Stephen Brill & Time Expose the Corrupt Cost of Health Care

The real health care questions are or should be: 

Why are the bills so high? What are the reasons, good or bad, that cancer means a half-million or million dollar tab? Why does a trip to the emergency room for chest pains that are only indigestion end up costing as much as a semester of college? What makes a single dose of even the most wonderful wonder drug cost thousands of dollars? Why does routine lab work done at a hospital by a salaried employee cost more than a car? Why do hospitals charge $70 for a box of gauze pads when they’re on Amazon for a couple bucks? And, what is so different about medical systems that cause advances in technology to drive bills up instead of down?

In the longest investigative report Time Magazine has ever published, writer Stephen Brill has exposed the dark side of medical billing and asked the most important question - why are the bills so high?  You won't like the answer, though unless you've navigated the health care and insurance world outside of the protection of group coverage, you likely have no idea what the "costs" of health care are.

School Wide Literacy Makes a Difference

In addressing the idea of school wide literacy - especially amidst the discussion of Common Core's recommendations on informational text - there are few schools more appropriate to spotlight than the success of Brockton High School in Massachusetts.

Watch An integrated approach to literacy on PBS. See more from Need To Know.

"Read Option" & the Common Core's Informational Text Issue

**The following is reprinted from publication in the Denver Post.

Since Tim Tebow's departure, the "read-option" hasn't been at issue in Denver. However, it's set to rise again, this time in Colorado's classrooms.

With recent news about Common Core standards, change is coming to schools, and reading is no longer "an option." Strangely, this isn't without controversy. Common Core's recommendation on informational texts has created a brouhaha. The Washington Post even declared the end of literature in schools after Common Core "mandated" 70 percent of student reading should be informational texts. Teachers now fret about exchanging "The Great Gatsby" for instructional manuals.

But that's simply not true. Most troublesome is that critics can't even "read" the standards. Common Core hasn't mandated that 70 percent of reading in English classes is non-fiction. It recommended teaching non-fiction beginning at the elementary level and increasing until 70 percent of high school reading is non-fiction.

This makes sense because English classes account for one-fifth of high school schedules. Thus, 80 percent of a student's daily load is not literature, but it should include reading. Students in math, science, social studies, health and arts classes should read informational texts. English classes are where literature remains the content. The challenge is for content-area teachers to realize that the "critical thinking" they allegedly teach now means "critical thinking" about "informational text."

Committing to literacy can literally turn around schools. It's not enough to simply focus on proficiency by third grade as Colorado's READ Act stipulates. Literacy needs cultivation at all levels. Tom Fair, an English teacher at Cherry Creek High School, asserts "we have long under-served non-fiction at the high school level."All content teachers assert critical thinking is one of the primary skills they develop. Of course, literacy instruction is simply teaching kids to "think critically" about a text. Thus, if we're going to have education reform, it has to start with reading.

The average low-income child enters kindergarten knowing as many as 5,000 fewer words than middle- and upper-income children. A child who finishes fourth grade not reading at grade level will never catch up with his peers. According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), 44 percent of high school students are "dys-fluent" in reading grade-level, familiar text. They are not illiterate, but they can't truly read. They are "fake readers." Their eyes skim the words, but they don't truly comprehend them.

School reform will never succeed until all reformers and teachers accept literacy as the fundamental skill in accessing information. With Common Core assessing literacy in social studies and science, literacy must finally be unbound from the English classroom. For years, content-area literacy has been part of the ACT, though few paid attention. ACT reading tests have always had sections on social studies and science. Students read dense content-area passages and answers questions in limited time. Without regular literacy instruction in this content, students stand little chance of success. 

Reading is a learning skill, not an English skill. If a student is only getting one hour of literacy instruction, he will never truly become educated.  Teachers from kindergarten to graduate school need to stop assigning reading and start teaching it instead. If the new Common Core standards on literacy promote this, students will benefit.

Problems with Emphasizing College Degrees

"Too many people are going to college," noted Charles Murray in his book Real Education.  Yet, the persistence continues with teachers, counselors, principals, parents, politicians, and billionaire philanthropists promoting a college degree as the path to riches and happiness, as well as the cure to all that ills society.  I wrote about this in an article for the Post a couple years ago after Bill Gates set as a goal "by 2025, 80% of students would earn a four-year bachelor's degree."  What a "brilliant" [sic] idea.  But only if Microsoft is going to hire all these overeducated, over-credentialed people.

Considering only 29% of Americans currently have a bachelor degree, and many are seeking work, and the nation has four million unfilled jobs in skilled labor, the proposal for 80% earning a degree - amassing the spending and debt associated with that - is patently absurd.  For a successful businessman to make such a claim, I truly question his knowledge of society, economics, and the future.  And, herein  is the problem for students and families as they consider options and the logic of pursuing a degree.  With this in mind Jeff Selingo asks in an article for The Chronicle "Are Career-Oriented Majors a Waste of Time?"

Most of the evidence from the workplace seems to imply that the current focus on degrees for all is an incredible waste of time and money.  While Selingo claims not to be in the "don't-go-to-college" crowd of people like Charles Murray, perhaps more of us in education should be.  Certainly, there is nothing wrong with higher education, and in a perfect world the well-paid mechanic could wax philosophic about Socrates and Shakespeare while helping his son with his calculus homework at the same that a neurosurgeon could fix a nice meal as well as teach his daughter how to change the O-ring on the toilet.  However, certain practical questions lead us to avoid shooting for these utopian visions and instead focus on what real progress we can make in the education and employment world.

Too many students are pursuing higher (and expensive) education on the belief that they will "get a better job."  Yet, there is not only no guarantee of that, but far too many will end up working in jobs (saddled with student loan debt) that never required a degree - or at least didn't in the past.  The number of jobs that didn't - or shouldn't - require a degree is shrinking, and that's not good for anyone.  For, there is no reason that the upper levels of high school or career training can't provide adequate skill and knowledge for many jobs - especially clerking and service-oriented work.

Granted, "Saying no to college" is not an admirable solution if the system itself won't change.  Sadly, if employers continue to use the college degree as a screening device - even for jobs such as a bank teller - then America is going to face a serious crisis in its ability to fund all this education.  Meanwhile, electricians can continue to make $50K a year, and millions of jobs in skilled labor go unfilled.

Valuing Work via Technical Schools

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

What's the Big Idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Oscars of Teaching" & the Milken Foundation

Great things are happening in America's classrooms.

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

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

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

Check out the following video of the ceremony:

Living Healthy Is Good For the Country

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

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

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

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

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

Colleges Deny AP Credit for No Good Reason

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

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

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

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

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

Gatorade Removes Disgusting Ingredient - Still Unhealthy

Gatorade is not a "healthy drink."

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

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

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

Maybe Milk Prices Should Go Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Lewis' Character & Wes Welker's Wife

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Inaugural by Newt Gingrich & David Brooks

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

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

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

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

Gun Control - Regulating Hairspray But Not Guns & Bullets

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

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

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

And, that's just crazy.

Glenn Beck Plans Hippy-Dippy Utopia

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

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

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

Arming School Janitors is a Terribly Foolish Idea

The aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting and the ensuing national debate has generated all sorts of discussion regarding school safety and the presence of guns in American society - some veering into the downright scary and crazy.  One of the worst approaches to this dilemma is to promote the increased arming of Americans.  The nation already has 300 million guns floating around - there is no shortage of guns, and their prominence has not decreased violence or made anyone safer.  However, crisis situations can lead to irrational emotional responses, and that is precisely what has happened in one school district in Ohio.  As reported by the Huffington Post, Montpelier School District in Ohio Begins Plan to Arm Janitors, Pay for their Training.

Arming janitors or teachers or administrators as a way of increasing safety in schools is a terribly irresponsible idea that is based on no data.  For this reason, police departments across the nation oppose the idea of increased citizen gun ownership.  The reality is that an average citizen can not be adequately trained to handle what is, in effect, a near militaristic situation.  Being able to handle a violent situation with the control and precision of a police officer requires years of regular and consistent training.  To argue that a "janitor" who has been "trained" will be able to effectively take down a shooter intent on killing people in a school is to ignore a vast lack of data.  Additionally, the idea of a gun being consistently present in the hallways of schools and possessed by an individual whose expertise is building maintenance is not only reckless, but dismissive of the professionalism we require of police officers.

On the other side of the debate is the proposal by the Obama Administration to fund more armed police officers in schools.  The School Resource Officer (SRO) program is the appropriate - and only rational - response to increased safety and security at our nation's 150,000 schools.  In the two high schools where I've worked - large suburban schools - the presence of SROs is not disruptive and can be a important part of the school community.  SROs are not - or shouldn't be - the average street police.  They are trained to engage and build relationships with young people, connections built on trust.  At the same time, they are trained professionals whose entire raison d'être is to "protect and serve."  The programs may be expensive, even to the tune of $50 - $100 million a year.  But, if Americans determine they want armed people in schools, the cost is worth it, and it is the only rational and acceptable option.

Mike Shanahan's Tragic Mistake with RGIII

Since being fired from the Denver Broncos, football coach Mike Shanahan has been desperate to prove that he truly is "The Mastermind" and that he can win Super Bowl championships without numerous Hall of Famers on his team.  Apparently, that desperation reached "the breaking point" this past weekend when his decision to leave hobbled NFL rookie sensation RGIII in the playoff game resulted in RGII's heart-wrenching fall while trying to recover a snap and the tearing of his LCL.  Now, with the star quarterback potentially lost for all of next season, the backlash has begun.

While much of the commentary has been delivered by sportswriters - and disheartened Redskins fans - political writer Maureen Dowd delivered a scathing indictment of Shanahan's dangerous hubris.  Dowd and others are calling out Shanahan for not making the obvious call earlier in the game to pull Griffin who was clearly struggling and not able to play to anything close to his potential.  Clearly, this particularly troubling injury has gotten under everyone's skin for two reasons - RGIII is simply so electrifying to watch and this injury resulted from such negligent stupidity.  Would Mike Shanahan really risk the health of his franchise player (who he sold the team farm to get) just to win a playoff game?  In a sense, yes.

Obviously, Mike Shanahan did not play RGIII in the game or leave him in when he knew he was injured with the intention of ruining the young star's career.  However, coach Shanahan was clearly so blinded by his desire to win that he lacked the good sense to pull the kid.  Even former Shanny prodigy Jay Cutler had the sense to pull himself from a playoff game last year when he couldn't plant his back leg - and that didn't even require surgery.  But Shanahan let a 22-year-old amped up rookie playing in the biggest game of his life make the decision to head back on the field without doctors so much as talking to him.  And that is a serious deficit of leadership.  That is not a masterful mind.

With the injury to RGIII and the implosion of Washington's gridiron hopes, The Mastermind is no more ... if he ever was one.

Mint the $1 Trillion Coin - Save the Economy

Maybe you've heard the latest wisdom to save America from its debt crisis - "just print money."

In this case, however, it's not a common mistake made by countries like Mexico or Zimbabwe that have led to hyperinflation and nearly worthless currency.  It's a theory based on a 1996 law that allows the Treasury Department to print coins of "any denomination" to be deposited in the Federal Reserve for payment of debts incurred.  It has gained steam in recent days and now it's getting some mainstream press on NBC.   Basically, the Treasury would mint a single coin of platinum worth $1 trillion to cover the country's ability to pay its bills.

The issue might seem patently absurd, unethical, illegal, or even unconstitutional.  However, it was given credibility in recent days as Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman somewhat endorsed the idea to avoid the debt ceiling fight with Republicans.  And, strangely, a Republican congressman actually gave the issue more clout by introducing a bill to prevent the Treasury Department from doing it.  If Congress has to pass a law to stop it, it must be currently "legal," right?  Well, that might be one for the courts to sort out later.

Theoretically, the Executive Branch could do this if the Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling to pay off debts already incurred.  The printing of the $1 trillion platinum coin does not allocate any new spending, and obviously a $1 trillion coin wouldn't be put into circulation.  Thus, it is no risk for inflation, and it doesn't violate the Constitutional constraints on the authority to borrow and spend money.  Fascinating little trick that I haven't actually heard a strong argument against.  A $1 trillion coin.  Hmmm.

This could get interesting.

How to Teach Boys

It's no surprise to anyone paying attention to educational trends that society has shifted from girls and women being excluded from schooling to boys and men excluding themselves from school.  As schools struggle to close achievement gaps, the largest gaps are not actually racial but gender-based.  In fact, the data in many schools reveals low achievement among Latino students when the latinas are actually doing well, but the boys' achievement has practically bottomed out.  Girls simply seem to be getting it, while boys seem to be giving up.  No longer do we have a society where girls are ignored in math and science classes and shuffled toward teacher colleges - instead, young women account for a majority of students applying to colleges.  And from an economic sense, this disparity will only get worse as jobs for uneducated laborers continue to decline.

Motivational speaker and consultant Kelly King offers insight and analysis on How to Create a Boy Friendly School published in EdWeek.  There are plenty of excuses and explanations for why boys are struggling, including the design of school which is not boy oriented.  Regardless, the boys are there in need of education, struggling with motivation and literacy, and in need of help.  Boys can be engaged in learning, King writes, because it is their energy and enthusiasm that we love which also is the source of their struggles.  Certainly, boys can be more physical and require more tangible tasks.  Thus, it is the challenge of the teacher to address those needs and teach to those strengths.  That said, however, schools must not fall prey to dumbing down expectations or ignoring those skills that are required by an increasingly complex world.

In working with adolescent boys and seeking to develop lessons and curriculum that will engage them, there are numerous works which offer models of success.  Some of my favorites are:

Why Gender Matters - Dr. Leonard Sax

Reading Don Fix No Chevys - Jeffery Wilhelm and Michael Smith

Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men  - Sax

Going with the Flow - Wilhelm and Smith

I Read It But I Don't Get It - Cris Tovani

Raising Boys - Stephen Biddulph

Raising Cain - Dan Kindlon

Best Inspirational Business Books on Life

Americans are big fans of those simple bits of advice that "just make sense" and "cut through all the crap" to explain "what you really need to know" in order to "succeed in business and in life."  From the earliest days of the republic when Founding Father and fountain of wisdom Benjamin Franklin offered his Poor Richards's Almanac filled with aphorisms, Americans have literally eaten up the sort of books that offer the aphorisms and advice that will enable them to, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, "live the life they have imagined."  That said, I have taken a look at the business books that have really rung true in the advice they offer.  As an English teacher, I read a lot of books, and I recommend a book a day to my students.  Thus, I am always looking for those books that seem to sum up the lessons that are generally the same and that point people in the direction they need to go.  The book that inspired this post is one  by Daniel Pink - an "Ideas Guru" - who has written for the Washington Post before developing a series of business-oriented lifestyle books.  That book was:

The Adventures of Johnny Bunko: The Last Career Advice Guide You'll Every Need.

This "business book" is written in the form of a Manga comic book, which appeals to younger readers in a multi-genre sort of way.

Other great books that simplify and really clarify the business and life experience are:

The One Minute Manager

Who Moved My Cheese

How to Win Friends and Influence People

A Whole New Mind

These are great, accessible books that you should read if you are interested in becoming better at what you do.

Great Advice for E-book Writers

Like many aspiring novelists and writers who are seeking to take advantage of new opportunities in e-book publishing, I have been overwhelmed with all the possibilities.  And I've also been challenged by trying to navigate the technologies of ebook publishing.  For example, some ebooks are simply presented on websites as a pdf. file, but that is not the format to be used if a writer wants to sell books for use with an Amazon Kindle or a Barnes and Nobel Nook or an Apple iPad.  The Kindle Direct Publishing format was a pretty simple and accessible way to start, and I also discovered SmashWords which offered the platform to publish for numerous markets from Amazon to Apple.  However, the style and presentation expectations are different than preparing a text for a print publisher, and there is often much conflicting information on "how to format your ebook."

That's where Catherine Ryan Howard - aka - Catherine Caffeinated - is quite helpful.

Catherine's website is devoted to the craft of self-publishing, and Catherine is committed to sharing her knowledge of the industry.  In the world of e-book publishing Catherine seems to have tried it all, and she has numerous posts about all the different avenues.  For example, if you have questions on formatting or the business side of ebook publishing, Catherine has a page of links to all these issues.  I had uploaded my ebook to Smashwords, but I was delayed in getting it accepted to the Premium program because of formatting.  I couldn't completely remove the tabs or text boxes, and my ebook cover did not meet standards.  The tab problems resulted from me trying to adapt a traditional manuscript - because I wasn't going to retype 90,000 words.  Trying to understand Smashwords style guide was overwhelming, and I couldn't quite figure out the "nuclear option."  However, following methodically through Catherine's post solved all my problems.  This post by Catherine is the single most valuable ebook publishing post I've found so far.

I am really thankful that people like Catherine have put together blogs sharing their knowledge.  If you are struggling with how to publish your novel as an ebook, check out Catherine's blog.  And, of course, if you want to compensate her for all the help, you might consider buying one of her books.

Tax America's Junk Food Addiction

"But it tastes good."

If I had a dollar for every time I heard this lame excuse, or justification, for why some chooses to eat fast food, I'd be a very rich man.  And, I'd still be a lot healthier than the average American.  No one really thinks fast food is good food, and no one argues for its health benefits.  Few people would even assert that the poor quality of fast and heavily processed food is not a significant health concern.  Everyone knows it is.  Regardless, Americans are loathe to give up or concede to stiffer regulation to one of the most obvious contributors to the obesity and health crisis in the United States.  Too many Americans are simply careless when it comes to what sort of "food" they will regularly put into their bodies.

Americans, still, are conflicted over what to do about rising obesity rates and its clear link to fast food and processed food consumption.  Recent polls suggest that Americans actually want the government to do something about the country's obesity problem.  However, in their traditions of being clueless and hypocritical about what they want and what they think government should do, Americans also oppose any attempts by the government to regulate food or encourage healthier choices.  In reality, an individual has a right to eat whatever he chooses.  That said, with the American government responsible for the health care costs of millions of people on Medicare, the taxpayers do have a legitimate financial interest in improving Americans' eating habits.  Additionally, in the private health care system, healthier people end up paying the price for unhealthier ones.  And, taxing behavior to discourage excessive use is a legitimate and time tested way of modifying behavior - it clearly worked to lower smoking rates.  So, for all but the seriously irrational and ideological, taxes on diet vices should be considered a legitimate public health response.

The negative impact of eating fast food is most obviously because "there's no food in fast food."  Of course, it's not like anyone really believes fast food is good quality.  They are simply willing to feed themselves really crappy "food products."  And that is America's biggest problem - we have very low standards and don't treat ourselves very well.  Seriously, why would someone be willing to eat from the "dollar menu" - unless, of course, he really only values himself that much.  The problem is that in a complex health care system that leverages and dilutes risk through a large pool, one person's poor habits negatively impact the quality of life and cost of health care for others who actually "care" about their "health."  In other words, someone else's poor habits literally raise my health care rates.  So, yes, it is my business.

Until people care about their health, America will suffer from a health care crisis.  And eating fast food is quite simply careless.

No Vote for Barry Bonds - and Steroids Users - in Hall of Fame

Call me a purist and a holier-than-thou elitist, but I firmly oppose the inclusion of Barry Bonds and other steroid users in baseball's Hall of Fame.  As the voting ballots go out this week, and the debate over Barry Bonds' and Roger Clemens' worthiness of Hall of Fame entry goes into high gear, I stand resolute that sportswriters should "Just Say NO" to performance-enhancing drug use by professional athletes.  This week Denver Post sportswriter Troy E. Renck insightfully and succinctly expresses the reservations felt by many sports fans regarding steroid use and professional awards.  Certainly, there are logical arguments for and against the inclusion of the steroid users in the Hall.  If nothing else, their accomplishments and achievements in the game cannot be refuted.  And, many would argue that simply putting an asterisk next to the records - or setting up a "performance enhanced wing" of the Hall - would be sufficient.  Time will tell how society views these flawed men.  No man is the sum of his worst act, and perhaps a little forgiveness is due.  But, for the time being I like Renck's assertion that now is too soon for the Barry Bonds Hall of Fame dilemma to be decided.

Marketing an E-book

For many years, I imagined myself as an author, and I stumbled through the forest of traditional publishing for more than a decade, hoping an agent or publisher would punch my lottery ticket and make me a success with one or more of the novels I'd written.  Alas, it was never to be, though I had many great stops and starts along the way, getting interest and feedback from some top literary agents.  It was roughly a year ago, however, that I concluded I am not a novelist or screenwriter.  After speaking with a friend who had finally - and justifiably - secured an agency contract for his fiction, I realized that non-fiction writing is actually where I am successful.  Thus, I am refocusing my writing career by seeking to develop my blogging and newspaper commentary.

With that in mind I began to explore the possibilities of e-book publishing that have developed via the rise of Amazon Kindle Publishing, as well as all associated markets from direct e-book publishers like Smashwords to Apple iBooks and Barnes and Noble Nook Publishing.  As an experiment, I went ahead and self-published the one novel that I actually felt good enough about to present to the public.  The thought of vanity publishing always bothered me, but the rise of internet publishing - and the moderate interest my book always generated among agents - convinced me that I could move forward with the publishing of my novel with a modicum of my integrity intact.

Since publishing my novel I Don't Know on Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing and Smashwords, I have generated very little in sales or interest.  However, that may be a result of the minimal effort I put into marketing the book.  That's a lesson for aspiring e-book authors - You have to do the marketing that would normally have been handled by your agent and publisher.  All I've done so far is post a link to Kindle Direct Publishing on my blog, and that has generated a few sales among my most loyal readers or curious blog wanderers.  How to Market an E-book from the eHow.com website is a pretty effective explanations of how to market ebooks, and it's certainly worth checking out.  As I learn more about the process and potentially publish more of my work, I will revisit the idea of e-book marketing and what are the best and most successful approaches.