have to offer a plan at a price - as opposed to charging me and my employer five times as much as they do for the same plan to a company across the street.

However, there are other ideas. And they don't have to come from the Democrats. I truly wish the GOP would actually start listening to the smart conservatives in their party and actually use some of the intelligent - not ideological - Republicans and conservatives to present an actual plan for health care reform. Not an idea or a theory or a ideology or a tweak. But an actual plan.

Like this one from conservative Harvard economist Martin Feldstein:

The simplest solution would be for the government to issue a health-care credit card to every family along with the insurance voucher. The credit card would allow the family to charge any medical expenses below the deductible limit, or 15 percent of adjusted gross income. (With its information on card holders, the government is in a good position to be repaid or garnish wages if necessary.) No one would be required to use such a credit card. Individuals could pay cash at the time of care, could use a personal credit card or could arrange credit directly from the provider. But the government-issued credit card would be a back-up to reassure patients and providers that they would always be able to pay.

The combination of the 15 percent of income cap on out-of-pocket health spending and the credit card would solve the three basic problems of America's health-care system. Today's 45 million uninsured would all have coverage. The risk of bankruptcy triggered by large medical bills would be eliminated. And the structure of insurance would no longer be the source of rising health-care costs. All of this would happen without involving the government in the delivery or rationing of health care. It would not increase the national debt or require a rise in tax rates. Now isn't that a better way?

That is market reform that would work, and it would actually accomplish the goal of many conservatives which is to encourage people to understand what their health care actually costs because they are paying for it - not $5 premiums for a high quality plan picked up by the wealthier companies and people in the country.

It's a thought. Any Republicans out there smart enough to run with this?

Brooks Gets Conservatism Right

There are few people in political commentary who get it as right, and say it as well, as David Brooks of the New York Times. Though he is often chastised by the neo-conservative-right-wing-noise machine who have called him a closet liberal or "conservative-light," Brooks, instead, represents that calm, rational, and rather engaging voice of conservatism that I regularly call for. He is, in many ways, the last hope we have after the loss of William Buckley and William Safire, though many, including Brooks, would argue he doesn't have quite their monolithic voice in the conservative crowd. Regardless, he is always a pleasure to read, and his insight is well represented in his piece today, introducing two views of the future, represented by Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume.

I’ve introduced you to my friends Mr. Bentham and Mr. Hume because they represent the choices we face on issue after issue. This country is about to have a big debate on the role of government. The polarizers on cable TV think it’s going to be a debate between socialism and free-market purism. But it’s really going to be a debate about how to promote innovation.

The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. (I’ve taken his proposals from the Waxman-Markey energy bill and the Baucus health care bill.)

The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.

So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.


Brooks is just so damn smart that his allusions are often lost on many. But he is drawing from classic enlightenment history with astute nods to Jeremy Bentham and David Hume. It is these historical allusions that make his commentary so rich, but it is also what leads neo-conservatives to criticize him. For the reality is Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly don't really understand Brooks or his allusions, and by association don't really understand conservatism.


David Brooks calls himself a Burkean conservative, and it is a definition and a pragmatic ideology I support. Sadly, most in the Republican Party don't really - and here's the irony because they use this charge so much - don't really understand their history. They don't understand the nature of their ideology and how to apply it to a changing world. Instead they rely on soundbites that simply become a rant about "low taxes" and "limited government." Yet, they don't understand how to take those ideas and actually "govern." Brooks, to his credit, tries to explain how the GOP needs to move beyond the "government is the enemy" idea of the Buckley and Reagan eras. For, while Reagan was absolutely right about marginal tax rates when they were 80%, his argument doesn't apply when they are 36%. Neo-conservatives don't get that, and they have never been able to reconcile their ideas with the social conservatives and the Religious Right. It makes for a mess of a message and a mess of a party.

One man who knows this - though sadly forgot it for about six months when his party needed him most - is John McCain. McCain had built an entire - and rather impressive - career on similar Burkean philosophy. This was effectively profiled in The Atlantic. Sadly, I think, few conservatives read that, and the noise machine couldn't understand it, so they dissed that type of thinking.

But there is hope. Brooks makes that clear. But you have to read it and you have to "get" it for that hope to have any chance.

Yes, we can. [sic]

Zakaria on Iran's Non-Threat

There are few people in the news industry I respect more to speak about the Middle East than Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. And, generally, his views and perspective are pretty well received by people from both political parties. Thus, I hope his recent piece for Newsweek, "Containing a Nuclear Iran," is read and discussed, rationally and intelligently, by the powers that be. Some interesting points:

At the same time, we must stop exaggerating the Iranian threat. By hyping it, we only provide Iran with "free power," in Leslie Gelb's apt phrase. This is an insecure Third World country with a GDP that is one 40th the size of America's, a dysfunctional economy, a divided political class, and a government facing mass unrest at home. It has alienated most of its neighboring states and cuts a sorry figure on the world stage, with an international embarrassment for a president. Its forays in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza have had mixed results, with the locals often growing weary of the Iranian thugs who try to control them.

The country does not yet have even one nuclear weapon, and if and when it gets one—something that is far from certain—the world will not end. The Middle East has been home to nuclear weapons for decades. If Israel's estimated -arsenal of 200 warheads, including a "second-strike capacity," has not prompted Egypt to develop its own nukes, it's not clear that one Iranian bomb would do so. (Recall that Egypt has fought and lost three wars against Israel, so it should be far more concerned about an Israeli bomb than an Iranian one.) More crucially, Israel's massive nuclear force will deter Iran from ever contemplating using or giving away its own (hypothetical) weapon. Deterrence worked with madmen like Mao, and with thugs like Stalin, and it will work with the calculating autocrats of Tehran. The Iranian regime has amply demonstrated over the past four months that it is interested in hanging on to power at all costs, jailing mullahs and ignoring its own clerical elite. These are not the actions of religious rulers about to commit mass suicide.

We should not fear to negotiate with these rulers.

Clearly, there will be many screeching voices from the right wing noise machine who oppose this "appeasement" and will liken it to Chamberlain and Hitler. But those voices have no real credibility in the foreign policy world, and they earn money by hyping fears and criticizing everything. By contrast, I have heard and seen support for Zakaria's view by people such as Pat Buchanan, Henry Kissinger, and Charles Krauthammer. In fact, as far back as the Bush administration, Krauthammer offered the rational conclusion that if Iran wants the bomb, they will get it. But they can and will be persuaded not to use it. For, they don't want to become a parking lot, as much as some like to paint them a national of suicidal maniacs. That's no more true than it is in Pakistan or Korea.

Thus, perhaps, as Iran slowly moves out from under its theocratic control - hints of which were revealed in the last election - the world will control its more unsavory elements without making it worse.

The Problems of "Info-tainment"

Though I used to watch a fair amount of "talk television" in the realm of of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I now avoid the white noise of talk television because I discern, beyond the ranting, that the goal is not to inform, but simply spark suspicion and even anger, for the simple purpose of ratings and revenue. However, that does not mean I an uninformed. I read more news than ever before. But I avoid the idiot box more and more. For, nothing new or insightful is offered on these shows. They simply "comment" on the news, and generally it's more inflammatory than anything else.

Lately the focus on Glenn Beck has challenged the "edginess" of these shows, arguing Beck does his job in a far more insidious manner than the others, or than he used to in his original show and first two books, which I read and actually enjoyed. That criticism is the focus of a piece of print commentary (generally more rational and not built on soundbites) that came from Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News. While Dreher is more critical of Beck than some others - and while he in my opinion goes on a bit of a tangent - there is much to consider about the increasingly dangerous world of (mainly) Fox News commentary.

From ridiculous charges of FEMA concentration camps to charges of Manchurian candidates to shameless accusations of subversive muslim congressman to a million people at the tea party in D.C. cited by a "university" that Beck "couldn't remember the name of to a "deep seated hatred of white people that one was a minute before Beck said "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people" to Vancouver losing billion dollars on an Olympics they hadn't held yet, Beck has fallen so far off the road of rational thought, that his anti-government fearmongering has actually become dangerous. And I would argue that I used to listen to Beck and agreed with much of his points. I've read all his books, and until his last one, had little criticism. However, his current arc is what leads Dreher to wonder where the William Buckleys of the conservative party are.

Well, they might be in South Carolina. At least that might be inferred from the recent statements - and consistent rational pragmatic conservatism - of Senator Lindsay Graham. From his evenhanded and just criticism (but ultimate vote for) Justice Sotomayor to his denouncement of craziness and cynicism in the conservative media, Graham is one of the few Republicans left that I could - and would - vote for on a national level. He might just be stepping up, in a Buckley-esque way to defeat the madness and extremism that has taken the microphone of his party.

This hope is, incidentally, supported in the New York Times today by one conservative voice I can trust and support, David Brooks. Brooks reminds us that, for the most part, the crazy voices of the conservative media aren't all that influential, as they'd like us to believe. While 15 million or so viewers and listeners will follow these guys each day, that doesn't turn into a reliable voting bloc for their far right, neo-conservative agenda. Instead, pragmatism still rules at the voting booth.

Or at least I'd like to hope.

Summer Vacation at Risk Based on a Myth

It seems like every time Education Secretary Arne Duncan opens his mouth about reform of public education, he perpetuates myths and offers reforms based on those myths that I find very frustrating. For in the news today, President Obama and Duncan are both continuing with the argument that the American school day and week and year are too short. This is based on the erroneous idea that Asian and European kids who beat American kids on international tests spend more time in school. The Education Secretary again showed his ignorance of the history of public education when he said, "Our school calendar is based on the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working in the fields today." This is, of course, fundamentally not true.

First of all, up until the late nineteenth century, the school year, especially in the cities, was actually all year long. This was driven by the desire to have the kids in school so their parents could work, especially in factories. In rural areas, kids were given release time in the spring and fall for planting and harvesting - not "summer vacation" to work in the fields. The "agrarian model" explanation is a myth, and up-to-date education researchers have known this for years. The school calendar was not set so kids could help on the farm. Most of the work on a farm is done during spring and fall - planting and harvesting. Clearly, that is when the kids were most needed. The summer vacation schedule was set to appeal to middle and upper class families (the ones who actually went beyond sixth grade) because these families wanted to get out of the hot, crowded cities (and classrooms) during the summer months, especially before the days of air conditioning.

The "myth of summer vacation" has been well-documented over the years, though misperception persists. Perhaps the most informative analysis of the history comes from a really good read by Kenneth Gold, entitled School's In: The History of Summer Vacation in American Public Schools.

While there are arguments for longer school, the agrarian model is not one of them. Additionally, the longer school day has shown a definitive impact in struggling, urban populations, but suburban middle and upper class populations have never shown the "summer loss," and they are well-served by a myriad of summer activities that enhance and add to their education as well-rounded citizens in ways that more classroom time drilling for standardized tests doesn't. If we are going to have effective discussion about education reform, we need to dispense with the perpetuation of myths by the misinformed. Additionally, the article I linked to noted that the belief that others countries' students spend more time in school is also not true:

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school. Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

As I noted after watching the movie Two Million Minutes, critics have argued that by the time they graduate from high school, Chinese and Indian students will have spent twice as much time in school as American students. But that leads to the following questions:

Are their economies twice as large or powerful? Are their buildings and bridges twice as strong? Are their doctors and scientists twice as effective and efficient and innovative? Are their products twice as durable? Are their workers twice as productive?

The answer is, of course, no.

Arne Duncan and President Obama need to do a little more research before they start speaking of reform in education. Clearly, there is evidence that a longer school day, week, and year is helpful for struggling populations. However, my high school has a 90% school-wide pass rate on AP exams in nearly all subjects, and we have more honors classes than regular levels. And we do it with the current schedule.

If anything, our students can get through K-12 effectively in less time, not more.

Dual-Credit is Key In Education Reform

As I've noted on several occasions, there is much inefficiency in the way we direct our students to bachelor degrees. Problematically, half the students who go on to a four-year college don't finish, and many people seeking careers that need an associate's degree end up going for a bachelor's. Additionally, we have established twelve years as being the standard for being ready for college, when that number is arbitrary at best, and completely overestimated for the top thirty percent in the country. Additionally, the rise of AP and IB could alleviate some of the waste in time and money for college classes, yet many colleges are now reducing the credit for those programs.

However, there is a growing trend in dual-credit courses where students can take core classes in high school, that if taught by a qualified teacher with appropriate rigor, can also count for college credit in associate degree programs. This concept is long overdue, and the Denver Post spotlights it in an article today about students who are moving more efficiently through the k-16 labyrinth. The story discusses several students who pursue college courses in high school. Notably there is Lauren Goh:

Goh, 18, fit the profile of the high achiever who was the traditional target of concurrent enrollment. For two years, she took most of her classes at Red Rocks Community College instead of Golden High — where she still was elected student body president.

"High school is definitely a unique experience, but I'd had enough of it," Goh said. "At Red Rocks, there were people in their 60s I'd make friends with, from all walks of life. That was the appeal to me."

She earned her high school diploma and associate degree on the same day. Eventually, she faced a choice: Transfer her credits and begin as a junior at any number of schools, or enroll at Harvard for four year.

A high school diploma and an associate's degree on the same day. I know so many students for whom this should apply, as I regularly tell my AP Lang juniors at the end of the year that they "are ready for college." Sadly, the AP system is arbitrary, and many schools won't give them credit and will make them re-take classes for which they are already qualified. This is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

Dual-credit, also called concurrent enrollment, is precisely the type of reform that can alleviate the logjam of public education, and ease many of the funding problems in schools. We can get kids out of school and on with their lives in a much more efficient and effective manner.

Kurt Anderson and America's Reset

As Jesus Jones noted in their hit song "Right Here, Right Now," we are in the midst of "watching the world wake up from history." While the pop hit from the early 90s focused on the fall of communism in eastern Europe, Kurt Anderson's "Reset" is a calm, reflective meditation on the end of the bubble economy/bubble society that began in the 1980s and has finally and resoundingly ended after a near decimating crash. While Anderson is not big on specifics in terms of what the end of the party will bring, he is hopeful that America, and the world, will be moving into a more rational, pragmatic world view on issues of health, wealth, and well being.

As far as a predictor of trends and guru of solutions, the books of Matt Miller are more detailed and prescient. But Anderson's book is a nice short meditation, strong on hope and belief in American's ability to respond to the current crisis and be the better for it. Granted, Anderson's book was written and published during Obama's honeymoon period - and notably prior to the rage of the town hall meetings and the audacity of Joe Wilson's "You lie." However, knowing the generally moderate views of middle America, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Anderson's insight and hope for a more rational and simplified future in America society is on the horizon.

As we decrease our "lottery-winner" expectations of an early retirement in our McMansion based on our unrealistic mutual fund projections, Americans may begin to downsize their purchases and simplify their lives. More rational plans for education reform and immigration reform and health care and finance and materialism could potentially lead to a calmer, happier society.

The book is a nice, easy read - big on hope and brevity. A nice reflection.

Carter Finally Gets It

If John Hughes had ever written a young-adult novel, it would have been Carter Finally Gets It. This hysterically entertaining, and pleasantly insightful, debut from author Brent Crawford is one of the best YA novels I have read in years. In fact, there are few books that better capture the voice of a boy during his freshman year of high school, especially one with ADD, an occasional stutter, an overbearingly popular sister, and his "boys." These characteristics and characters are the main vehicles of Carter's conflicts as he navigates the trials of adolescence - football, girls, parties, girls, competition, girls, homework, girls, and, well, girls.

Carter tells his own story in a voice that is as honest as it is hilarious. The frustration that comes from the pressures of school and social situations moving just a bit too fast for an eternally distracted mind is always entertaining, and at times rather poignant. Carter can't seem to get a handle on his social or athletic or academic responsibilities, and at times he simply helplessly admits I've been in high school almost a month, and it's nothing like I thought it would be .... I want to feel comfortable ... I want people to think about me as much as I think about them, and I worry I'll always feel this way. Like I did on the first day of kindergarten. That sort of honesty is so refreshing, and it's nice to see in a character like Carter who isn't simply a stereotype of a dorky freshman. In fact, Carter is a popular, athletic kid who struggles with schools and the social expectations of an increasingly fast adolescent world. Carter is an Everyman, for whom many high school students will be able to relate.

This is the kind of book that I wish every adolescent girl would read - it might do a lot help them understand the adolescent boys that frustrate them so. Like so many of the movies from the classic young adult raconteur John Hughes, this book presents a fun, funny, and truly honest portrait of adolescence, in all its manic glory.

I highly recommend this book.

Civility and Decorum

Here's a thought:

Perhaps Joe Wilson, Kanye West, and Serena Williams could all get together for an idiot party.

We all make mistakes ... and we all should be roundly chastised for acting infantile in our adult years. Hubris is a terrible thing.

Words of Wisdom

During the course of the school year, I read a lot of selections to my students from various books by Robert Fulghum, author of All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Generally, we will write about them, and occasionally these short pieces generate some nice personal essays. One of my favorites comes from Fulghum's time studying Zen buddhism in a Japanese monastery. Upon Fulghum's leaving, the zen master reads to him the following proverb:

There is really nothing you must be,

And there is nothing you must do.

There is really nothing you must have,

And there is nothing you must know.

There is really nothing you must become.

However, it helps to know that fire burns,

and, when it rains, the earth gets wet.

This sort of sentiment and insight is especially important for teenagers during these years of the search for identity and autonomy. Hopefully, as the country seeks its identity, the course of the future will be influenced by such level-headed wisdom.

Corporations are People, Too?

In a sad development for the roots of democratic republics - and a backdoor victory for oligarchy - the The Supreme Court's conservative bloc sounded poised Wednesday to decide, on free-speech grounds, to end the ban on corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the presidency. The "ironic" issue of money as "free" speech has always troubled me, though I understand the reasoning behind it. Of course, it wasn't nearly the problem thirty and eighty years ago before the rise of television, especially cable. Now we have trillions behind spent to promote agendas, and the concept of truth in politics and ideology becomes even more bent.

This development - corporations being freed to use their resources to specifically influence individual political races - is a nail in the coffin to any hope of campaign finance reform. Perhaps the most disturbing concept is the idea that "Corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment," said Olson, who represented Citizens United. This is an absolute affront to the rights of the individual and democratic republics. A corporation is NOT a person, and that was not the intention of the First Amendment. If individual members of a corporation want to exercise free speech, I support it. If the corporation wants the same right to use its massive funds to override representative voices of individuals, that's a move toward oligarchy.

Thom Hartmann - and I know he's very liberal - first brought this to my attention in his critical book What Would Jefferson Do. Issues like these really do bring Supreme Court appointments into prominence. While I was bothered by the Courts ruling on private property last year, I am equally, if not more, bothered by this one.

Great Book Choice

I'd like applaud Denver for choosing a truly remarkable book, a verifiable classic, To Kill a Mockingbird as its latest choice in its annual One Book, One Denver program. Unlike past years, when the mayor, or a group, chose the book, this year the book was voted the winner by popular demand.

I teach this classic "coming-of-age" novel each year in my freshman English classes, and I often introduce it as "nearly the perfect book." While there is no book that I would say is "sacred" in education and that every American student has to read, this is one that I would put on the list of "If-you-only-read-one-book-read-this-one." The allegorical nature of the work, and it's deeply thoughtful look inside the issue of prejudice and the essential nature of man is awe-inspiring.

I am fascinated by the way Lee weaves such an intricate tale of mystery and social criticism, in which the reader joins Scout in peeling away layers of prejudice she never knew existed in her hometown and her own heart.

A truly masterful and heartwarming work. Great choice, Denver!

A Separate Peace

Some insight from the end of John Knowles quintessential coming-of-age novel, A Separate Peace:

Because it seemed clear that wars were not made by generations and their special stupidities, but that wars were made instead by something ignorant in the human heart ....

All of them, all except Phineas, constructed at infinite cost to themselves these Maginot Lines against this enemy they thought they saw across the frontier, this enemy who never attacked that way - if he ever attacked at all; if he was indeed the enemy.

Clarity and the Joy of Living

Don't know what made me pick it up, but I am really enjoying The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret of Science and Happiness by Tibetan monk Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche. An interesting thought for the day from a section on clarity:

As this [clarity] begins to happen, the sense of difference between "self" and "other" gives way to a gentler and more fluid sense of identification with other beings and the world around us. And it's through this sense of identification that we start to recognize that the world may not be such a scary place after all: that enemies aren't enemies but people like ourselves, longing for happiness and seeking it the best way they know how, and that everyone possesses the insight, wisdom, and the understanding to see past apparent differences and discover solutions that benefit not just ourselves but everyone around us.

If you agree, or find this insightful, be sure to pass it on.