The Kansas Legislature and Kansas Public Schools

The easiest job in the world these days is that of a Republican in the Kansas Legislature.  Easier than a coin flip, their stance on any economic decisions by the state government is predictable and (seemingly) infallible:

If it costs the state government more money, the answer is NO.

If it costs the taxpayer more money, the answer is NO.

If it brings more money into the state government, the answer is NO.

If it brings more money to the taxpayer, the answer is YES.

Sounds easy, right? Not so fast. They still have to live with themselves in the morning, which is clearly the hardest part of their job. Or, at least it would be if they were actually concerned about more than just their political futures. Read on, dear readers. Here are three reasons that Kansas Republicans are hurting more than helping:

1. Budget Cuts to Kansas Schools Are Real and They Are Hurting Our Children.

Let’s assume that the first round of statewide budget cuts was actually a good thing. It’s not a bad way to reset budget priorities, cut unnecessary expenses, trim the fat, and make sure we’re spending money responsibly. I get that, and I actually don’t disagree. We’re in a statewide budget crisis and everybody needs to play their part.

You know, I would probably feel different if the goal of our elected Republican leaders was simply to balance the budget. That’s a smart, responsible, and worthy goal. But while they’ve been chiseling away at public school funds, Republicans have been handing out millions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations and businesses. So, by the end of the year, we’re in just as much financial trouble, plus we’ve given away the house as well. We’ve leveraged our greatest asset in the hopes that our new investments will pay off. That’s like paying only half your monthly mortgage so that you can buy more lottery tickets. Schools are solid performers, but new businesses are risky ventures. In times of crisis, risky investments aren’t nearly as wise as sound ones.

I’m not the teacher who thinks his school should be spared from any budget cuts, I’m the teacher who thinks that cutting my school’s budget so that you can give all the money away to businesses is a really, really dumb idea. Here are five reasons why:

1. Kansas schools rank among the top ten states in terms of student achievement, and in the bottom ten states in terms of teacher pay and state expenditures per child. Maybe the budget cuts would be more justified if our kids weren’t achieving as high as they are, or if our public schools were getting too much money to begin with. Neither of those is true, so it hardly makes sense to plunder our most solidly performing investment again and again and again and again.

2. Taxes are important, just not as important as children. A educated workforce is the greatest asset of every healthy economy, and when schools are forced to offer a bare-bones education, our kids won’t be as prepared to make good decisions as employees, parents, citizens, and individuals. Those business who are so desperate for tax abatements are equally desperate for employees with critical thinking skills, sound judgement, a good college education, and leadership potential. But these skills are the first to go when class sizes increase, resources dry up, and students fall through the cracks because the support system is gone.

3. Whatever we fail to pay now will only double our costs later (part one). If we don’t do a good enough job of teaching a kid to read in 2nd grade, we need to spend even more money in 3rd grade to purchase specialized reading programs, hire reading specialists and paras, create separate rooms for struggling learners, and pay teachers more for after-school learning programs. Since those extra programs and positions are the first to be cut, the kid falls even further behind in 3rd grade. And the cycle continues. When we cut school budgets again and again and again, we not only make it harder for that 2nd grader to learn to read, but we eliminate the opportunity for that 3rd grader to catch up. And the cycle continues until . . .

4. Whatever we fail to pay now will only double our costs later (part two). Kids who don’t succeed in school sometimes go on to become millionaires, but more often than not they go on to become burdens to society. Look, I know we’ve been saying this for years and hearing it again and again probably loses it’s luster after a while, but it’s true. Look at everyone in prison, everyone on food stamps, everyone on welfare, and everyone who requires or receives government support (other than the legislators themselves) – can there be any doubt that those who don’t get a quality education are those who end up absorbing the greatest tax dollars? Are there a hundred exceptions? Yes. Is the trend still clear? Yes. If we hate collecting taxes to support schools, wait until we have to start collecting taxes to support drug dealers in prison.

5.  I’m a HUGE fan of No Child Left Behind, but as long as Kansas accepts federal funds for its public schools (about 10% of the budget), Kansas Legislators need to do their part to make sure Kansas kids can pass those tests. If we threaten our kids’ test scores, we threaten the federal funding. That 3rd grader who needs a little extra help learning to read may very well be the reason that the state is suddenly burdened with an even bigger financial crisis when the feds pull their funding, which is exactly what happens when schools repeatedly fail to make AYP. It’s true – this argument shouldn’t even be necessary because Kansas schools are nationally known for offering more than just basic skills, but it’s time for our Republican Legislators to realize that they’ve got to support Kansas kids if they want to support accountability and federal funding.

2. Republicans in the Kansas Legislature are only doing HALF their job.

Republicans in the Kansas Legislature worship at the feet of the business community. That’s not such a bad thing – businesses drive our economy. But there are a whole lot of people out there, including 450,000 children in Kansas public schools who also rely on elected leaders to do right by them as well. It’s here where our conservative friends have completely and utterly failed all of us. Instead of finding a positive balance between business growth and government support, they’ve just decided to side with business and walk away from the children, the elderly, and the needy.

Like most Americans, I support the idea that government shouldn’t be in the business of being in business. If there’s a company willing and do as good or better with our schools, our elderly, our prisoners, and our needy, we ought to let them have first crack, especially if they can do it cheaper and for profit. But when businesses take a pass on supporting our communities, it is the obligation of the government to step in and support the unsupported.

And clearly, businesses aren’t asking for a shot at helping our state’s children, elderly, prisoners, or needy. So where are our elected leaders who promised to pick up where business leaves off? Well, they’re not here right now. They’re at home in bed with the Chamber of Commerce. Rather than serve as custodians of public good, Republicans have simply decided that those who aren’t in business simply aren’t worth their time.

It might be different if the Republicans were offering alternative solutions or new strategies to deal with all the social ills that continue to grow as a result of their negligence, but they aren’t even pretending to care. We hear them talk a lot about how lowering taxes will solve our problems, but when it comes to solving the problems that require taxes, they’ve simply shrugged their shoulders and walked away from their duties.

You might think that the Republicans in the Kansas Legislature would wake up and realize that they ARE the government, and that they have a sworn duty to serve every citizen in their district, not just those listed in the Chamber of Commerce directory.

It’s time for our conservative leaders to take a ride on the clue train and do more than just protect business interests. They pledged to do more, and their job is only half done.

3. It ain’t about taxes, it’s about re-elections.

During any campaign season in Kansas, the most horrible thing you can possibly say about your incumbent opponent is that he or she “voted to raise your taxes!” There is no greater badge of shame, and Kansas politicians know it. But in today’s anti-tax, anti-government, anti-anybodybutme atmosphere, our state house is filled with chicken-crap pansies who would rather hurt kids than raise taxes. Think I’m kidding?

Here’s one that ought to make your head spin and your skin crawl. When Gov. Parkinson proposed a tax on tobacco that a) brought us closer to the national average for state taxes on cigarettes, and b) specifically allowed us to pay our late state aid payments to public schools, the Kansas Republicans immediately said NO. What’s more interesting than their predictable answer was their refusal to even draft a bill that the committee could vote against (which is normally done as a courtesy to the governor).

Have the Republicans in the Kansas Legislature sunk so low that they would sooner protect smokers than children?

So what does it all mean?

Promoting business prosperity in times of financial difficulty makes sense, but the Republicans in the Kansas Legislature aren’t just pro-business, they are anti-anythingbutbusiness, which puts the rest of the state in a very risky situation. Rather than letting government pick up where business leaves off, they’ve simply walked away from the other half of their job – collecting revenue and spending wisely to invest in the future of the State of Kansas.

Shame on them. Not only is that not what Kansas is about, it’s not even what the Republican party is about.

We can do better for ourselves and for our kids.

New Year’s Resolutions for Republicans

New Year’s Resolutions for Republicans:

1. Every time I waggle my finger in shame at the poor who live off of government handouts, I will claim one fewer tax deduction for the 2010 tax year. 

2. Every time I use the word “socialism,” I must donate $25.00 to a public school I attended.

3. Every time I shake my fist at health-care reform, I must volunteer six months of my financial planning skills to one uninsured family waiting in the emergency room.

4. Every time I rage against two gay people who love each other enough to get married, I must reunite two straight people who hate each other enough to get divorced.

5. Every time I ridicule environmental regulations, I must leave my suburb – just once, for like a whole hour, to see what a downtown looks like in the daytime.

What resolutions would you add for Republicans? What would you add for Democrats? Comment below!

A Christian Nation?

Recently, I enjoyed a healthy debate with a friend of mine who claimed that ours is a Christian nation, thus we ought to be comfortable with blurring the lines between church and state such as displaying the ten commandments in courtrooms, promoting school prayer, and praying at government-sponsored events like school board meetings and high school football games. The basis of her argument is simply that our founding fathers were Christian and the evidence of their faith is easily revealed by their many references to God in all our founding documents. She went on to argue that taking Christianity out of these public institutions is to chisel away at the core beliefs of our nation.

Our debate was not about the existence of God, the delights of Christianity, or the blessings of spirituality.  We stayed focused on the line between church and state, mostly.

I asked what ought to be done with the non-Christians: the Muslim, the atheist, the Jew, etc.  She said that non-believers still have access to everything that America provides for all of its citizens: civil rights and liberties, presumption of innocence in a court of law, a free public education, bill of rights stuff like having guns and screaming at trees, ambulances that show up when you call 911, the right to vote, and so forth and so on. No citizen is denied the bounty of our nation because of their beliefs.

She asked me if I could think of one legal right or privilege denied to the non-Christian in our nation. Certainly, I replied, there are none. Every citizen is afforded the same rights and privileges under the law.

She continued by stating quite eloquently that this nation is clearly a Christian nation – that most of our citizens are Christian, that our founding fathers practiced Christianity, and they even took steps to ensure that we, the people, suffered no threat to the freedom of religion, and that our worship may not be trampled upon by an oppressive government. Therefore, any effort to censure public prayer, the public display of scripture, or similar expressions of belief ought to be considered a violation of our rights.

She asked me if it was fair that a majority of people be denied their ability to worship as they please because a few among us do not believe as the majority do.

She noted that the vast majority of people in that football stadium, in those school board meetings, in those courtrooms are Christians – and since this nation was founded as a Christian nation, and since the majority of us are Christian, we should affirm and celebrate our national religion and express it publicly and frequently.

I, having listened and pondered her words, asked her if ours was also a White nation.

A White nation? She replied, stunned.

A White nation, I said. We are a nation with a White majority, founded by White men who owned slaves, with guiding documents that repeatedly reference slavery, and we deny no rights or privileges to non-Whites in our laws and practices. Why shouldn’t we get on public address systems and celebrate our Whiteness? Why shouldn’t we be able to affirm how great it is to be White at football games and school board meetings. How about posting in every courtroom the top ten reasons why being White is really, really awesome?

She understood that my example was tongue-in-cheek, but played my game anyway.

Being White is not a choice, she argued. You are born that way. You can’t change it. Religion is something you choose, or at least it’s something you could change if you wanted.

So religion is a choice?

Indeed, it is.

Something you choose? I asked.

Yes, of course.

And if you make the correct choice, you get all sorts of bonuses (like judges and teachers and elected officials and referees who clearly take your side from the get-go), but if you make the incorrect choice, you only get the basic package (like the right to vote and scream at trees), but the impartiality of your court case, your complaint to the city council or school board, or even your football game might be a little iffy if you reveal that you aren’t a Christian.

She stopped me in my tracks. Just because an elected official posts the ten commandments, for example, doesn’t mean that he would be biased against non-Christians, she said.

What if a judge posting a sign in his courtroom that said “I love attractive blondes with large breasts” but when confronted about it assured everyone that he could remain impartial in the trial of Pamela Anderson v. Susan Boyle. Do you think he could be completely impartial?

Of course not! Why the hell would he be dumb enough to post a sign like that, she stammered.

Because the majority of Americans choose to worship attractive blondes with large breasts, I replied.

But I don’t have the choice to be blonde or have big breasts, she argued!

You do in America, I said with a smile.

————————————————-

Being in the “majority” might make it easier to deny others their freedoms, but it doesn’t make it right. Let’s reconsider whether it’s necessary for our courts, our classrooms, and our public spaces to declare a preference for one thing while promising impartiality for its opposite. Doing so doesn’t deny you your rights, it restores them for those whom you serve under an oath of impartiality. If we really believe in freedom and justice for all, let’s eliminate the signs and chants that are little more than asterisks on the Bill of Rights. It might be true that we COULD change if we wanted to please the majority, but it ought not to be a requirement for justice in America – be it breasts or beliefs.

Anderson’s Paradox

Anderson’s Paradox: In politics, facts are opinions, and opinions are facts.

 Huh? Welcome to modern American politics. Read on.

Facts are Opinons.

Al Franken has a standard phrase in senate speeches and political interviews: “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.” I’m a big fan of Al Franken, but I think he’s wrong. In a digital age where the “facts” are often presented by corporations, political groups, hero pundits, and other motivated interests, we have a hard time of knowing just how honest a fact is. Does global warming exist?  Depends on who you ask. Each side has their own set of “facts” to prove their opinions.

Show me a set of “facts” to prove that the Democrat’s health care plan will ruin America, and I will show you a set of “facts” to prove that it will save America. Show me a set of “facts” to prove that the economy is getting better as a result of Obama’s strategic efforts, and I will show you a set of “facts” to prove it is getting worse. What the internet provides in terms of “facts” is great, but what it lacks in terms of “truth” is even worse.

There are three causes of the “facts are opinions” paradox. First, we seem to have great confidence in our scientific thinking, despite a complete lack of training or awareness of the scientific process. In just a few seconds, we can read and interpret graphs, charts, tables, and data sets and walk away with what we think is a conclusive understanding. Second, we tend to enjoy great leaps of logic that begin with soft data and end with hard truths. We do so largely based on ethos rather than logos. Our affirmation or rejection of internet-based data is more often based on “who” is telling us that this data is true rather than the “what, when, where, how” and most importantly “why“  they are telling us this is true. Whatever filter we use to dismiss data from villian-source seems to disappear when we readily accept data from hero-source. Third, we tend to start with the conclusion and end with the data, and the internet gives us plenty of fuel for our fire. Every home with an angry person armed with a thousand facts to prove the Democrats wrong is countered by an angry person armed with a thousand facts to prove the Republicans wrong. Neither person will accept the “facts” of the other, and both persons believe their “facts” to be the Truth.

Oh sure, you believe that your facts are better than my facts, but if I can make the same argument, then we are at an impasse. In the last thirty years, the quantity of senate and house votes has made a much bigger difference than the quality of their arguments, regardless of the controlling party.

In short, 1) the internet has made it impossible for us to discover the truth when there is any competition for opinion, and 2) the facts and data we often accept as True are acceptable for reasons other than science or fact, and 3) even if we did possess the Truth, nobody would believe us except for those who already do.

So I’m no longer interested in facts. I can’t trust facts anymore, they are too opinionated. What I DO trust are opinions, and I’m increasingly convinced that the path back to political civility isn’t through facts, but opinions.

Opinions are Facts.

Our opinions stem from our values, and partisan politics is simply a juxtoposition of values. If you strip a political argument of  hyperbole, fear, smokescreens, and other “facts,” what remains are values. Republicans value security and economic freedom. Democrats value liberty and social freedom. Consequently, much of what we call partisan politics is simply an effort to protect and preserve the values that we believe to be most important. The health care debate, for example, is really a debate about economic freedom – either from the government or from corporations, and the health care system itself is simply the point at which these competing values clash. The same is true for the environment, education, international conflict, and whatever else may dominate the evening news.

While I’ve lost faith in our ability to debate the facts, I have a great deal of confidence in our ability to debate our values. Unfortunately, we tend not to debate our values because we perceive them to be unchangeable. We’ve also redefined “values” to mean religious convictions, which is unfortunate. For whatever I may or may not believe about religion in America, I think we ought to be clear that religion should support our values and not the other way around. To presume otherwise is to falsely believe that if there is no religion, there can be no values.

So what could our nation look like if we put down our facts and picked up our values? What if we debated the health care legislation in terms of whether a government for the people is more important than a government of the people? What if the gay marriage debate started sounding more like a debate about which rights are unalienable? Messy at first, for sure, but I suspect that minds are more likely changed – including my own – by focusing on internal values rather than external facts.

Why This Matters

Modern political debate seems to reject personal opinion and rely heavily on “facts” that are neither reliable nor useful regardless of their validity. Doing so has created an impasse with no hope of resolution. Both sides believe that they have a monopoly on Truth, and neither side seems particularly interested in hearing what the other side has to say.

We tend to shoot each other with our “fact guns” and then wonder why nobody is falling down, so we call our targets too stupid to understand how convincing our bullets are. Maybe our facts aren’t nearly as powerful as we think them to be. Perhaps it is because we presume that we all share the same values, which we do not. We don’t all share the same values, and until we acknowledge this, we aren’t going to make very much progress.

You think I’m too stupid to understand that this health care legislation will bankrupt our nation. I think you are too stupid to understand that our health care system is bankrupting our nation. Both of us are armed to the teeth with facts, and neither of us show much sign of budging. Both of us value economic freedom, but one of us wants freedom from an oppressive government while the other wants freedom from coporate greed.

Like two ships passing in the night, we are both advocating for economic freedom but from completely different vantage points. You want economic freedom from an oppressive government, and I want economic freedom from the unregulated health care industry. Maybe it’s time to talk about civil rights (protection OF the government) versus civil liberties (protection FROM the government). If we found some common ground on this debate, we could apply those values to the case in point.

In order to determine what is right or wrong, we must depend more on our internal values than our external facts. Let’s eliminate the hyperbole, fear, smokescreens and other “facts” and start addressing our core values that support our opinions. If it’s right, we ought to do it. If it’s wrong, we ought not to do it. We are capable of determining right and wrong not by analyzing facts, but by comparing values.

This is my resolution for this year. I’m going to stop trying to debate facts and start trying to compare values. To be honest, I don’t know what that always mean or look like, but I think it is a start toward resolving our greatest conflicts.

Your thoughts? Please comment!

Contranyms: a word with two opposing meanings

Previously, I published a (still growing) list of bound root morphemes. In the same spirit, I’d like to make the world aware of contranyms. A contranym is a word with two opposite meanings. For example:

weather (to decay): the wood had been weathered to the point that it would no longer hold any weight.

weather (to endure): we, too, shall weather this storm and look forward to better days ahead.

buckle (to fasten): with his belt securely buckled, John’s pants weren’t about to go anywhere fast.

buckle (to collapse): the iron beam began to buckle after the engineers shifted the weight of the truss to the north side of the platform.

oversight (to monitor): the committee’s responsibilities included oversight of the annual budget.

oversight (to fail to notice): due to an oversight, the project took months longer than expected.

dust (to remove dust): the maid dusted the windowsill, which had become quite dirty.

dust (to add dust): the chef dusted the cake with cocoa powder.

left (to remain): the only people left at this party are my very good friends

left (to leave): the only people who left this party were my very good friends

sanction (to punish): the government imposed trade sanctions on the international market

sanction (to promote): this activity is sanctioned by our national organization

 

Can you determine the oppositions of the following contranyms: 

• bound
• custom
• clip
• cut
• citation
• fast

There are hundreds of contranyms in our language. Some are interesting, some are not. Some require a shift in their speech part (“skin” is a noun that means a covering, while “skin” is a verb that means uncovering), while others require a little bit of modification (to resign is to quit, but to re-sign is to sign up again).

If you can think of others (without relying on internet searches), send them my way!

 

The English III Anthology Project

Here is the completed packet for those of you who have asked: English III Anthology Project. The best way to get this to you without email is to just post it here! This is the inquiry project my students will be working on this spring.

Classroom Rules

As I get ready for the new school year, these are the rules I wish I could have for my classroom! I wrote them a few years ago and have always been tempted to hand them out on the first day of school.

The 21 Rules of Mr. Anderson’s Classroom

1. All incoming paper that you want me to read, grade, or review goes into the wire basket on my desk.  There is no better place than the wire basket for you to submit your work, including my hands. My hands are much different than the wire basket on my desk. 

2. My desk is not a rummage sale. One day, you will have office supplies of your very own, and then you will understand.  Until then, please refrain from manhandling the items on my desk.

3. Leave the plants on my desk alone. There are days unknown to you when the well-being of my plants outranks the well-being of my students. Don’t make me pick; you might not win.

4. There may be times when I ask your entire class to spend a moment or two straightening desks or picking up some trash off the floor.  Often, it’s not even your trash.  The Supreme Court has determined that this is neither cruel nor unusual. 

5. There are no fewer than one million tasks that I must absolutely accomplish during any given passing period.  I love you, but this is a poor time to ask me to explain quantum physics. 

6. I absolutely do not allow students to have food or drink in my classroom, yet I drink several cups of coffee a day while teaching.  Scientists are still working to unravel this mysterious paradox. 

7. If I see you with food or drink, I’m going to take it away from you, and you will not get it back.  This policy will seem reasonable until it is applied to you.  Then it will seem like a felony. 

8. Can you still turn this in? Sweetie, there is no such thing as a grade lower than zero, so you don’t have much to lose. Hand it in and let’s see what happens.

9. In a ceremony that has lasted thousands of years, I have been bestowed with magical powers that tell me when you want to go to the bathroom just because you are bored.

10. Will handing this in raise your grade? Honey, adding one number to another number will give you a bigger number.  This is the basis for all mathematics.  Doing your homework might be surprising, but it doesn’t change modern math.

11. I cannot believe you wore that to school today.

12.  Dude, I didn’t lose your homework assignment. You didn’t turn it in. I’ve been teaching for almost as long as you’ve been alive, and I know how to use paperclips.

13. You took your sweet time to turn it in; I’m going to take my sweet time to grade it.

14. If you can have favorite teachers, I can have favorite students.  We tend to be nice to people who are nice to us.  That doesn’t change much, no matter how old you get. 

15. Stop asking me if I got your email. I’m just going to turn around and ask you if you got my reply to your email, and we both know the answer to that question.

16.  If Joan of Arc can liberate France before she turned eighteen, you could start putting your name on your assignments. I have that much faith in you.

17. Yes, dear, we did do something in class yesterday. We saw that you were absent and somehow gathered the courage to move on without you. Here’s your homework assignment. It’s due tomorrow.

18. What do you mean “what’s on the test?” I’ve just spent the last three weeks telling you what’s on the test.

19. I cannot believe you forwarded that email to me.

20. Sometimes I’m tempted to take you down to the junior high so that you can meet the other kids in your graduating class.

21. There are days when I love you more than you love yourself, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to accept anything less than your very best.

Health Care is a Right.

Yesterday’s post generated quite a bit of interest, and the arguments on both sides have been good (see comments). I’d like to extend the conversation a little bit more in today’s post . . .

Health Care is the Right of All Americans, Just Like Education.

Wait. Hold on. Is education a right? The answer is an undeniable “yes”. Education is a right affirmed by every state in the country, and every citizen is required to attend a public or private school. Mandatory schooling wasn’t provided by the constitution, nor was it invented by our founding fathers. A free and public education for every child in America didn’t happen until the early 20th century. It was a government response to an ineffective system in which only the wealthy could afford an education. While today’s public school system needs lots of modernization and reform, the national impact of mandatory schooling has been overwhelmingly successful for the better part of a century. Even the worst schools in America offer a comparative advantage to no school at all.

Since the creation of the public school system, our nation has expanded educational opportunities to include public high school and public universities. We’ve also seen the mutual benefit between public schools and private schools: each helps the other through free-market competition, innovation, and efficiency. The return on our investment is undeniable. In short, our national education system has been the central foundation for a prepared workforce ready to contribute to the national good in both public and private endeavors.

I would argue that if I have a right to be taught by a teacher, then I also have the right to be fixed by a doctor. Granted, that’s not how it is in our current system, so it sounds a little idealistic, but that’s how it should be. There was also a time when our nation couldn’t foresee how it could affirm the right to provide a teacher for every child, but we managed to do it.  Check out this selection from “A History of Public Education“:

Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this.  The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school.

Sounds a little familiar, doesn’t it?

Should We Bankrupt Our Nation to Affirm a “Right”?

Conservatives have pointed out that the cost of a national health care plan would be astronomical. They are right, but what they fail to mention is that the current system is even more expensive that the one proposed by President Obama.

Currently, health care costs are rising three times faster than income levels. Within ten years, the cost of health care in America is guaranteed to double. Sixty percent of bankruptcies are a direct result of health care costs, and eighty percent of those who declare bankruptcy for medical reasons already had insurance. If we continue with the status quo, health care costs will bankrupt our nation. 

The plan proposed by President Obama is expensive, but it’s less expensive than doing nothing. His plan is fairly straightforward: provide a public option for health insurance that will drive down the costs of private insurance. Those who choose the public option will receive basic coverage, those who elect to keep their private insurance may do so. Just as citizens now have the choice to send their children to public or private schools, so can citizens choose public or private insurance. And many of the benefits for the the public/private plans are the same as the benefits for public/private schools: the public schools drive down the cost of private schools, and the private schools force public schools to be more accountable and efficient (even more so with NCLB).

Naturally, there are skeptics who point to early provisions that appear to create nightmare scenarios: hefty fines for small businesses, fines for switching insurance plans, the elimination of private insurance, and a host of other fine-print disasters.  Others point to the CBO estimates of long-term costs. Most of these claims are flatly untrue, with no basis in reality. Others are still being debated, proposed, fixed, or adjusted by both parties. Still others may be of actual concern. The ink has barely dried on the first draft of the legislation, and there is much to be debated, amended, and discussed. I agree with conservatives that this legislation deserves to see the light of day and not be rushed through. I hope that the Democrats give this ample time to marinate and generate public discussion.

As a closing thought, I’d like to let my readers know that the Republicans have offered their version of a health care plan, titled the “The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009.” The plan eliminates tax breaks for employers who provide health coverage to their workers, and offers a $5,710 tax cut to families and a $2,290 cut to individuals to help them pay for health insurance coverage. Thanks for the coupon, chumps!

I invite readers, especially those who disagree with Obama’s plan to post comments with specific links to specific details that worry them the most. I’ll do my best to research the concern and either change my mind, prove you wrong, or offer to agree to disagree. Similarly, I invite those who agree with Obama’s plan to submit links to instances where the Republicans have offered misinformation.

Is Health Care a Right or a Privilege?

Democrats believe that health care is a moral right deserved by all Americans. Republicans believe that health care is an economic privilege deserved by those who can afford it. I believe that Democrats are on the right side of history.  In the 19th century, the North argued that slavery was morally wrong, regardless of the economic implications. The South argued that slavery was economically desirable, regardless of the moral implications. The modern parallels are striking, and while I’m sure that Republicans would scoff at such a comparison, I would point to a comment made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on “Meet the Press” this weekend:

DAVID GREGORY (HOST): Do you think it’s a moral issue that 47 million Americans go without health insurance?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, they don’t go without health care. It’s not the most efficient way to provide it. As we know, doctors and hospitals are sworn to provide health care. We all agree it is not the most efficient way to provide health care to find somebody only in the emergency room and then pass those costs on to those who are paying for insurance.

The moral flaw in Senator McConnell’s argument is that he asserts that emergency room care is economically inefficient for those with health care, not morally insufficient for those without it. Read his statement again: he’s saying that the biggest problem with health care is its undesirable impact on those of us who can afford to pay for it. I don’t accept that the emergency room is an adequate form of health care any more than I would accept that sharecropping was an adequate form of freedom.

When in conflict, life must triumph over money. Everything we know tells us that this is true.

We are obligated to provide universal health care to every American because we are capable of doing so; because saving lives is morally superior to saving money; and because deciding who lives and who dies should never be the work of a for-profit industry. We must consider it our moral duty because we uphold the virtues of good samaritanism, of helping thy neighbor, and of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. We are obliged because we have promised to do so every time we sing our anthem or wave our flag or pledge our allegiance. 

To suggest that our nation is incapable of providing universal health care is perhaps the ultimate manifestation of greed: that your wealth is more important than your neighbor’s health. You cannot call yourself an American, for you have not yet earned the privilege.

Of Prurient Interest

What happens when the very far edges of a political party take control? Welcome to Kansas politics. I’m not talking about conservatives, or Republicans, or people who support conservative principles; I’m talking about the very, very far right-wing of the GOP in Kansas. I want to take a moment to show you their faces and their agendas.

Kansas ultra-conservative’s motive for pushing voucher programs stems from their dissatisfaction with the culture and climate of public schools, not with the performance of the schools themselves. They’ve lost battle after battle to oppose evolution, support censorship, and elect durable candidates who will serve as a staunchly conservative voice. They have redefined themselves as the mainstream – making all social, political, and academic institutions seem obscenely liberal by contrast. 

At issue is their perception that our schools are wildly out of control. In one local district, hundreds parents have taken to sending signed letters to teachers demanding that they not teach students about bestiality, show X rated movies, or put students in trances. The issue isn’t that these things are happening, it’s that these parents have convinced themselves, and each other, that they are. Fueled by their own ignorance and the support of churches and political action committees, their attacks on public schools are unceasing. They are politically organized, politically active, and politically connected. They have elected their own to the legislature, and their agenda is regularly represented on the dockets of both the house and senate.

In one instance last year, legislation was introduced that made it a jailable offense for a teacher to possess any obscene material in the classroom (HR 2200). Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong. The bill broadly defines obscene as “any material that appeals to the prurient interest.” What is prurient interest? It’s anything that arouses you, according to Merriam Webster. I work with teenagers, folks. The pencil sharpener is of prurient interest. So is Shakespeare.

The bottom line is that if you are convinced that our public schools are showing X rated movies and teaching kids about bestiality, you’d certainly feel morally justified in doing all that you can to punish public schools at every turn. You’d oppose every dime of state funding. You’d push for vouchers. You’d vote against bond issues. You’d aggressively oppose any tax increases for schools. You’d pass sweeping legislation to remove every obscenity, however prurient it may be, from every classroom. That’s exactly what’s happening in Kansas.

And that’s the point I’m trying to make. Our public schools are under attack from politically inspired people who are funded by national organizations, fueled by national agendas, and founded by those who have move so far to the right that everything to the left of them is an attack on their sensibilities, worthy of fiery outrage.

The ultra-conservatives are gaining ground, not because they are armed with the truth, but because they are blinded by fear. Its McCarthyism, and the Salem Witch Trials, and the McMartin preschool trials all over again. Not that I could teach my kids any of those historical events; communism, witch-craft, and pedophelia aren’t allowed in my classroom. I just got a parent letter telling me so.

The Problem with School Vouchers

The idea behind school vouchers is fairly simple – the state writes you a check for what it would otherwise spend on educating your child in a public school, and you apply that amount toward the cost of a private school tuition. At first, vouchers seem like a great idea. No child should ever be required to languish in a failing school, and all parents should have the freedom to send their child to whatever school they desire. I absolutely agree with these two ideas. Nevertheless, there are 5 reasons why vouchers are a bad idea.

1. The First Five Minutes. If we created a voucher program, we’d have to grandfather the 30,000 kids already in private schools in Kansas. At $4,200 per student, the first five minutes of a voucher program would cost our state $126 million. If we can’t pay for the kids we have in schools now, we certainly can’t afford to adopt 30,000 more. If the goal is to rescue kids in failing public schools, it should not begin with a $126 million check to the private schools.

2. Sorry, We’re Closed? The KC Star recently reported that most private schools in Kansas already have a waiting list. So while vouchers would immediately benefit the kids inside the private school system, there is little hope for those outside the private school system. Even if private schools would eventually expand to welcome all students, a voucher program requires the subsidization of the entire private school system before the first needy kid gets help. If the goal is to help kids trapped in failing public schools, the solution cannot logically begin with footing the bill for private schools.

3. I Thought You Hated Socialism? I hear a lot of conservatives complain about how unfair it is that the government gives welfare checks to those who don’t want to pay for their food, housing, or health care. They argue that the poor should simply work harder to escape poverty instead of relying on government handouts.  During the overhaul of the welfare system during the Clinton administration, welfare as we knew it was transformed  into a temporary assistance program with a 5 year lifetime limit and a requirement that the recipient find a  paying job of 30-55 hours per week within two years or forfeit any further assistance. This was a pretty good idea. I’m sure voucher proponents who supported the new welfare restrictions would readily support similar restrictions for vouchers: 1) income limits of no more than the federal poverty level of $10,000 per year, 2) demonstrate ongoing attempts to find success within a failing school for two or more years, and 3) the school receiving the vouchers would be required to accept new students and comply with federal assessment restrictions. If the goal is to rescue kids from failing public schools, then voucher supporters ought to be comfortable living with the same restrictions that they thought were appropriate for other government assistance programs.

4. Accountability and Oversight. It has become trendy for voucher supporters to point to the lack of oversight or accountability as a primary cause of failure in public schools. The brainchild of the pro-accountability movement is No Child Left Behind, which I wholeheartedly support. I support it so much that I think no school receiving government funding of any sort ought to be exempt, including private schools. After all, who knows what those private school teachers are teaching kids these days? Consequently. any school receiving a voucher should be required to comply with the same federal standards of accountability that apply to public schools. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the goal is to help kids trapped in failing public schools, then the government should protect its investment in private schools by demanding results.

5. Parental Backlash. There are two reasons why parents invest in private education: to avoid the brutality of public schools and to embrace the morality of private schools. Vouchers blur the lines of both reasons, and will likely threaten the order of things. Parents pay good money to keep their child away from corruption, and when the school starts importing it by the busload from the other side of town, parents will probably object. If the goal is to help kids trapped in failing public schools, it will have to be with the blessing of conservative parents who are comfortable with “urban influences” (a tongue-in-check term) invading their contrary way of life.

Voucher programs are an oustanding way to rescue kids trapped in failing public schools. If that’s who benefits, then I support them. But I suspect that the pro-voucher movement is populated by politically active parents who use the false idol of the disadvantaged kid as a ruse to punish the public schools and pay for the private education of their own children. Just a hunch.

Power to the People

We don’t talk about the “N” word enough. Yes, THAT “N” word. You know, THE “N” word. It’s the Voldemort of words: never to be uttered except in the most necessary of circumstances. My students struggle with the “N” word, too. Some believe that using it unabashedly takes the wind out of its sails. Others believe that it’s too controversial. I tend to agree with the latter, but only because I never really need to say the word. In that respect, I’m like the non-smoker who votes for a ban on smoking. If I don’t need to use it, nobody else does either.  But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t get used. It’s especially common in high schools where rap music is as common as the word itself.

I don’t claim to be an expert on race.  When it comes to race, I have only my own experiences. As do each of my students – black and white alike. Nobody is an authority on race (excepting those who make it a core passion or academic study), but our experiences as people are vastly different – which is why we need to talk about it. Openly. Together. In the same room. And we do talk openly about race in my classroom for two reasons. First, race is a central issue in American Literature. Second, race is a central issue in my students’ lives. It’s a good conversation to have because it’s a conversation few of them have ever had in a constructive and safe environment. Some students readily admit that they aren’t comfortable talking about race. Seems to me like that’s exactly why we should have a conversation in the first place. Other issues, like sex and drugs, can make students uncomfortable – those are times when I need to defer to the emotional needs of the student. But while these kids can avoid sex and drugs, they can’t avoid diversity – so we talk about it openly.

When we first talk about race in my classroom, my white students instantly turn to the black students – as though my black students are prepared (and eager) to speak on behalf of the entire black community. We soon discover that my white students have a lot more to say about race than my black students. This is a natural consequence of being in the majority – my white kids rarely think about race as it applies to them- only as it applies to others – so they have more unprocessed ideas and feelings. My black students still struggle with some aspects of race, but have generally spent more time confronting the issue, either passively or directly. So our first hurdle is getting everyone to understand that race is a two-way issue – it is not like cancer or the flu; it is not some disease owned entirely by those who suffer from it.

Without fail, my white students first ask why we have a black history month but not a white history month. I tend to answer with the obvious. We already have a white history month. We have eleven white history months. More to the point, how is black history different from my history. Is the ubiquitous George Washington Carver not also a part of my history any more than George Washington is part of African-American history? It seems to me like a wiser use of our time should be to take whatever time and effort we invest in Black History Month and use that energy to make sure that our history classes include a fair and balanced portrayal of our nation’s history – honorable and dishonorable.

My white students really struggle with who gets to use the “N” word. It seems to be socially understood that my white students aren’t really allowed to use the word, while my black students have the option available to them if they wish. Nowhere is this more awkward than a group of white and black students singing along to a song that uses the word. Do I say it or not? Both races have to make a decision, but you get the sense that it’s tough for everyone; tough for the white kids who have to make a decision, and tough for the black kids who have to watch their white friends flinch in the face of diversity.

And it’s here that we have the most important conversation of the year.

We talk about power constructs. It’s the first time my students have linked power to being.  To them, power is the domain of adults – and all adults are essentially nothing more than adults – not black or white or male or female.  Adults have power and kids do not.  To them, there is no delineation between which adults have power. It’s the first time they’ve thought about how power is shared, moved, stolen, and shifted up and down social ladders.

We begin by thinking of society as a ladder – some are higher up the ladder than others. Each of us occupies a rung on the ladder. There are people above us, and there are people below us. It’s not how it should be in a democracy, but it is how it is. But there isn’t just one ladder – there are thousands of ladders based on religion, gender, masculinity, femininity, body weight, beauty, income, fashion sense, neighborhood, intelligence, and hundreds more. Collectively, these combine to form a big social ladder. Rich, white, heterosexual, Christian, good looking, physically healthy, mentally stable men occupy the top rung of the ladder, and their opposites sit at the bottom.

Once you understand the social ladder concept, you can understand why there is a double-standard regarding who can use the “N” word.

It is an acceptable practice for those who occupy a lower rung to shake their fist upward, and unacceptable for those higher on the ladder to push downward.  Women can trash men all day long, but men aren’t allowed to say much in response. Poor people can say “tax the rich!”, but rich people aren’t nearly as welcome to scream “tax the poor!” without looking like heartless bastards. Good looking people aren’t supposed to laugh at ugly people for wearing a $5 fanny-pack, but nobody seems to care much when an ugly person laughs at a good looking person for sporting a $400 purse. Fat people can growl at skinny people, but skinny people aren’t really supposed to growl back – unless the fat person is trying to steal food from their plate. I can make jokes about fat people stealing food; most of you cannot.

The difference is social power. You simply aren’t allowed to steal power from those lower than you on the ladder without looking like a racist, sexist, elitist, chump with no respect for others. If you are to improve your own standing, it is by reaching up and pulling others down as a way of pulling yourself up. You cannot step on the heads of others to make yourself feel better – hence the elementary adage “don’t put others down”. But you can reach up and try to pull others down, socially speaking. There is some debate about the number of black voters in California who voted to ban gay marriage (a debate largely created by a single news organization that seems to benefit from minority classes appearing to be odds with each other). Regardless of whether the presumption that African-Americans are more or less accepting of other minorities is myth or reality, it speaks to the fact that unless you are the bottom rung, there still may be power struggles at all points on the ladder, not just at the top.

Similarly, those who occupy the same rung on the ladder are able to use derogatory language to describe themselves and others who share the same rung. Words like “dyke”, “queer”, and “fag” are exclusively the property of those who identify with the words. For anyone else to use them is an insult.

And so it is that my black students seem to have the ability to choose whether or not to use the “N” word, while my white students don’t seem to have that option.

It is a false argument among those who possess the power to suggest that pulling people down the ladder is just as bad as pushing people down the ladder; that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Not so. What is fair isn’t always equal, and while the golden rule is a great rule, it doesn’t apply to social construct theory.  It might be true that “reverse racism” exists, but it hardly puts a dent in the power structure of the white establishment, so it doesn’t really do much harm; whereas it’s opposite has been the primary tool of oppression and the damage is real and measurable to the African-American community. It’s also interesting to note that while people like Rush Limbaugh claim that those lower than him on the ladder should never gain power at his expense (i.e. affirmative action), he owes the entirety of his success to snapping at the heels of those higher than him on the political ladder.

What is fair isn’t always equal. And that’s not a bad lesson to learn in any classroom.

Health Care vs Wealth Care

We live in a nation where every child is guaranteed a free, public education. It’s a concept so important to us that there are laws requiring children to go to school. Though far from perfect, our public education system serves our nation well, and the return on our investment is incalculable. All would agree that a literate and skilled workforce benefits the entire nation.

Smarter people make for a richer, wiser nation.

So what could healthier people do for our nation? If we are wise enough to make education a right, perhaps we should be wise enough to make health care a right as well.

Detractors would have us believe that health care is just too expensive to be paid for by the government, and unless we are willing to rethink the system, they are right. As long as corporate shareholders benefit from cancer treatments and broken legs, universal health care is little more than a distant dream.  For-profit medicine has given our nation the finest medicines, the newest technologies, and the best doctors and nurses in the entire world, but our nation becomes the victim of it’s own greed when we refuse to share our bounty with our brothers and sisters whose very lives depend on them.

We are smart enough to figure out a better way to treat our people; all of our people. 

I wish I could say that there was money somewhere in the system to pay for universal health care, but the top 10% of income earners in our nation own more than 70% of our nation’s wealth.  The top 1% of wage earners own nearly 50% of the wealth. If we must choose between universal health care or greed, I suppose the answer is pretty clear – at least to me.

Detractors would have us believe that the wealthy should not be punished for their success.  

It strikes me as odd that so many Americans claim to be so proud to be an American, and yet have so little compassion for America. Is it that you love this nation, or that you love what this nation can do for you?  There are those who seem to wave the Stars and Stripes with the same loyalty they show to their favorite baseball team or football team: a deep and unwavering love that should never cost more than a general admission ticket and a couple of beers. 

Those who are living the American Dream did not arrive here without great public assistance. It is the result of a million immigrants who sweated out your roads, your factories, your homes, your toys. It is the result of dozens of teachers who taught you to read and write. It is lives of millions of unknown soliders. It is the wonderful consequence of a dozen generations who sweated and sacrificed and gave all they could so that we could have a better life.

Now that it is our turn to sacrifice, we can do little more than wrap ourselves in the war-tattered flag of our forefathers and complain that taxes are too great a sacrifice for us to make. These are those who ask what our country can do for them.

And so our nation will get sicker and sicker until those among us who have more than their fair share of wealth understand their obligation to pay more than their fair share in taxes.

Two Books

One of the things that I’ve learned about getting awards is that they tend to lead to other awards and other forms of recognition. This can be a hard pill to swallow. If you don’t think you deserve the first award, then those that follow are equally awkward. Nevertheless, I’m going to do my part to shamelessly promote two books that feature yours truly:

 BOOK #1

The first book is Conversations with America’s Best Teachers: Teacher of the Year Award Winners Give Practical Advice For the Classroom and Beyond by J. William Towne. With a foreward by Kathleen McCartney, Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Conversations with America’s Best Teachers provides in-depth interviews with 18 National Teacher of the Year Award winners and finalists as they offer practical advice to all K-12 teachers and parents. Inside you will also learn about the 10 commonalities that nearly all great teachers have as well as finding out what books have helped to shape and influence these teachers (text is from the website).

I think the coolest thing about this book are the reviewers:

“Conversations with America’s Best Teachers provides valuable advice and creative methods for dealing with many of the problems teachers face in classrooms all over the country. Every teacher should read this book.”

- Richard Riley
Former U.S. Secretary of Education

 

“This is a book you need to read if you want to be – not just a better teacher – but one of the best teachers!”
- Harry Wong
Author, The First Days of School

 

“Towne may not have had America’s best teachers in school, but his book provides a national service in helping create more of them. Everyone with an interest in education- and that should include everyone- should read this book and will be glad they did.”

- Milton Chen
Executive Director, George Lucas Educational Foundation

 

“You can open Towne’s book on any page and find wisdom.”

- Jay Matthews
Washington Post

 

“Right out of the mouths of a remarkable collection of teachers. A pleasure to read!”

- Deborah Meier
NYU Steinhardt School of Education

 

“This book renews our faith in the world’s most important profession.”

- Dr. Spencer Kagan
Author, Kagan Cooperative Learning

 

“Conversations with America’s Best Teachers makes a tremendously powerful case for teachers as empowered leaders.”

- Virginia B. Edwards
Editor, Education Week / Teacher Magazine

 

“The valuable insights of successful teachers in Conversations with America’s Best Teachers will not only benefit other teachers looking for solutions, but anyone who wants to know the real joys and challenges of the most important work in this country.”

 

- Michelle Rhee
Chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools

 

“Worthwhile reading for educators, policymakers, and anyone interested in transforming today’s public education system.”

- Dennis Van Roekel
President, National Education Association

 

“Towne has done a great public service to all those who care about educating our children by highlighting great teachers and the work they do.”

- Randi Weingarten
President, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

 

“I hope this book becomes a primer for teachers in training.”

- Kathleen A. Carpenter
Editor, TeachersNet Gazette

 

“These pages will inspire awe, appreciation, and sometimes shock at what is required to excel in the world’s most important profession. I hope that every teacher — and every school administrator — reads this book!”

- Eric Adler
Co-Founder & Managing Director, The SEED Foundation

 

“Inspirational! A must read for every teacher and parent. Both new and experienced teachers can benefit from the wisdom of these accomplished educators.”

- Joe Aguerrebere
President, National Board of Professional Teaching Standards

 

“Conversations with America’s Best Teachers is a much needed addition to the education reform literature.”

- Robert Hughes
President, New Visions for Public Schools

 

“A must read for all teachers, new and experienced!”

- Patirck F. Bassett
President, National Association of Independent Schools

 

“Fun and interesting. You’ll learn something from each of these teachers whether you’re a peer or a wonk. Towne has done a remarkable service here.”

- Andrew J. Rotherham
Co-Founder and Publisher, Education Sector and Eduwonk.com

If you want the Amazon link for Conversations with America’s Best Teachers, click here.

 BOOK #2

The second book is A+ Educators: A World-Class Tribute to Our Best Teachers by Randy Howe. The synopsis from Amazon reads as follows:

A+ Educators profiles seventy-five amazing classroom teachers who have received recognition on the state and national level. Inspiring profiles of more than sixty amazing teachers. What makes a great teacher? While there is no particular formula, one thing is certain: Great teachers are worthy of the respect and admiration of students, parents, and colleagues, and they should be publicly recognized for the love of learning they inspire. A+ Educators profiles more than sixty amazing K–12 classroom teachers who have received the highest honors—including both National Teachers of the Year and winners of annual teaching awards in their respective states. The teachers come from all fifty states and from all grade levels and subjects. They are the trendsetters of the new century, using innovation, technology, and good old-
fashioned common sense to deliver the best possible education to their students.

Ok, so enough about me.

Monopoly as a Social Experiment

This is one of those Reader Responses posts – I’d like to get your ideas on a project – but first, an explanation:

Today or tomorrow, I’ll begin teaching “A Raisin in the Sun” by Lorainne Hansberry. It’s one of my favorites, and it’s the story of a 1950′s African American family in the slums of Chicago who receives insurance money from the death of their father/grandfather. The money isn’t enough to catapult them permanently out of the ghetto, but it’s enough seed money to move them in that direction if they are smart about their decision. Naturally, there is great disagreement about how the money should be spent.

And so I’ve contrived an idea that I think would help my students understand what’s at stake. Many of the students I teach have the perception that families can work themselves out of poverty simply by getting a job, saving their money, and slowly climbing out of the hole they are in. They perceive the American Dream to be something that is equally attainable for every member of society. In short, they confuse social freedom and legal freedom.

Many of you may agree or disagree with the premise that not every American family can work their way out of poverty – even with hard work, determination, and a positive attitude. The statistics say otherwise; though many may simply attribute this to laziness or a lack of effort on “their” part.

It occurs to me that I might be able to play the board game Monopoly with my students. Four teams, and each team is a family of six people who get to collectively decide what to do on each turn – just as the Younger family got to choose what to do with the insurance money.

The rules of the game will be the same for everyone – just as the laws in our society are the same for everyone.

But I’m adding three twists:

1. Family #1 gets $5000 dollars to start. Family #2 gets $2000 to start. Family #3 gets $2000 to start. Family #4 gets $500 to start.

2. We will play the game under two presidents. In the first half of the game, the houses and hotels are half-priced (because corporate tax breaks and write-offs mean more home construction). In the second half of the game, the houses and hotels cost more (a $100 house is now $150) but the extra money is handed directly to Family #4.

3. It is possible to start building houses and hotels on any owned property, no monopoly is necessary (this is for the element of time and reality).

So here’s where you come in . . .

What rules and adjustments would you make to the game to make it more realistic?

I will share everything (appropriate) you write with my kids to let them know how others view our economic social structure!

My Students Rock

I’m so excited about a project that my students have spent the entire semester working on, so I wanted to take  a moment to brag on my kids.

The idea comes from a project that I saw at Lawrence High School last December. While the purpose and design of our respective projects are fundamentally different, the structure of that project and this one are very similar. The LHS teacher’s name is Sue Donnelly, and she gets credit as the inspiration for the project.

The Anthology Portfolio Project

The project started on the first day back from winter break in January. We started by listing all of the great questions of the universe such as “what is my purpose in life?” and “how can we make others truly happy?” and “is fate predetermined?”. Every student was required to design one perfectly worded question that intrigued them the most. They were also required to construct four or five corollary questions that surrounded their thematic question. So, for example, the student who wanted to know “why do some people reject God?” might also ask “what does it mean to be a skeptic?” and “how can I be sure that my beliefs are correct?”.  The students worked closely with their parents to create their question, and the parents had to sign off on the thematic and corollary questions.

From the onset, our goal was never to answer the question, but rather to discover an answer that we can be at peace with for now.

Once students had selected their question, we started our journey by selecting novels, short stories, poems, non-fiction, and other literary pieces (the librarians were a tremendous help in this process).  Each piece was hand-picked by the student for its theme, reading level, and style.  Each piece also offered an author’s perspective on the student’s thematic question. The student who chose rebellion read the novel Catcher in the Rye. The student who asked about inner beauty read the non-fiction book Reviving Ophelia. Yet another student who wanted to define love read Edward Taylor’s poems “Preparatory Meditations”.

Each piece of literature became an abstract conversation between the student and the author. The student asks, the author answers with a plot twist or character development. The student reflects and asks again. The author offers symbols and metaphors. The student asks once more, and the author offers a climax and a resolution. Each piece is a textbook; an emotional map of some intellectual landscape.  

At the conclusion of each literary piece, each student wrote a formal academic essay that included MLA citations, research, and a literary analysis. They also wrote a thematic discovery essay at the start of the unit, a final response essay at the end of the unit, and a synthesis interview essay (in which they interviewed several adults and examined themes, trends, and departures in their respondents’ answers). The even wrote several creative pieces of their own such as slam poetry and poetic responses. We also read and wrote a literary analysis of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  By the end of the project, students had each written eight process papers (a process paper includes all stages of the writing process such as outline, rough draft, etc). They had also read quite a bit as well.

If you think that’s a lot of writing, imagine all the grading! Seventy-five kids. Eight papers. Each one graded twice - the final draft, and then mandatory revisions. Every paper had to be perfect. Each one about three pages. That’s about 1,200 papers, with each one getting about 5-6 sentences of feedback. It’s also about 3,600 pages of careful editing for commas, spelling, organization, and MLA citations.

And it was all worth it, because in about two weeks, the kids are going to present their Anthologies to one adult in their life with whom they’d like to share this journey.

As I write this, I’m certain than more than half of my kids are working furiously to put finishing touches on their papers – or on the portfolio itself. A three ring binder decorated and designed like no other project the student has ever completed; a flawless treasure of hot glue, construction paper, decals, sheet protectors, stenciling, and hand-crafted lettering. Inside is a perfect copy of each page of each paper. Also included is every page of every rough draft; every page that I’ve edited and marked on.

The students know that they will someday unpack this project as they return from college, or move into their first home; or after a death or a birth or a marriage – some event that always requires us to get our hands dusty with memories. It will stay in their parent’s basement, packed away in some random box until fate is ready to return it to them. They are creating an emotional time capsule, and they want their future selves to be so very proud of who they are today.

In twelve years of teaching, I’ve never seen my students so excited about creating something with such intensity and precision. To hear them talk, they are each creating the Sistine Chapel, only not nearly so sloppily as the hand of Michelangelo himself did create.

And this is why I’m so incredibly proud of my students. At the start of the project, they all recoiled in horror at the thought of so much reading and writing. Now, they are more excited about this project than any other one they can remember.

On the evenings of Monday, May 18th and Tuesday, May 19th (we must split ourselves into two equal evenings), we will gather to present our Anthology Projects. Every student has written a formal letter of invitation to their guest. Most guests are parents, many others are youth leaders, adult mentors, teachers, and even a couple of Boy Scout pack leaders. Each student will bring some food or drink to share with everyone, and two of our students have agreed to provide some entertainment: one will play the piano at the start of the evening, one will read an incredible poem that she has written.

Then, for about 40 minutes, every student will share his or her Anthology Portfolio with his or her guest. Together, they will recreate the journey and ask questions of each other, and use the literature and the student’s writing as a springboard for bigger, more important conversations. They will talk as equals, not as adult and child or mother and son.

While I know it won’t be a perfect evening, and there will be mess-ups and last minute problem-solving, I also know that this could be the most wonderful night of my teaching career!

A Great Site to Visit: TED

If you are looking to spend an hour or so looking at internet videos, and if you feel like restoring your faith in humanity, check out the TED Conference.  The best minds in the world have eighteen minutes to stand before an audience and speak on whatever topic, idea, issue, or solution they please. Arts, sciences, nature, politics, medicine – it’s all there.

Check it out!

Fourteen Kids My Ass!

It’s not my job to judge this lady with fourteen kids, but I often go above and beyond my job duties, so I offer my condemnation of her as a service to my community. You are welcome, community!

There oughta be a law against this.  I did some research, and discovered that her home city of Whittier, California does have a law that I think needs to be imposed:

10.20.045 Hobby breeding–License required–Fees.

A person who is a hobby breeder as defined in Section 10.08.155, shall obtain an animal breeding license in the amount set forth in Section 10.90.010. Each license shall authorize the whelping of no more than one litter per female dog or cat in any 12-month period and no more than one litter per domestic household in any 12-month period. (Ord. 2004-0036 § 7, 2004: Ord. 93-0002 § 2 (part), 1993: Ord. 90-0137 § 13, 1990: Ord. 88-0155 § 6, 1988: Ord. 87-0036 § 9, 1987: Ord. 85-0204 § 25, 1985.) Link.

Close enough.

I Don’t Get It.

There is some debate regarding whether radio stations across the country will continue to play Chris Brown’s songs. Some stations have completely removed him from the playlist, others are yanking them only for today, while many more are not pulling him.

“We’re also pulling all of his (Brown’s) music for all day Friday to support Rihanna, to take a stance against battering women,” said Jeremy Rice, program director for WBLI which boasts about 700,000 listeners in the region just outside New York City. Link

Here’s what I don’t get.

The Dixie Chicks tell their fans that they are ashamed of George Bush, and within hours they are pulled from several national radio markets. Chris Brown beats the shit out of his girlfriend and we need to have a debate about whether to pull his songs?

That’s some crap, right there.

Bound Root Morphemes

Today’s post begins with a funny story. All of the English majors in college were required to write a ten page paper on the etymology of a single word. It was one of those assignments that had gained infamy, and many students spent a great deal of time trying to find the perfect word before they had even enrolled in the course. As for me, I chose coffee. Predictable, I know.

A good friend of mine chose huckle, as in huckleberry. The word itself isn’t actually a word, it’s a bound root morpheme. This requires a brief lesson in linguistics. A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaningful language. Girl is a morpheme, as is skip. Girlfriend has two morphemes, as does skipper. Got it? Some morphemes can be free (as in girl, skip, and type) whereas other morphemes are bound (as in huck, funct, and ept). A free morpheme has meaning, a bound morpheme does not. In order to make the bound morphemes make sense, you have to add another morpheme. Funct must become defunct and ept must become inept. So, to review, there are free morphemes and bound morphemes. A free morpheme can stand alone, and a bound morpheme must be attached to another morpheme before it makes sense.

For the purpose of clarity, some linqustics folk call them “bound morphemes” while others call them “bound root morphemes”. I prefer the longer.

Having chosen huckle as his word, my friend was faced with a problem. Huckle isn’t actually a word. It’s a bound root morpheme (technically, it’s two bound morphemes). So he took action and decided to wage a fairly aggressive underground campaign to free huckle – literally. Everywhere he went, he’d scribble “Free Huckle!”. He’d tag bathroom stalls, library books, and campus bulletin boards. His goal was simple: to free huckle from it’s bound mopheme bonds. Of course, nobody who didn’t know of this campaign had any clue what “Free Huckle!” was supposed to mean when it was written on a bathroom stall.

Sadly, huckle is still a bound root morpheme. So I’ve spent the last few years compiling an interesting list of fellow bound root morphemes. Perhaps a small army of these guys could eventually form into something larger and more meaningful.

Here is the list I have so far. I would welcome any additions you have. Keep in mind that some of these are presented in their longer form to clarify their bound status (gruntled for example, is actually two bound morphemes; one of which is a free morpheme – grunt – but this creates a different morpheme).

Can you connect these bound morphemes with their missing morphemes? For example, you can inflate or deflate a balloon, but can you flate a balloon?

flate

embowled

beknownst

combobulated

gruntled

plussed

wildered

fuddled

hibited

ept

chalant

creped

trepid

capitated

stitious

funct

fenistrate

whelemed

linquished

vincible

evitable

There are, of course, millions of bound morphemes (including -ful, de-, and -es), but this particular list aims to find the funniest ones.

Playing with the new iPhone

Just got a new 16GB black iPhone. I’m also creating this post from the phone itself. Huzzah.

Tough Choices or Tough Times

Something wonderful happened last night. Most readers won’t understand why I’m so excited right now, so I’ll cut to the chase. For the past two years, I’ve been advocating a radical reform to the structure of our public school system – and last week, New Hampshire officially adopted that exact system. Utah and Massachusetts are also planning to adopt this model as well.

Here’s the story . . .

It all begins in a bar in Dallas, Texas. I was having a lengthy chat with Alan Sitomer, the 2007 California Teacher of the Year. During the conversation, he said that we needed to shut down the entire public school system and rebuild it from scratch.  At first, I was struck by the implausibility of such a radical idea – but his hyperbolic hypothesis illustrated the core issue: our public school system is broken beyond repair, and incremental steps to fix it won’t work. Over the course of an hour, I was transformed. I stopped defending a broken school system and started my journey to find a better way to teach our children. The only thing I was missing was the “better way”.

A few weeks later, during preparation for my National Teacher of the Year interview, I read a report titled “Tough Choices or Tough Times.” The report itself is a rationale and blueprint for a restructuring of our national school system. I’d heard that each of four finalists for Superintendent of the Year were required to read and respond to the report for their interview, so I figured I would read it too. This report provided the missing piece of the puzzle. Not only did it offer an alternative to the current structure of our public school system, it provided a substantially better alternative.

For the next month, I dedicated myself to learning everything I could about national school reform.

Ultimately, I decided to make an incredibly bold move. I decided that my interview speech to the selection committee for the National Teacher of the Year would focus on advocating an entirely new national school system. This would be a stark departure from the norm. The committee is used to hearing about the power of teachers, the promise of education, and the importance of children. While these topics are near and dear to me – they are not the centerpiece of my passion for education (and those who know me can attest that I make a much better policy wonk than a cheerleader).

The interview process for National Teacher of the Year is fairly intense. The four finalists have a formal dinner with the 15 panel selection committee, then have a mock press conference, a one-on-one media interview, a presentation, and an hour-long question and answer session. The whole ordeal takes about three days. Everything went well with the first two days. On the third and final day, we did our speeches and Q&A sessions. (You can read a copy of my interview speech here: josh-anderson-interview-speech-for-national-teacher-of-the-year). After the speech and during the Q&A, the selection committee made it clear that they were not about to name a National Teacher of the Year whose primary agenda is restructuring our national school system. I wasn’t surprised at their reaction, nor did I necessarily disagree with it.

So I didn’t get National Teacher of the Year. I was ok with this, though, because the alternative would have been a year of promoting my second or third most important message instead of my first.

On my flight back to Kansas, I received a telephone call from the Education Commission of the States. Governor Sebelius, who chairs the ECS, was hosting a planning meeting in Overland Park for their national conference in Philadelphia. The Governor asked me to give a speech to the planning committee regarding my thoughts on education. I accepted, and a few weeks later, I was sitting next to the governor for breakfast.

I pulled a copy of “Tough Choices or Tough Times” out of my backpack and placed it on the table. I asked the Governor and everybody else at the table if they had ever read it. None said they had.  After a very nice introduction from the Governor, I gave a speech about TCTT. All in attendance were suddenly very excited about the proposal, including Bill Wagnon, chair of the Kansas Board of Education.

I received a call from Dr. Wagnon a few days later, and we met for coffee. He wanted to know how we would go about adopting this reform system. I’m not suggesting that he was completely ready to submit Kansas to this reform, but I think that it was pretty cool that he would at least consider it.

About a month later, I received an invitation to the National Forum on Education Policy. This is one of the most important education conferences in the nation because it’s devoted to national education policy. Governors, senators, and representatives (federal and state) as well as the top education officials in all states are the primary attendees of this conference. So, you can imagine my shock and surprise when I saw that the entire conference was devoted to “Tough Choices or Tough Times”. Literally, the keynote speeches and most of the breakout sessions were centered on TCTT.

I was overwhelmed with joy. Could it have been that a ten minute speech of mine provided the entire platform for the most important national educational policy conference? It seemed so.  Even better, I was asked to give a keynote speech on the final day of the conference.

I even had the opportunity to co-author an OpEd piece with Governor Sebelius for the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding “Tough Choices or Tough Times.”

The speech itself was absolutely the best speech I have ever given. It was delivered without a single piece of paper in front of me, and it was a true call to action. If you are so inclined, you are welcome to listen to my speech here (scroll down to Thursday, July 12th, then click on “Chair’s Breakfast”, then download the MP3 file. NOTE: you’ll need to fast-forward to about the 33 minute mark since Governor Sebelius delivers the first half of the presentation).

Since that time, I’ve spoken to thousands and thousands of people across the country about restructuring our public school system. Most people thought it was a good idea. A few people thought I was absolutely crazy for suggesting such a radical departure from the system we know.

 So, in a nutshell, that’s why I’m so excited that New Hampshire has adopted this model.

More to come . . .

There’s so much stuff that I put off until after election day that I’ve been too busy to post.  Look for more on Saturday!

Go Obama!

Vote.

Game time.

Below is a map from RealClearPolitics with no toss-up states. Theoretically, this is what the country will look like tomorrow morning if all the current polls averaged by RCP are accurate. Of course, theory and reality are two different monsters. I’ll post again tomorrow morning to compare the two.

(click to enlarge)

Barack Obama: FDR or Jimmy Carter?

If Barack Obama wins on Tuesday as conventional wisdom predicts, he won’t be the first democratic president to inherit a bleak economy and democratic control of both the House and Senate. Franklin Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter were also dealt strikingly similar hands. One of them was enormously successful, while the other floundered. So will Barack Obama transform this nation like FDR or will he cut off his nose to spite his face like Jimmy Carter?

We may know the answer after the first 100 days. If Obama has a shaky start, it’s unlikely that he’ll flourish. With fresh wounds from a vicious election, Republicans will be looking to prove their point that Obama lacks leadership and judgment, and doing so in the first 100 days will make it difficult for Obama to gain the political capital he’ll need for the remainder of his presidency. If he can manage an impressive start to his presidency, he’ll secure enough trust from the American people that he’ll have sufficient political muscle to assume the mantle of the president.

Let’s look at the first 100 days to get a glimpse of Obama’s fate.  I’ve chosen three areas to watch for in the coming months: the congress, the cabinet, and the constitution.

Congress

Roosevelt and Carter bickered famously with their democratic congresses. FDR couldn’t get his congress to shake their isolationist policies, while Jimmy Carter refused to get into bed with his democratic leadership. FDR and Carter each took their case to the American people, but unlike FDR, Carter failed to secure the trust of the people before he rolled the dice. Already having been burned by their government during the Nixon era, the people rejected Carter and congress in the 1980 election. FDR, on the other hand, used extensive public appearances and his famous fireside chats to gain the trust of the people. After Pearl Harbor, there was no question that isolationism had not worked.

To secure the trust of the American people, Obama may well consider calling a joint session of congress within the first week of his presidency. Given the crisis of the economy, few could question his motives. During the televised address, he’ll explain that our economic demons cannot be felled with one grand swing of the policy axe. Instead, the solution requires several smaller steps that may appear inconsequential when viewed in isolation, but represent a comprehensive solution when bundled together. He needs to explain that the economy cannot be restored overnight. Such a speech would give him the political cover to survive his first 100 days without appearing to be weak on the economy, and it would assert his presidential authority to congress and to the nation.

I believe that once Obama appears to have a strong command of economic reform, he’ll begin working on an expansive new energy policy that would be presented as the first of several steps to solving our economic woes. He has the full support of congress and of most Americans to advance alternative energy policies that will establish America’s global footprint in the 21st century.

Cabinet

One of his Obama’s first moves may be the appointment of a surprising number of conservatives to high-level positions within his administration. Not just Republicans – true conservatives. If he can appoint enough of them, it may sufficiently quiet the conservative backlash. This may be one of Obama’s wisest moves, even if it makes future policy decisions more difficult (which is a good thing).

More than anything, conservatives want a check on the complete control that Democrats may have on November 5th. They want to know that somebody is watching the henhouse. Obama needs to do more than just throw them a bone – he needs to make a bipartisan cabinet the centerpiece of his administrative staff.

This is a unique challenge for Obama. Under FDR, the nation had a trust of their government and their president – so FDR had the ability to appoint the people he needed without much contest. Under Carter, it was just the opposite. Carter was a true Washington outsider in an era of disdain for all government. Blue or red, it didn’t really matter who Carter picked.  All were viewed with equal suspicion.

Of course, picking true conservatives to carry out a liberal vision is easier said than done.  Such appointments need to have broad appeal without sacrificing the vision of the President, but we do this every time we pick a new Supreme Court justice, so it is entirely possible.

Constitution

American may be politically divided, but we are all governed by the same constitution. Even if there is great disagreement about the interpretation of a few key phrases, Obama has an enormous opportunity to restore our faith in America’s central purpose.

Conservatives rejected the notion that Obama could be a centrist leader long ago, but that doesn’t mean he’s lost the ability to do just that. In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow, Obama suggested that his refusal to attack conservative principles (instead focusing on principal conservatives) was based on the belief that conservative philosophy is not necessary flawed but rather essentially abandoned in the Bush administration.

Obama’s first 100 days should include an aggressive effort to bring this country together under those ideals on which we can all agree.

This, more than anything, is what made the difference between FDR and Carter.

Conclusion

My conservative readers will argue that Obama is headed for the same cliff as Carter, and they’ll have lots of evidence to prove their point. My liberal readers will champion the vision of Obama as a 21st century FDR - with the same abundance of evidence.

The one thing that we can presume at this point, is that the first 100 days will make all the difference.

Fiscal Conservative

I think this pic says it all:

 

And for my conservative friends:

George W. Bush was the ideal president for you. He did everything you suggested. He passed every policy you now advocate for.  He cut taxes for the wealthy. He blocked the redistribution of wealth at every turn.

He gave you everything you wanted, and the experiment failed.

I understand that Obama scares the hell out of you, and I know what that’s like – I sat and watched Bush get elected twice. I’m no stranger to thinking that this country is screwed beyond belief. The only difference between your fears and mine is that mine came true.

You can scream all you want that Obama is going to ruin this nation, but you’ve had your chance, and you screwed everything up.

Step aside, conservatives.

We’re in control now.

Al Qaeda Wants to Humiliate Bush: (October) SURPRISE!

Fact: the Republican party needs Al Qaeda as much as Al Qaeda needs the Republican party. Like Sonny and Cher, Captain and Tennille, Alvin and the Chipmonks – these two groups of people each benefit when the other gains power. They are like two lovers who beat with one heart.

Al Qaeda just released another very special episode of “Allah and the Misfits” just in time for the US elections. They pray that George W. Bush and the Republicans will be humiliated by God. It seems to me that these folks have managed to humiliate themselves just fine without much divine intervention, so any further humiliation wouldn’t really be an omnipotent act as much as it would be a natural consequence of Darwinism.

I’m sure that the Republicans would tout this as a win for John McCain. They released nearly the exact same tape in 2004, and it helped George Bush get elected. Now they have released another one.

These two groups really need each other, don’t they!

Finally, for what it’s worth, I would refer you to my original October Surprise List, Item #4: Some major event occurs in the Middle East that reminds us of the threat: a new videotape from Osama Bin Laden, a major threat is exposed, a grand plot is uncovered, or Iran shows signs of going off the deep-end once and for all.

Why are Republicans so Anti-Capitalist?

I love most of my Republican friends, but I wish more of them believed in capitalism. Sadly, too many of them prefer to reject capitalism in favor of a kleptocracy.  Why do they hate America so much?

I also wish my Republican friends were as patriotic as I am. Unfortunately, too many of them are part of the “rich America first” crowd.

I was re-reading my good friend Adam Smith’s book “Wealth of Nations” today and stumbled upon a fairly important passage:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Gosh, that last sentence sure does seem to make sense, doesn’t it?  The rich should contribute to the public expense in greater proportion to their revenue than the non-rich. It’s almost like Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and the man who created modern capitalism – wants to spread your wealth around.

I bet Adam Smith would be a democrat today. He seems like a good guy.

Oh, and for the record – Republicans – stop telling me that Ireland’s business taxes are among the lowest in the world. If you continue to advocate for the Irish system of governance and taxation, I’m eventually going to hold you to it. This means high income taxes, government-sponsored health care as a result of individual taxation, and a graduated business tax that puts the highest burden on small businesses. Sounds great to me!

How Safe is Obama?

Statistically speaking, if you gave every red state to McCain plus all of the blue states in which Obama’s lead was less than 7%, Obama would still lead by 16 electoral votes.

To me, the only thing this does is bring this back to a 50/50 election. With such incredible voter suppression from the GOP, there are scores of people being denied the right to vote because of Republican tactics.  Add to this the Bradley Effect, the fact that Democrats have a harder time missing work, and a little bit of laziness – and this could easily add up to 8%. Obama can survive an 7% cut, but not an 8%. With a margin that small, every vote for Obama is important.

October Surprises

First, I encourage the McCain campaign to continue talking about redistributing wealth. While the Republican base goes out-of-their-skull angry at such notions, the rest of the country doesn’t think it’s such a bad idea.

Now, let’s revisit the list of October Surprise predictions I made on October 1st:

10. Biden is replaced by Hilary on veep ticket.

9. The whisper campaign that Obama is a Muslim who refuses to wear a flag pin or say the Pledge of Allegiance nonsense is amplified in targeted communities through locally published and anonymous flyers, postings, and other publicly controlled media. HAPPENED (except they’ve elevated their rhetoric toward simply accusing him of terrorism)

8. The Republican congress holds out on the bailout until mid-October, then suddenly votes for a stimulus/bailout package that temporarily and artificially induces the populace into an economy-is-good-McCain-must-be-ok sort of stupor.

7. McCain gets a foothold on the Rezko or Ayers stories that currently have little or no traction. HAPPENED – Here’s the Link

6. The RNC raises the battleflag of voter fraud and claims to have evidence that Republicans are being targeted, specifically in targeted districts where Republicans are needed to flock to the polls. HAPPENED – Here’s the Link

5. Palin is replaced by Romney on veep ticket.

4. Some major event occurs in the Middle East that reminds us of the threat: a new videotape from Osama Bin Laden, a major threat is exposed, a grand plot is uncovered, or Iran shows signs of going off the deep-end once and for all. HAPPENED - Syria – Here’s the Link

3. Some completely as-of-yet-unknown story or detail that completely catches everyone off guard. HAPPENED - Obama bombshell audio tape discovered – Here’s the Link

2. As if from heaven, gas prices will fall as OPEC manipulates the market due to “significant western economic fluctuations”. HAPPENED - lowest gas prices in six decades – Here’s the Link

1. The government increases the security threat under the guise of securing economic interests. HASN’T HAPPENED (YET)

Well, I got six of ten correct, and I’m still holding out on #1. I think the Syria connection provides a good backdrop for raising the security threat in the next few days. Stay tuned!

Finding the Leaks

By nature, I’m a capitalist. I believe in a free-market where low prices are the result of competition and free trade. I believe that businesses – not the government – should be the driving force behind the redistribution of wealth; that employees benefit from higher wages that result from profitable business; that customers benefit from competitive pricing; and that ancillary industries such as shipping, consulting, and constructing benefit from business growth. I think employees and employers can find a natural balance between living wages and a good day’s work without government intervention. In short, I believe that solid business growth helps everybody – and that greater restrictions by the government hurt businesses more than they help them. I believe that all of these things work perfectly - right up until the point that they don’t. We’ve reached that point. 

Somewhere in the system, we have a leak that has corrupted the natural flow of money. If money is blood, and the economy is our circulatory system, we’re hemorrhaging somewhere and it’s hurting the entire system.

So where are the leaks?

1. The Government. Let’s give the conservatives a nod and agree, to some extent, that the growth of the government under the Bush administration has siphoned a great deal of money out of the system. Earmarks and pork account for $18 billion, but this is the equivalent of less than two months of fighting in Iraq. It costs the American taxpayers an average of $10 billion per month to continue this war, and we’re no better off than we were five years ago. The middle east is less stable than it was when we invaded, and we’re no safer from the terrorists than we were in 2003. Regional instability and a substantial increase in demand have caused oil prices to skyrocket. It’s time to shit or get off the pot.

2. Cost of Living. Let’s give one more to the GOP and confess that protecting the poorest among us has gotten more expensive. Republicans may argue that laziness and a poor work ethic are to blame for the crisis of the working class, but I would suggest that the working class is the first to feel the impact of a drop in our economic blood pressure. Substantial increases in the cost of basic needs such as gas, health care, housing, and food have paralyzed our working class. These industries are showing record profits, while small businesses are dying because the working class no longer has a disposable income.  The poorest among us need only one small crisis – perhaps a broken arm or a broken car – to thrust them permanently into poverty.  Like a million little paper cuts, people in poverty create a one-way economy. They take, but cannot return. If our answer is to blame them for their own demise, they will drag us down with them. Without government assistance to alleviate or offset fuel prices, health care costs, mortgage payments, or the cost of food – we will permanently paralyze a growing poverty class.

3. Banking. To whatever extent, we’ve lost a lot of money to the banking industry. If we need to infuse $750 billion dollars into the system, it’s because somebody (or lots of somebody’s) got rich. This may or may not be a short term problem (maybe more like a sudden nosebleed than an open gash), but it sure doesn’t help.

4. Energy. Now we’re getting closer to the root of the problem. We are hemorrhaging cash to the tune of $700 billion dollars every year. Many argue that offshore drilling is a great solution, and it is – kind of – in the same way that stumbling upon a bottle of prescription painkillers is a great solution for a pill-popping junkie. Our nation doesn’t need new sources of oil as much as is needs new sources of energy. We’ll always need oil for things like plastic and other petroleum based products, so let’s reserve our domestic production for these things, rather than creating a direct pipeline to our gas tanks as a short term fix.

5. Greed. Look, I’m in favor of working hard to make lots of money. I get it. I support it. I love it. But we live in a nation where 10% of us own 70% of the common wealth. That leaves 30% of our common wealth for the remaining 90% of us. It’s here where we start to see that capitalism often works better on paper than it does in reality. Instead of creating a fluid system where money circulates evenly throughout the system, we’ve allowed a disproportionate amount of our resources to pool somewhere within the system. I’m not saying that we need a 1% to 1% solution, but I’m not shy about using taxes as a way to stimulate the economy.  If we don’t artificially pump some of this money back into the bloodstream, we’re risking a lot more than just losing a philosophical argument about punishing people for their success.

So what’s the answer? If we are to achieve the sort of free-market fluidity that allows all Americans to prosper through hard work, we need to make some tough decisions:

1. Shit or get off the pot in Iraq. Our hesitance to withdraw is based on a very realistic fear of the repopulation of terrorists in Iraq, so let’s kill the Hydra instead of watching two heads grow back for every one head we kill. Hint: the Hydra isn’t in Iraq.

2. Tax the rich. Sorry folks, I know how hard you’ve worked to earn all of that money, but it’s time for everyone to make patriotic sacrifices. Don’t think of it as punishing your success, think of it as planting seeds for a healthier crop of customers. Without them, you’ll eventually be one of them.

3. Phase out domestic oil as a source of fuel, and phase in renewable energies. Sun and wind and water are free – so let’s rebuild our economy by capitalizing on these free resources. Our growth in this century won’t be driven by fossil fuels, but by major investments in green technologies that we can export all over the world. No other country is better positioned than us.

Well, at least it’s a start. We’ve got to fix the leaks before we can fix the system.

Is the Media Biased Against John McCain?

One of our regular posters, Truth, submitted a comment yesterday with a link to a website that proved that the media has run many more negative stories about McCain than about Obama. You can click here to visit the site he referenced.  I have no problem believing the data in the graph, so let’s assume that this is true.

While the data is true, and while it appears to confirm the Republican mantra about the “left wing media,” I would ask that you consider the analysis provided further down the page:

Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

I absolutely agree that there are liberal media outlets and conservative media outlets. I absolutely disagree that the journalistic institution, as a whole, leans to the left or the right. Before my conservative friends start cherry-picking websites and research that proves a left-wing media bias, I’ll remind you that there are just as many that prove either a conservative bias or no bias at all. I’ve checked, and I think you’ll find the same thing.

I strongly suspect that emotional memory trumps fact when it comes to personal regard for media bias. We remember all of the bad headlines (which we view as unfair) and forget all the good headlines (which we view as fair).

My conservative friends are outraged that Ayers and ACORN and Wright aren’t getting more attention from the media. I’m outraged that Palin’s several scandals and McCain’s Keating 5 associations aren’t getting more attention. Just like my conservative friends, I’m outraged that the other guy is getting a free pass on so many important issues. Perhaps the issue isn’t with the media, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The media loves a tasty headline, and it doesn’t matter whose head is on the chopping block.

Spread the Wealth!

Question: what is the opposite of spreading the wealth around? 

Answer: NOT spreading the wealth around.

In a nation in which 10% of its citizens hold 70% of its wealth, it is alarming that a candidate for president would argue that the wealth of this nation should not be spread around. Even Reagan argued for spreading the wealth around through trickle-down economics. Clearly, the money is not trickling down under the Bush administration. When this happens, the government must artificially redirect money through taxation.

Conservatives would be quick to argue that spreading the wealth through taxation is an artificial and socialistic mechanism. I would counter by asserting that a great number of economic policies in this nation are designed to move money up the ladder, not down. These free-market mechanisms are working, but what do you do when they work too well, and there’s no protection for the little guy?

It is not enough for conservatives to talk about economic freedoms, bootstraps, and American dreams. While these nostalgic notions of rags-to-riches sound great, they are no longer reliable paths to wealth or even stability in these modern times.

As long as so few possess so much, our government has an obligation – purely out of self-interest – to either institute fair economic policies that allow market fluidity up AND down the economic ladder, or they must institute fair tax policies that redistribute wealth.

I’m sad that John McCain is opposed to spreading the wealth around. Joe the Plumber only makes $40K a year. Let’s get him a little bit more money. Let’s vote Obama.

Democratic Victory for Obama

I have some good encouraging for Democrats.  RealClearPolitics has 249 solid votes for Obama. This means that Obama is winning these states by a margin of 7%. There are some states like New Mexico that are at 8% but are considered “leaning” because the polls have been more volatile.

Here’s why that’s such good news. If Obama still has 249 votes on the morning of the election, it won’t be about getting to 270, it will be about getting to 21. With 37 votes officially leaning Obama, plus another 97 toss-up votes (most of which lean Obama), it won’t take more than a couple of states to give Obama the 21 votes he needs.

So, although we may see Obama’s numbers decline in the popular vote (as we see in every election), the popular vote percentage is very deceptive.

Palin, SNL, and Colin Powell

Sarah Palin was on Saturday Night Live this weekend.  I’m assuming somebody in the McCain/Palin campaign thought that this was a really good idea. At first, I’d agree with them. SNL has had a very successful month, and people are starting to accept the Tina Fey impression as the “true” picture of Palin. Not good. Palin wanted to accomplish exactly what Mark Wahlberg did. His appearance on SNL says two things: I can take a joke, and I’m going to stand up for myself. Palin accomplished the first, but not the second. Instead of putting a stop to the parodies, she fueled the flames and invited more. So while Palin’s base is energized, the rest of the nation thinks the same or worse of Palin.

Obama was endorsed by Colin Powell on Sunday. This helps him in Florida and Virginia, where large populations of active and retired military personnel live. The potential boost is significant, and I’ll be watching those state polls closely. Additionally, he spoke to crowds of 100,000 in St. Louis and 75,000 in Kansas City.

So Obama spent the weekend working on Florida, Virginia, and Missouri. Palin spent the weekend palling around with humorists.

I’d say Obama had a better weekend.

By the way, I went to see ”W” last night. It was horrible.

McCain’s Best Hope

As of Saturday morning, Barack Obama has a commanding lead in both the popular vote and on the electoral map. He has 249 solid votes, compared to 140 for McCain. Obama has 37 leaning votes, compared to 15 for McCain. Of the 97 unassigned votes, 78 show slight favor to Obama and 19 tilt toward McCain. If the election were held today, Obama would win with 364 electoral votes, McCain with 174. This highlights Obama’s hidden strategy: it’s not about the popular vote. Obama leads the popular vote by 6.9%, but has captured 68% of the electoral votes. So is Obama ahead by 7% or is it actually more like 18%?

All of Obama’s current success doesn’t amount to much until November 5th. Until then, McCain could still win this election if a couple of key events happen to go his way. As I count them, there are five scenarios that would lead to a McCain/Palin win:

1. Messiah Fatigue. Statistically speaking, the majority of this nation favors Obama, and a decent chunk of this following is loud and proud. It is entirely possible that Obama has peaked too early, and the momentum cannot be sustained. McCain could win if the nation gets bored with the election and stops paying attention. Obama’s message of change requires a frenzied nation. He has it now, but there are still 17 days left.

2. Democrat Apathy. Elections favor the Republicans by default because the retired population favors Republicans, and they always, always vote. So while Obama might have 249 solid electoral votes, McCain has a larger base of guaranteed voters. Combined with the Bradley Effect, Obama’s 6.9% lead could easily disappear when Democrats stay home and senior citizens don’t. Add to this the college crowd and minority voters who make up a substantial part of polling, but who are less reliable at the polls, and the win is much closer for McCain than many realize.

3. The Underdog. Republicans are desperate for good news, and any progress by McCain could be a slippery slope for Obama. The media love a horserace, and they won’t hesitate to turn a slight gain by McCain into a finish-by-a-nose race. Drudge did this the other day when an online poll by Yahoo showed a two-point lead by Obama – within the margin of error. Nobody had ever counted this online poll before, and the sampling was a ten-day period in which people could vote multiple times, but this didn’t stop Drudge from cherry-picking this particular poll to make it look like McCain had made a substantial gain when, in fact, he had not.

4. Obama Screws Up. This seems less and less likely, but it’s not out of the realm of possibilities. McCain, on the other hand, can’t seem to go a day without making things worse for himself.  If Obama screws up big time, particularly in the area of McCain’s strengths (terrorism, foreign affairs, working class appeal), it could be a significant game-changer.

5. October Surprise. This also seems less likely, given the desperation of the McCain campaign. If they had something up their sleeves, they would be more confident than they appear to be. It is still possible, however, that some major event or revelation could easily change people’s minds.  News from the middle east, a skeleton in Obama’s closet, or some really, really good news for McCain might be enough to push him over the top in the last few days.

There are still 17 days left, and that’s plenty of time for things to change.

Election Poll Numbers and the Bradley Effect

I’ve updated the numbers from the last post. Here are the changes in a nutshell:

• I accidentally gave Obama 3 votes from Montana in the last post, so he was actually only winning by 190 votes, not 196.

 

• North Dakota is now leaning Obama with 2.5%. This brings Obama to 196 if no Bradley Effect exists.

 

• Florida dropped from 5% to 4.6%, which means that if the Bradely Effect is 5%, Obama only wins the election by 34 votes instead of 96 (FL27 + ND3 away from O and toward M).

 

• If the Bradley Effect is 6%, Obama wins by 16 votes instead of 22 (due to my ND error).

 

• If the Bradley Effect is 7%, Obama wins by 16 votes because Virginia bumped from 6.5% to 8.1% in the past three days, thus moving 13 votes from McCain to Obama.

 

• If the Bradley Effect is 8%, McCain wins by 2 votes (ME4 and NM5 away from O and toward M).

So, based on current polling numbers, Obama could take a 7% dive in every state, and he’d still win the election. This adds a full percent from the previous post!

These numbers assume a lot of things (that everyone polled will vote, that all states suffer equally from the Bradley Effect, etc.), but I think this goes a long way to demonstrating the statistical tolerance that Obama can have before it costs him the election.

Here is the data file: joshandersonpollingdata1017

Obama and the “Bradley Effect”

By now, most news-savvy Americans are aware of the Bradley Effect and the Bubba Vote, but I’d like to take the analysis one step further to determine how much of the Bradley Effect Obama can handle before he loses the election.

Using data from RealClearPolitics, we can make each state blue or red according to current polling for each state (remember that RCP averages all available polls to produce a single, averaged poll):

If we do nothing, Obama wins with a margin of 196 votes.

If we take all of the blue states in which Obama enjoys less than a 5% lead and we make them red states, Obama wins with a margin of 94 votes.

If we take all of the blue states in which Obama enjoys less than a 6% lead and we make them red states, Obama wins with a margin of 22 votes.

If we take all of the blue states in which Obama enjoys less than a 7% lead and we make them red states, McCain wins with a margin of only 4 votes.

So, based on current polling numbers, Obama could take a 6% dive in every state, and he’d still win the election.

These numbers assume a lot of things (that everyone polled will vote, that all states suffer equally from the Bradley Effect, etc.), but I think this goes a long way to demonstrating the statistical tolerance that Obama can have before it costs him the election.

To see the data arranged in tables, click here: josh-anderson-polling-data

21 Days

Is anyone else nervous that John McCain, the entire Republican party, and nearly all pundits (left and right) have all but declared the election a win for Obama?  Granted, McCain is still promising a win in November, but he has deliberately improved the tone of his campaign and has essentially vowed to “play nice” for the next three weeks. This is what you do when you know you are going to lose and you want to salvage any remaining shred of dignity.

This makes me really, really nervous.

McCain Cannot Count to 100

We need to have a president who can count to 100, especially on matters of the economy. This is why John McCain is not a really good choice to be president. In a press release posted on his website dated October 8th, McCain released the names of 100 economists who oppose Obama’s economic proposals.

This is interesting for two reasons. First, these economists aren’t suggesting that they support McCain; simply that they oppose Obama. Second – and perhaps more telling – is that there are only 90 of them. Count them for yourself.

Speaking of 100, today officially begins George W. Bush’s last 100 days in office!

That’s great news. It’s even better when you consider that there are actually only 90 days remaining, according to McCain.

After the Financial Crisis: a New Plan for America

I’ll begin by confessing a sort of ongoing devotion to Thomas Friedman, whom I’ve cited several times in various blog posts. He’s the author of “The World is Flat” and “Hot, Flat, and Crowded.” Using metaphors and narratives, Friedman de-complicates the world in a way that dumb people like me can understand. He is, in short, the Ford Prefect to my Arthur Dent – and his explanations of the universe help this hitchhiker to understand how it all works.

Friedman’s newest book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” offers a new plan for America after (and during) the current financial crisis. The premise is fairly simple: America is losing to countries like India and China in terms of manufacturing, education, infrastructure, and economic stability.  Our industrial revolution is about 100 years older than theirs, and so their network of factories, facilities, and faculties is newer, more modern, more efficient, and ultimately more effective.  If we keep playing the same game, we’ll lose.  So we need a new game – a new industry with minimum competition and maximum need. That industry? Renewable energy.  The horribly beautiful truth about our present world is that America, China, and India are all built upon a foundation of fossil fuels: horrible because it hurts our environment, beautiful because America is infinitely more able to flip the “green” switch than India and China.

Friedman’s plan is simple and brilliant: America needs to embrace the green revolution and work aggressively to stop making cars and start making green technologies that will power the world for the next century. This is our economic salvation; this is our way of staying relevant for the next 100 years. The demand is through the roof, the supply is non-existant on a global scale, and the competition is low.

We can do this!

Check out this interview with Friedman on Meet the Press a few weeks ago, then buy the book!

Taxes as an Act of Patriotism

I want to spend a moment to reflect on Thomas Friedman’s newest column in the New York Times. He poses a series of questions to Governor Palin after her response to Joe Biden in the VP debates:

“if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.”

Friedman, the author of “The World is Flat” and “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” articulates what so many of us have been thinking: how can we possibly pay for all of our initiatives without raising taxes?

With ten trillion dollars of debt, and an overall debt load of 56 trillion dollars, it is irresponsible to continue borrowing money from China and other nations. Similarly, it is impractical to suggest that cutting government waste is an acceptable alternative to raising taxes.

We can’t continue borrowing money, and we can’t cut our budget in any meaningful way.

So how do we solve this problem? I’d like to hear your ideas.

27 Days

With 27 days until the election, there are only four things that would keep Barack Obama from winning this election:

1) Obama could have a major gaffe. This is a unlikely, but clearly not impossible. His performance at the debates last night was staid and calm, and he just doesn’t seem like the guy who shoots from the hip. By contrast, McCain’s interpretation of “maverick” seems increasingly unsteady and decreasingly wise. 

2) A major and unexpected world event could refocus our attention away from domestic issues and squarely on the issue of terrorism or military affairs. It would have to be an awfully big event. Again, this is unlikely, but clearly not impossible. With a tip of the hat to the conspiracy theorists among you, I’m not even sure that government manipulation of the terror alert or a wag-the-dog scenario would be enough to distract us from the economy.

3) Perhaps there is something that McCain knows that the rest of us don’t that will be revealed in the days preceding the election. Compared to the other two, this might be the most likely – but the likelihood is low. McCain is desperate for ammunition – and if he’s down to his last political grenade, it would be more useful now than in four weeks.

4) The “Bubba Vote” is much, much larger than anticipated. The theory goes like this: a well meaning middle-age, middle-class white person is leaning mildly toward Obama prior to the election. He even tells a telephone pollster and a couple of friends that he’ll probably vote for Obama. Come election day, he pauses for just a couple of seconds and asks himself if he can *really* vote for a black man for President. Thinking that it’s better to err on the side of caution, he switches his vote at the last minute. Could this happen? Of course, and it will happen. But it is impossible to measure how frequently it will happen, so it is an unknowable variable. HOWEVER, let’s remember that there are three things that counterbalance the Bubba vote. First, the number of first time voters that have been signed up by the Obama campaign is brilliantly staggering. Even if only 10% of those new voters vote, it cancels out the Bubba vote. Second, Obama’s ground campaign is so thorough that even if he loses the popular vote, the distribution of those votes will still produce electoral magic. Third, I think that for every husband who openly supports McCain, there is a housewife who secretly supports Obama. It’s not a matter of race or gender, it’s a matter of message: Obama’s message of change resonates with women.

The electoral numbers are staggering. Every major polling organization has Obama ahead by at least 100 electoral votes. The remaining handful of states that haven’t clearly broken left or right in the polls are all leaning left – save Indiana.

According to RCP, McCain has to win 102 of the 111 toss-up electoral votes in order to win the election. As it stands, 100 of those toss-up votes are currently leaning Obama.

It’s game over unless something dramatic happens.

The Keating Five

This morning, the Obama campaign posted a website articulating John McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five scandal. It is Obama’s strategic response to the Bill Ayer’s controversy revisited by McCain this past Saturday. The website currently contains a short teaser of a longer documentary that will be posted at noon today. You can also read about the website and Obama’s decision at Politico.

The Keating Five scandal is important for three reasons: it negates the Ayers controversy, it demonstrates McCain’s poor judgement, and it ties itself directly back to the government bailout of the banking industry. While McCain wants to divert our attention off of the economy, Obama gets the clear advantage by using the Keating Five scandal as a vehicle for discussing the economy. It will be a brilliant move as long as Obama can stay positive, which will be difficult.

This also has the potential to make John McCain really angry, which, in turn will make him really erratic.  No doubt it is frustrating for McCain to revisit this embarrassing scandal every campaign season – and he might have thought he’d get through this one without having to talk about it. Obama has done to McCain what McCain had hoped to do unto Obama – make it so close to the finish line, only to trip on your own hubris.

This may quickly devolve into both campaigns spinning out of control as the candidates abandon their strategy and race for the finish line with a raw mix of desperation and humility. If you need a visual, think of the final scene of “Talladega Nights.” As for October Surprises, it seems that both campaigns were holding on to the Guilt-By-Association card until the last few weeks of the election. Whether this is the only surprise each campaign has remains to be seen.

So How Will This Play Out?

Both candidates take a big political risk by allowing these two issues to dominate the few remaining news cycles. McCain and Palin are choosing to bring the Ayers controversy to the surface by making it a centerpiece of his and her stump speeches starting today. While this method provides instant (and free) media distribution, it also serves as an albatross around McCain’s neck: if this backfires, he’s still stuck with it. Obama, on the other hand, emailed a link to the Keating Five website to millions of his supporters early this morning and urged them to distribute the link to their friends. We’ll see later today if Obama begins making this connection in his daily talking points.

This leaves both candidates in a vulnerable position, but I predict that the Ayers controversy will remain in left field while the Keating Five scandal will be paired with the economy for a one-two punch for Obama.

Obama and Bill Ayers. McCain and the Keating 5. Your Move, John.

Want to know why Barack Obama has resisted talking about McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five?

John McCain has made no secret of his intention to use Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers as a reason to question Obama’s judgement.  Yesterday, McCain made it clear that he is going to step up those attacks and be more forceful in his attacks.

I hope he does, because the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers isn’t nearly as interesting as the relationship between John McCain and Charles Keating. Feel free to read about the Keating Five on Wikipedia.

Obama used to have a connection to a guy who was so pissed off at the government, that he actually bombed government buildings.

McCain was formally criticized by the US Senate for exercizing poor judgement for his role in illegally protecting the chairman of a major banking corporation from a government investigation for his defrauding of 21,000 elderly investors out of their life savings.

There’s a reason Obama hasn’t tied you to this, McCain. He’s been waiting for you to tie him to Bill Ayers.

Your move, John McCain.

You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

Maybe when Sarah Palin claimed that she reads most, all, and any of the newspapers that are in front of her, she only meant the comic strips, because it’s funny how she concluded that “Obama is pallin’ around with terrorists” after reading an article from this weekend’s New York Times. CNN reported that:

The New York Times article cited by Palin concluded that “the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers.” Other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have said that their reporting doesn’t support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.

I guess Governor Palin hasn’t read these other newspapers and magazines yet.

The CNN Fact Check verdict for Palin’s claim is as follows:

Verdict: False.There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now “palling around,” or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.

I also worry that poor Sarah was absent from school on the day that she was supposed to learn that adding an “s” to the end of a word means that there is more than one. I’m sure that the good Governor would be SO embarrassed to learn that she accidentally suggested that Obama is pallin’ around with two or more terrorists. Whoops!  That’s ok, Gov, we know you are just trying your best!

It looks as though the McCain camp is going to go full-speed ahead with the Ayers story. Perhaps this is their October Surprise, or at least one of them.

I Think I Smell a Rat

10:16am (central)

UPDATE: intensive Lexis Nexis searches return ZERO results for any of the names listed in the CNN story prior to October 4th.

6:40am (central) / October 4, 2008

The US Military says it killed the top al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq – but there is no mention of his name anywhere on the internet prior to the release of the story.

CNN is reporting early this morning that “U.S. military says al Qaeda in Iraq mastermind [is] dead.” The story is hitting the wires and running like crazy. But I think I smell a rat. I challenge all of my conservative readers to prove me wrong, because I don’t want to believe what I think may be true. According to the first two paragraphs of the story:

“Coalition forces in Baghdad have killed the man believed to be the mastermind of recent bombings in the Iraqi capital, the U.S. military said. Mahir Ahmad Mahmud Judu al-Zubaydi, also known as Abu Rami and Abu Assad, was believed to be the leader of one of al Qaeda in Iraq’s Baghdad networks, the military said in a statement issued Friday.”

Here is the challenge to my conservative friends. Try and find any reference to any of the following names prior to October 3rd on any website: Mahir Ahmad Mahmud Judu al-Zubaydi, Abu Rami, Abu Assad.

I started with Google News, which returns all news content from the past year (and more). The first mention that any of these three names returns a hit is about six hours ago.

Why is the first online reporting of the name of the top al Qaeda mastermind just moments after his death? While many will argue that covert intelligence kept the name mum, this is surely not the case for the “al Qaeda mastermind” in Iraq.

I smell a rat.

Developing? . . .

Who Won the VP Debate?

She didn’t answer the questions, and she didn’t offer anything new, but what Sara Palin did tonight is prove that she’s not the idiot that much of the country thought she was. In terms of the Vice-Presidency, this isn’t saying much. Not-being-an-idiot is the first rung of a very tall ladder. In terms of political capital, Palin’s performance tonight stops and perhaps even corrects the downward spiral of the McCain/Palin campaign. Granted, she’s far from serving as the sole savior of this sinking ship, but she did her homework and boosted the confidence of most Republicans, and perhaps a few undecideds as well.

Don’t get me wrong, she’s still wrong; but being wrong is a lot different than being understood. The Democrats learned this lesson the hard way, twice: first with Al Gore, then with John Kerry. Mozart might be the better musician, but that doesn’t mean he’s selling more albums right now.  In a time of political, economic, and global crisis – Americans don’t want their world to be complex, and a politician who can’t speak plainly is an unwelcome guest – to wit, Gore, Kerry, and from time to time, Obama and Biden.

Quite a few of us read dozens of websites and a blizzard of articles every day on politics and political topics – and for us, the choice is clear: Obama or McCain. To us, being undecided is borderline unpatriotic. Those who are undecided will argue, and be right, that they don’t have the luxury of reading a dozen websites and a blizzard of articles.

For too many Americans, the person who can explain our world in the most simple terms is the person they trust most to lead them through times of crisis. This used to be the job of the media. Now it’s the job of the President. Perhaps one day it will again be the job of the President to be complex and the job of the media to be plain spoken. For the time being, we have a bluegrass President in a Baroque world. 

It occured to me while watching the debates that the McCain strategy can be summarized in a single sentence: obfuscate the facts until nobody trusts them, distort the perceptions of the media until nobody trusts them either, and make this election about an emotional gut reaction, then start waving that flag. If this is their goal, then they couldn’t have found a better pick for Vice-President.

October Surprises

Happy October!

The time has come for us to start watching for the October Surprise, a political term to describe the last-minute sabatoging of an opposing candidate by revealing something great about yourself or something horrible about your opponent.

So, here are my predictions for possible October surprises, in order from least plausible to most plausible:

10. Biden is replaced by Hilary on veep ticket.

9. The whisper campaign that Obama is a Muslim who refuses to wear a flag pin or say the Pledge of Allegiance nonsense is amplified in targeted communities through locally published and anonymous flyers, postings, and other publicly controlled media.

8. The Republican congress holds out on the bailout until mid-October, then suddenly votes for a stimulus/bailout package that temporarily and artificially induces the populace into an economy-is-good-McCain-must-be-ok sort of stupor.

7. McCain gets a foothold on the Rezko or Ayers stories that currently have little or no traction.

6. The RNC raises the battleflag of voter fraud and claims to have evidence that Republicans are being targeted, specifically in targeted districts where Republicans are needed to flock to the polls.

5. Palin is replaced by Romney on veep ticket (this moves to #3 if Palin’s debates are tragic)

4. Some major event occurs in the Middle East that reminds us of the threat: a new videotape from Osama Bin Laden, a major threat is exposed, a grand plot is uncovered, or Iran shows signs of going off the deep-end once and for all.

3. Some completely as-of-yet-unknown story or detail that completely catches everyone off guard.

2. As if from heaven, gas prices will fall as OPEC manipulates the market due to “significant western economic fluctuations”.

1. The government increases the security threat under the guise of securing economic interests.

The only way to know for sure is to wait!

Barack Obama Will Win The Presidency, If . . .

Obama is holding steady in the horserace for the presidency. Currently, he’s 4.6% ahead of McCain in the popular vote. He’s up 64 electoral votes, and of the 178 votes from toss-up states, 104 of them go to Obama. When you measure only the toss-up states with a margin of at least 3%, Obama gets 59 votes, whereas McCain only gets 11. You can use the stats from yesterday’s posts to see how I arrive at these numbers.

In the past two weeks, Obama’s stock has risen steadily while McCain’s stock has slowly declined. Bottom line: Obama is winning, and is winning fairly handily.  That doesn’t make a whole lot of difference right now, though, as there is plenty of time for things to go haywire.

So here is a Beginner’s Guide to watching the rest of the campaign season:

What does Obama need to do?

“Never argue with a fool, people won’t be able to tell who is who.”  While McCain is hardly a fool, Obama is taking this advice to heart and will spend the next four weeks avoiding confrontation. For as long as he is in the lead, Obama needs to stay quiet. He’ll continue campaigning strongly, continue running ads in key markets, and keep up the excellent grassroots efforts.  Obama will resist the temptation to create drama just to put the headlines back on him.  The next month will be a test of Obama’s ability to generate and maintain political endurance. I’m assuming that the campaign’s energies are going toward individual counties and areas of opportunity. Democrats will want Obama to be large and in charge, but this is neither effective nor is it his style. There’s no reason to show more of your cards than is absolutely necessary, so Obama will focus on zip codes, not states for as long as the campaign will allow.

What does McCain need to do?

McCain will spend the next month trying to steal the spotlight from Obama in politically safe ways. If he can’t do it safely, he’s proven in the past that a couple of Hail Mary’s aren’t out of the question. Look for McCain to continue to do things that shake up the race and catch people off guard – choosing Palin and suspending his campaign are two great examples of the sort of drastic action McCain will need to continue to offer as a regular part of his campaign. We will continue to see both parties fire safe shots from a safe distance, but watch for McCain’s volleys to be a little more stinging and forceful. He’ll try to engage Obama to go head-to-head, which makes them appear more even than they are.

What is each candidate trying to accomplish in the last 30 days?

Obama proved many times during the primaries that he is a master of the map – he knows districts and counties like the back of his hand, and artfully dispatches his resources where they are needed. He has created a national identity that is strong and consistent in the minds of most Americans. As long as Obama isn’t needed on the national stage, he can continue working the districts one-by-one, slowly rising the tide where needed.

By contrast, McCain is still working on his national identity, and his fondness for being all things to all people is working against him. The more hats he wears along the many stops each day, the more he illuminates the contrasts: patriots don’t want progressive change, reformers can’t have a lot of experience, and mavericks aren’t bipartisan. It’s true that any McCain supporter could easily explain how all of these wonderful labels work in pure harmony, but it requires a fairly artful dance that most undecided voters are too impatient to enjoy to the end. Being right is much different than being understood – a curse every Kerry supporter could explain in just under fifteen minutes. To this extent, McCain has had to rely on surrogates to get down to the community level while McCain sets bait for the national press with an ongoing series of flashy tactics (ahem, not strategies) designed to say “hey, forget about all the other stuff, here’s the REAL John McCain.”

An Interesting Side Note

Those among you who follow politics closely have noticed something missing from this year’s campaign: wedge issues. Where is the gay marriage vote? What happened to the immigration proposition? These issues are completely gone from the national spotlight and from most state ballots. Why? Eu tu, Brute? McCain pointed his sharp dagger squarely at the heart of the Bush administration and thrust forward with all his might. Not only are there no issues out there that would energize the base, there’s nobody strong enough to champion the cause and make it a defining issue. Even Karl Rove is only part-time help for McCain.

So What’s Next?

Now it’s time to wait for the “October Surprise”. Do a Google search for this term and you’ll learn that every major election always includes a last-minute twist designed to totally derail a candidate. There are two types of October Surprises: a “good-for-me” surprise and a “bad-for-you” surprise.

In the next post, we’ll talk about possible October Surprises and make some predictions.