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."