School Funding: A Unique Approach

"God made the idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."

   - Mark Twain (1835-1910), American humorist

In this piece titled "No Class," Robert Maranto, a professor at Villanova University, recounts a recent experience as a parent of a soon-to-be student at his local elementary school:

"...like any good parent, I called the principal's office at my local public elementary school to check it out before sending my son...On my fourth try I reached a live person, and had a brief conversation:

'Hi, I'm Bob Maranto. I'm a parent who lives in your school's attendance zone. My son will be old enough for kindergarten next fall...I was wondering if I could come visit the school sometime.'

'We don't have any visiting this year,' the administrator replied. 'We're doing construction and a lot of things are going on.'

'Could I watch a class in session?'

'No, even when there's no construction you could not watch a class.'

'Well, could I meet my son's teacher?'

'No, the teachers are busy teaching all day and then they go home.' "

Undeterred by the initial rebuff, Maranto persisted for five months, making 22 attempts at getting permission to visit the school. He eventually succeeded, but has yet to gain access to a live class.

He acknowledges that schools find some parents difficult to work with and suspects that having to comply with so many federal, state and local regulations also complicates a school administration's ability to give parents more attention. Those things considered, however, he believes things could be better. He cites a more positive experience he had in Arizona:

"But some public schools do better. Last year I led an accreditation visit to an Arizona charter school, Tuscon's Academy of Math and Science. I slipped away from the guided tour, roaming the parking lot as school let out to question parents about how school staff treated them. Thirteen of 14 parents said their school welcomed their input...Half the parents had watched classes. As one lady assured me: 'It's easy--you just talk to Mrs. Shannon at the front desk, tell her which class you want to go watch, and she'll tell you which room it's in.' "

Maranto goes on to praise Arizona public schools in general and concludes they're better than those in his home state of Pennsylvania because of a unique system of budgeting and an open enrollment policy:

"...Arizona has open enrollment across district lines as well as 500 charter schools--many started by teachers--so parents unhappy with one school can easily find another. In addition, state funding means that education dollars follow enrollment, so schools that alienate parents lose money which in turn alarms school boards and makes principals unemployed."

In other words, there's competition between schools for state education budget dollars. In order to get their allotment, they have to perform. If they don't, parents will enroll their kids in a school that does, leaving the under-performing facility in the lurch. Harsh maybe, but evidently quite effective. 

Competition is nothing new, but this is the first time I've read or heard about utilizing it in this manner to administer elementary education budgets. Maranto is sold on the concept, and I must say he's pretty much convinced me. I wonder if anyone out there has any experience with such a set-up outside Arizona? I'd be interested in how it's working.   

My Worst Nightmare

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but doesn't have an air force."

   - William Blum, American activist writer, editor

I've read this NewsMax story at several sites over the past few days, but reacted only mildly because I've seen so many similar warnings in the last couple of years. In a nutshell, the article states that those in the know are becoming increasingly concerned that al-Qaeda will "mount a devastating attack aimed at disrupting the (U.S.) political process." We've heard these types of warnings before, haven't we? The sky is falling, the sky is falling...yeah, yeah, I hear you; now go away and let me get back to my nap, my gardening, or whatever.

We have become somewhat numb to alerts such as this, and I was certainly headed down that path until I ran across this piece in USA Today. As I read through it, and thought about the NewsMax story, I began having an ugly premonition:

"Suicide attackers armed with hidden explosives that can weigh as little as a cell phone pose a serious threat to the nation's aviation system despite billions being spent on new efforts to tighten security, according to more than a dozen members of Congress and security consultants."

For those with the will to do it, and al-Qaeda operatives certainly have the will, it would be no great challenge to sneak a small amount of plastic explosive onto a commercial airliner and bring it down. Russian authorities believe this is what happened recently when two of their planes were destroyed by explosions in mid-air:

"The bombings of twin flights in Russia last month began a wave of Chechen attacks that have killed hundreds, including the takeover of a school that killed 335 people.

Russian authorities say that two women boarded the flights with explosives. The women had been detained by police when they reached the airport and were turned over to security officials, but the airport security chief let them go, according to Russian news reports.

The two flights disappeared from radar within seconds of each other. All 90 people aboard the two planes died.

It's not known how the women got the explosives aboard, but other Chechen suicide bombers have strapped them to their bodies. Only a small amount of explosives would have destroyed the planes."

Take a few minutes and read the entire article if you want a sobering education about how poorly equipped our airport security forces are to deter threats where plastic explosives are the weapon of choice. It's scary, and makes me very nervous about flying anywhere on a commercial jetliner.

My premonition is this. Suppose on the morning of November 2, 2004, a hundred or so al-Qaeda types attempt to sneak explosive devices onto a hundred or so heavily traveled flights here in our country. Let's say half of them are successful and bring 50 aircraft down within hours of each other. Let's say there are 200 people on each of these flights. That's 10,000 deaths, for I doubt that anyone would escape. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? I can't. It's unfathomable to me, but it would probably be worse than most of us can imagine.

Al-Qaeda keeps saying they're going to hit us really hard, and when they say that we tend to think in terms of another 9/11 or maybe the detonation of a nuclear device in one of our major cities. Perhaps they've read Sun-Tzu and that's what they'd like us to think so that we're not being watchful in the places where they plan to hit us.

Bombs and al-Qaeda go together like gin and tonic. If there's one thing they know how to do, it's how to make and use explosive devices. Replicating the Russian tragedy fifty times over in the U.S. would be easy for them compared to hijackings or finding and using a nuclear device. And the carnage would be greater than on 9-ll. That's my nightmare.

Hopefully, I only have an overactive imagination, but the scenario I've painted doesn't seem to me to require too much imagination. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong, that the sky really isn't falling, that we can go back to our chores and not have to worry about something like this happening. I must admit, however, now that I've begun thinking about it, I'm going to have a difficult time putting it out of my mind. 

 

 

 

 

Blue Apples and Pink Turkeys

"Children are not things to be molded, but are people to be unfolded."

    - Jess Lair (1927-2000), American psychologist, writer

Kindergarten teacher Wendy Kennar shares an experience as a child in elementary school when her teacher asked her to paint a landscape:

"I painted trees with round tops modeled after the pruned trees I saw as I walked to school each morning. I liked my painting; the teacher did not. She said my trees looked like lollipop trees; that they didn't look like real trees, although they looked like the trees I knew.

Mrs. E picked up a paintbrush and painted over my trees to make them look the way she thought trees should look."

That event had a profoundly negative effect on Ms. Kennar's attitude toward art for many years afterward, and in no small measure influenced how she teaches the children in her care today:

"Now that school is in session, I can't help wondering, worrying, what is it we're actually teaching our children? The three R's? Yes. But we're also teaching them, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, to conform, to extinguish the spark that makes them individuals.

Children inherently believe they are invincible; good at everything. They can achieve anything. They don't think they can't do something until a grown-up tells them so. And that's when it begins to happen. Our children begin to lose their zest for life, and along with it, their self-confidence."

As you might expect, Kennar lets her kids paint things as they see them, not as she does. They'll hear no criticism from her if their apples are blue or their turkeys are pink. In fact, she encourages them to follow their own rules as they exercise their creativity.

At the same time, she explains why conformity is sometimes necessary where individuals are working together as a group:

"I always try to give my students a reason why we do things. While on the floor, we sit with our hands in our lap so Mrs. Kennar won't accidentally step on anyone's fingers. We sit with our legs crossed so that our classmates can walk by without tripping. These rules make sense; they serve a purpose."

What a refreshing approach this young lady is taking with these youngsters. Any parent would be blessed to have their children in her keeping. I really hope she's typical of the caliber of teacher you'd find in a kindergarten today. My fear is she's not, but I want someone to tell me I'm wrong. 

As I think back to my own childhood and recall how adults reacted as I strove to please them with my work, I remember best those who encouraged and praised me. They were the ones that I feel made great contributions to my self-worth.

There were others, of course, whose words were critical and whose methods rarely included any positive reinforcement. I remember them too, but not as fondly. Both approaches shaped me, perhaps unbeknownst to their originators. Those who were encouraging gave me confidence and self-esteem; those who discouraged me planted seeds of fear and insecurity. 

If you happen to be a parent, a teacher, a coach, a counselor or anyone into whose tutelage children have been placed, you need to think about that. Kids are like sponges. The manner in which you respond to any effort they make will be with them for the rest of their lives. If you're unconvinced, think back to when you were seven or eight years old and try to remember some defining moments between you and the adults in your life. Not hard to do, is it?

Do You Know Any of These People?

"Many speak the truth when they say that they despise riches, but they mean the riches possessed by other men."

   - Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832), English clergyman

Forbes magazine recently published their annual list of the country's 400 wealthiest individuals. 78%, or 278 of them to be exact, are billionaires. 26%, or 106 are multi-billionaires. If I remember my basic math, a billion is 1,000 million. I can't count that high.

The Windows guy, Bill Gates, is still our richest citizen, a distinction he's held for eleven straight years. His net worth is a cool $48 billion, and he inherited none of it. His buddy, Warren Buffet weighs in at $41 billion. I think he earned all of his too, but I'm not sure.

For the curious among you, Forbes includes some little known facts for your consideration. There are links to biographies of the top ten members on the list, newcomers to the club, and the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes for those of you who are single and want to find yourself a well-to-do mate. Sorry, no phone numbers were published.

Care to see how much of their fortunes these people donate to charity? In some cases, a lot. There's a link to that information right here.

There's also an interesting link showing what it costs people like this to live extremely well. If you shop at T.J. Maxx or Wal-Mart as I do, the sticker shock may numb you a bit, but hey, we suspected these folks spend a little more for their necessities, didn't we? Now we know.

Should you be interested in the kinds of homes our wealthiest countrymen live in, you can check out some of them in this article. Be sure to click on the slide show at the bottom of the page. They all have at least two things in common: they're big, and they're expensive. I find myself wondering if they've re-financed their home loans now that mortgage rates are so low. Just think what they'd save on their monthly payments.

Do I sound jealous? Not in the slightest. Who would want to own Bill Gates' home in Medina, Washington? It would take you a week just to finish the vacuuming. These guys' wives do make them vacuum, don't they?

Apologies: I just discovered that some of these links have stopped working. It's late and I need some rest, so I'll try to get them fixed tomorrow. The Forbes url is http://www.forbes.com and all of the links can be accessed from the article The 400 Richest Americans in their current issue.

Real Letters

"Letter writing is the only device for combining solitude with good company."

   - Lord Byron (1788-1824), English Romantic poet

When was the last time you wrote or received a real letter? I mean one written with a pen or pencil on real paper that's folded and put into an envelope with a stamp on it, then dropped into a mailbox? Most of us could probably count on the fingers of both hands the personal letters we've written and received this past year. The culprit? E-mail. I now correspond with my friends and acquaintances almost exclusively by using my computer, and they do too.

Is there anything wrong with this? Not really. It's certainly more convenient, that's for sure. But the folks over at the DailyOM website say we're missing something by not filling up our fountain pen, finding some stationery, going to a quiet, comfortable place and writing long-hand letters to those we care about:

"It's possible to brighten someone's day simply by sending them a handwritten note.

Most of us can think of at least one person in our lives we could write a letter to. It need not be a long letter; even a note card or postcard would be fine. It's the intention that matters, the thoughtfulness that says, 'I was thinking of you, and wanted to make you feel special.' "

I'm inclined to agree. There was a time in my life when I wrote hundreds of personal letters and notes each year. Many were to people I worked with to wish them a happy birthday, tell them I appreciated something they had done for me or to congratulate them for some achievement.  Many were to my friends to thank them for a favor, offer condolences at a time of loss or offer my best wishes when their lives were changing. I am always surprised and humbled when I run into someone who received one of those notes and they tell me they still have it. 

I too have kept letters that people wrote me from years ago. I still have letters that my wife-to-be wrote me when we were in college back in the early 1960s. I have others that were written by friends and family that are almost as old. I continue saving them even today because I enjoy getting them out and reading them again when I need a little boost. The ones that spoke to me at those times in my life when I needed to know there was someone who cared are always worth re-visiting.

And that's really what personal letters are all about, I think. They're about taking the time to tell the people in your life that you care. When a person knows you've put some effort into getting in touch by writing a "real" letter, I believe it means more to them. Yes, a phone call is nice, and an e-mail works too, but finding a hand-addressed envelope underneath the pile of bills in your mailbox is always a special treat.

And you never know how something you write might affect the person you've written. It could have a profound impact on them, and you might never realize it unless you're fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. So find that old pen, get yourself some paper, envelopes and stamps, locate a comfy place and write someone you care about. Tell them something that will make them feel good. Who knows? Maybe they'll be so impressed they'll write you a "real" letter too.

Resources:  Here's a great little web-site about Letter Writing and Intimate Disclosure with dozens of links that will give you a new appreciation for this almost lost art.

These two "how-to" sites are quick reads and will help you get started if you've gotten out of practice as I have: Notes From a Dreamer and Pagewise. 

And this is a neat little book titled Writing Notes With a Personal Touch by Daria P. Bowman and Maureen LaMarca that has lots of great tips for anyone who wants to make his or her correspondence more personal.

Need stationery? Here's an excellent source if you want to order on-line. Nope, I own no stock in their company, but have ordered their products and always been pleased with them. 

 

"Free" Cars

"Only two kinds of people complain about taxes--men and women."

        - Anonymous

Last week on her afternoon television show, Oprah Winfrey had a little gift for each member of her studio audience. She is often generous with those who've made the trip to Chicago to see her in person, handing out books, perfume, home accessories, CDs and other paraphernalia. This time, however, she outdid herself. She gave all 276 people who were there a brand-new Pontiac G6 sedan. Wow! They went nuts.

Unfortunately, there was a rather serious catch associated with the lucky recipients' acceptance of these sporty new vehicles:

"Yet while the folks on 'Oprah' screamed with excitement over their new rides, out in the real world, tax professionals were trying to calculate the wreckage come April 15. Over on TaxProf Blog, where experts can banter about hypothetical problems...they're buzzing now about the insanely complicated tax implications of the 'Oprah' giveaway."

Yuk! Based on tax expert Brenda Schafer's estimate, come April Uncle Sam will be looking for anywhere up to $12,000 in taxes on these windfalls:

"...there's no getting around the fact that it's a prize for being in the audience. And according to her rough, unofficial calculation, someone in the 15% federal bracket (making, say, $28,000 as an individual, or $56,000 if filing jointly) and a 5% state bracket who gets a $30,000 car...will owe an extra $6,000 in taxes. For a single earner in the 33% bracket kicking in at $143,500, the car adds $12,000 in tax."

Is there any way these people can escape the tentacles of the IRS? Apparently not. Even if Oprah or GM decided to pay all the taxes for these new car owners, that wouldn't solve their problem:

"...even if Pontiac were to pay not only the sales tax but all the various income taxes that the recipients will owe on the value of their new cars, there would be taxes due on the value of any 'free' tax payments too, a calculation known as a gross up."

Well, maybe they could sell the car, use the proceeds to pay the taxes and have some cash left over. A possible solution, but then they'd have no car, which defeats Oprah's stated purpose of inviting these particular folks because they really needed transportation. Curses!

The bottom line is there's no way of avoiding the tax consequences, or even postponing them. Even if they decide not to take possession of their gift until next year, they're still stuck. Ms. Schafer is quick to point out, "You got it when you got it. You see, there's this thing called the 'doctrine of constructive receipt.' "

Well, at least they were all happy about their good fortune for a little while. There's something to be said for that. But I'm reminded of how my late father once cautioned me when I told him of a windfall that I felt was coming my way: "If something seems to be too good to be true...it probably is." Things didn't turn out as I anticipated and as was so often the case, his homespun wisdom was right on the money.

Thank You, America

"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool...who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim."

    - Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859), English historian

Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed a joint meeting of Congress today. I was unable to tune in and catch the entire speech, but did hear excerpts on the evening news and liked what I heard. I found the entire transcript here and am posting it for those of you who, like me, didn't get to hear the live broadcast.

There were a number of things that Allawi told Congress that are important in light of the discussion about the Iraq conflict that is now taking place between our two candidates for president. With that in mind. let's look at what he had to say. 

He began his address by expressing his gratitude to the American people:

"We Iraqis know that Americans have made and continue to make enormous sacrifices to liberate Iraq, to assure Iraq's freedom. I have come here to thank you and to promise you that your sacrifices are not in vain.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are grateful. They are grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein and the torture and brutality he forced upon us, grateful for the chance to build a better future for our families, our country and our region.

We Iraqis are grateful to you, America, for your leadership and your sacrifice for our liberation and our opportunity to start anew."

After summarizing Saddam Hussein's many inhumanities toward the Iraqi people, Allawi reemphasized how grateful he and the Iraqis are for our continuing support as we pay the "bitter price of combatingtyranny and terror." Then he expressed his determination to live up to the confidence our country has shown in them:

"Now we are determined to honor your confidence and sacrifice by putting into practice in Iraq the values of liberty and democracy, which are so dear to you and which have triumphed over tyranny across our world."

He recognized there are those in Iraq who despise the idea of freedom and are doing everything in their power to prevent Iraqis from achieving their goals of "liberty, of peace, of tolerance":

"...there are the tiny minority who despise the very ideas of liberty...Among them are those who nurse fantasies of the former regime returning to power. There are fanatics who seek to impose a perverted vision of Islam in which the face of Allah cannot be seen. And there are terrorists, including many from outside Iraq, who seek to make our country the main battleground against freedom, democracy and civilization."

Then, as far as I'm concerned, he delivered the most important lines of his entire speech:

"...the struggle in Iraq today is not about the future of Iraq only. It's about the worldwide war between those who want to live in peace and freedom, and terrorists. "

The remainder of his address was devoted to a discussion of the three-part plan the leadership has for "building democracy, defeating the insurgency and improving the quality of ordinary Iraqis." He provided specific examples of how they are making progress toward their goals in each of the areas of their plan and capped his summary with some comments about the proposed national elections:

"As we move forward, the next major milestone will be holding of the free and fair national and local elections in January next. I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met. So let me be absolutely clear: Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January..."

He closed by asking for the continuing resolve and will of the American led coalition in helping to bring about a free and peaceful Iraq and expressed his thanks to the more than 30 countries who have troops on the ground there. He emphasized that giving in to the demands of terrorists only encourages them to foment more violence and urged us to refuse to bargain with them about our fundamental principles.

All in all, I thought Allawi presented an honest assessment of the current situation in his country. He acknowledged there are many problems, but he told us they are making progress too. He knows his country needs the on-going support of the coalition if they are to succeed and I think his clarity in stating that need will help ensure that it's met. Let's hope we stay the course, not only for the sake of Allawi and the Iraqi people, but for our own sake as well.

Update: John Kerry, who was not in Washington to hear Mr. Allawi, gave us his assessment of the speech later in the day. Evidently, Kerry, who is spending all his time on the campaign trail here in the U.S., has a more accurate picture of the situation on the ground in Iraq than does Allawi, who lives there.

Update II: Gregory Djerejian at The Belgravia Dispatch weighs in. Be sure to read the comments.

Update III: My post would not be complete without considering the views of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn.

Update IV: Ann Althouse believes Kerry's criticism of Allawi is his final, fatal mistake.   

Let's All Get In a Pile

"If sensuality were happiness, animals would be happier than men; but human happiness is lodged in the soul, not in the flesh."

  - Seneca (3 BC-65 AD), Spanish-born Roman philosopher

This morning as I was reading The Island Packet this piece on cuddle parties caught my eye, begging to be read. As I sipped my coffee and perused the story, I began to realize how behind the times I am. Some of you may be too.

Libby Copeland, the author of the article, writes about a new aspect of the social scene that so far has not made its way to my community--not that I'm aware of anyway:

"...nearly all of us are desperate for someone, anyone, even someone we've just met, to hold us, rub our feet, stroke our hair. And because this is about healing, this someone might give us a long, soul-baring kiss. Then, our needs fulfilled, we might venture back into the real world, boasting that we'd been to a cuddle party, the grandest social experiment since the 1970's brought us primal screams and group rebirthings."

Cuddle party founders REiD Mihalko and Marcia Baczynski say we live in a touch-deprived society and they're encouraging people to loosen up and learn how "to explore touch and affection in a nonsexual way." Interested? You'll have to ante up $30 to attend and here's what happens:

"Thirteen people arrive, mostly in twos and fours...They change into pajamas and put on name tags. World music and jazz soften the mood. Mihalko asks them to gather in a 'welcome circle' on blankets on the floor. He calls himself 'your cuddle lifeguard' and introduces the other organizer, Marcia Baczynski, who wears thick-rimmed hipster glasses and pajama bottoms printed with a Froot Loops design.

Mihalko then explains the rules for the get-together:

"Everybody must ask permission of everyone else before doing anything. Kissing is as far as things can go. Nobody has to cuddle if he or she doesn't want to. Nobody can take off his or her clothes...Mihalko tells people to discuss their 'cuddle boundaries' and turns them loose."

No alcohol is allowed and no one is permitted to wear lingerie. Mihalko holds the parties during the day to help reduce the sexual tension created by the activities of the participants and, in order to alleviate concern that the parties could be construed as orgies, he uses a kind of kindergarten teacher language to make everyone feel they are in a "safe space."

If you'd like to find out how to move into one of the hipper parts of the 21st century, I'd suggest you read the entire article. Should your curiosity not be sated by the article, here's a website where you can get in-depth information about this new type of therapy.

I'm curious about why people would participate in something like this. Putting myself in their shoes, I suppose if I wasn't getting my share of hugs from people I care about I might agree to attend one of these orgies...er, parties. It seems that it would be similar to going for a massage. You know, you're stressed out, you pay to have someone give you a rub-down, you go home de-stressed and relaxed until next time when you do it all over again. Maybe that's the deal here.

Somehow, though, I think it's not. I think maybe many of these folks are looking for intimacy and believe they might find it by getting affectionate with a stranger. And they might, but chances are they won't. I admit that I'm old-fashioned, for I believe that intimacy needs to grow out of an emotional connection with someone, not the other way around.

These days I see more and more young people who get physically intimate with their partner very quickly, think that the heat they feel for each other is love, get married because of that illusion, then wake up one morning when the passion has diminished and discover they're in bed with a stranger.

Why gosh, the kisses were so sweet at the cuddle party. We thought we were soul mates. Could we get a refund?

Kids Who Have Everything

"What the vast majority of American children need is to stop being pampered, stop being indulged, stop being chauffeured, stop being catered to. In the final analysis it is not what you do for your children but what you have taught them to do for themselves that will make them successful human beings."

    - Ann Landers (1918-2002), American advice columnist

Often, when Lisbeth and I get together with friends our age, the conversation turns to grandchildren. A not uncommon complaint we hear is about how many "things" the grand-kids have and how moms and dads indulge their youngsters' desire for the latest thingamajig even though they're not using the thingamabobs they already have. 

Syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., who is preparing to become a parent himself, is concerned about this too and suggests that children might be better served if they had to experience a "little hardship" now and then. 

In this Seattle Times article, he reflects on how today's parents deal with their kids:

"A lot of parents can't say no to their children's demands to buy them more of this and newer and more expensive versions of that. Parents are even flocking to daylong seminars where experts tell them how to stand up to their kids, how to say no to their demands and how to hold firm."

Thinking back to how his grandfather dealt with his son, Navarrette's father, he makes some comparisons:

"I can't imagine my grandpa ever needing a seminar to remind him who was the parent and who was the kid. A spanking, a scolding or even a disapproving glance did the trick.

The parents of today seem to be out of ideas about how to deal with...pint-sized 'wanting machines.' They don't want conflict or to disappoint their children. So they give in."

To what extent are they giving in? Navarrette points to research indicating that spending for kids is a major segment of total consumer spending:

"According to market research done by a company called Packaged Facts, families with kids ages 3 to 12 spend $53.8 billion annually on entertainment, personal-care items such as make-up, and reading materials for their children. And when the kids get older, they take their parents' credit cards or their own disposable income and buy even more goodies. Last year, according to a firm called Teenage Research Unlimited, 12 to 19-year-olds forked out $175 billion."

While I have no data on how much of this comes out of the parents' pockets and how much is earned by the kids themselves, I do know that I don't see as many youngsters mowing lawns, flipping burgers or bagging groceries as I did when my two boys were growing up. That would lead me to believe that a large chunk of these billions is coming from mom, dad and complaining grandparents.

Why does this matter? Well, I think it matters because our kids aren't learning that there's a price to be paid for the things that are coming their way. Many of them don't have to exert any effort, except possibly making the request, to get the things they want. This is not the way the real world works. It's not what they'll find when they leave the nest. Many will be sorely disappointed to learn, as my late father used to say, that "money does not grow on trees."

I won't cite chapter and verse all the negative things that can and do result from adults' fawning behavior toward their offspring, though I believe there are many. I will say this, however. I see more children than I think I should who were given everything their hearts desired when they were younger, went off to school and got their degree, became disenchanted that working took more effort than they were willing to put forth and returned home to live with their parents--often with a child of their own in tow. Unbelievably, their folks took them back in, continuing to treat them like kids even though they were adults. 

Can anyone really be happy in this type of situation? I have my doubts. The sad part of it all is most of these situations could have been avoided had parents been somewhat less indulgent as their kids were growing up. While it's natural for kids to want things, parents aren't doing them a favor by showering them with gifts and asking for nothing in return.  

Consider the Break

"Game, noun: any unserious occupation designed for the relaxation of busy people and the distraction of idle ones; it's used to take people to whom we have nothing to say off our hands, and sometimes even ourselves."

   - Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715-1780), French philosopher

A friend of mine sent me the link to this little putting game. I wanted to share it with you because I believe that even if you've never played golf, you'll get a kick out of trying to get the ball into the hole.

Here's a hint: before you putt be sure to consider the break, or slope, as the game designer calls it. I found that I usually missed on the low side of the hole. When I factored in extra break, the putts started dropping a little more frequently.

If you'd like to challenge me, my personal best is three in a row. Not so hot, I know, but I'm an old geezer with shaky hands and poor eyesight. It shouldn't be too difficult for any of you youngsters to whup up on me. 

Should I improve on my best effort, I'll update the post to let you know. You can use the comments section to tell me how you've done. Good luck.

Ron

Update: All it took was a little practice, my friends. The record for me is now 8, that's EIGHT, in a row! Move over Tiger!

Update II: I just rolled in twelve consecutive putts and was feeling cocky enough about it to submit my score to the host. Thought I might be their new champ. Actually, I'm their chump. Someone named Kenny has made 362 putts in a row! I guess we could call him the leader in the clubhouse.

The Secret is Out: It's a Conspiracy

"Our job is only to hold up the mirror--to tell and show the public what has happened."

  - Walter Cronkite (1916-     ), American broadcast journalist

As most of you know by now, CBS's Dan Rather is being accused of using forged documents in a 60 Minutes II story about George Bush's Air National Guard service that was aired last week. I've been following the blogworld's coverage of this for several days now and have seen both sides of the issue argued with equal fervor.

To be sure, depending on how you want this to come out, you can find someone in blogland who supports your point of view. This e-mail posted on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish captures one of his reader's thoughts about the various arguments for and against Mr. Rather's story and I must admit they closely match my own.

So what is the truth? It's hard to say, but the attention that bloggers have given the story is now spilling over into major media. It appears that Rather and CBS may have painted themselves into a corner from which it will be difficult to escape--at least without a lot of damage to their credibility as a news organization.

To that point, Belmont Club's Wretchard reported earlier today that the Washington Post has made a pronouncement on the authenticity of the documents and CBS would not find it to their liking:

"The Washington Post has run an article which practically humiliates CBS and Dan Rather. It begins with a repudiation of the Killian memos by the 60 Minutes chief document expert, Marcel Matley. The Post then pronounces on the documents themselves: they are fake."

Wretchard fails to see how CBS can continue to insist that the memos are the real mccoy in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Andrew Sullivan joins the Belmont Club blogger in chastising Rather in this post which includes excerpts from his recent article appearing in The New Republic. 

The dilemma that remains for me is why Rather and CBS would have chosen to go with a story like this when the experts they conferred with had so many questions about the authenticity of the documents. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps there's a conspiracy at work here. Some have already said there is, and that Republican Karl Rove is masterminding it. Come on now. Would anyone believe such a thing? 

Rich Hailey over at Shots Across the Bow does, but he suggests it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are responsible for these shenanigans. What could the Dems possibly hope to gain from such devious behavior? Hailey knows and he reveals the secret right here. Good grief! Who woulda thunk it?   

Traveling Again

"We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never been a candidate."

   - Frank "Kin" Hubbard (1868-1932), American humorist

I'll be in the Tar Heel State for the next few days visiting with some old friends. While I'm away, here are some articles I've read recently that may be of interest to you:

Alan Bromley's "Fear and Loathing in Manhattan" talks about how hatred and revenge is motivating some of the potential voters in this year's presidential election.

Janet Daley of London's Daily Telegraph talks about sincerity as it applies to politics and politicians. While her focus is on British politicians she closes with a comment on the Americans.

American soldier Austin Bay has returned from Iraq and makes some observations about what is going on over there and what he feels we must do as we go forward.

At InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds opines about the latest round of accusations regarding Bush's military record that are flying around cyberspace. He links to several other pundits who have researched this story and written about it on their weblogs. A worthwhile read.

New Kerry Advisers: CNN "Crossfire" Co-Hosts

"One might as well try to ride two horses moving in different directions, as to try to maintain in equal force two opposing or contradictory sets of desires."

   - Robert Collier (1885-1950), American writer

The Campaign Desk, Columbia Journalism Review's excellent segment providing critique and analysis of the 2004 campaign, weighs in on CNN's latest fair and balanced reporting entry in this piece titled "Spin Buster: Spinners Spin Selves." It seems that James Begala and James Carville, co-hosts of CNN's "Crossfire," have joined the Kerry campaign. Not a bad decision really; Kerry needs their expertise. Some would say there's a small problem, though. Both have decided to continue their affiliation with CNN:

"There are plenty of pundits practicing today who once upon a time worked for a political campaign or a presidential administration--but concurrently working for a news organization and a political campaign seems an obvious conflict of interest to us."

Not to worry, says CNN spokesman Matt Furman. There's really no conflict. Begala and Carville have, in Furman's own words:

"...an informal role advising some members of the Kerry campaign; they are unpaid, they don't have an office or desk at campaign headquarters, and they don't regularly meet with the campaign."

Well, okay. That's a start, but tell us more:

"What about CNN's viewers? What are they to make of the fact that the network which bills itself as 'America's Campaign Headquarters' now employs two Kerry campaign advisers as hosts of a daily show?"

"So will viewers be informed of the "Crossfire" co-hosts' dual roles?" Furman insists it's already being done, citing announcements by CNN's Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper and Larry King. Exercising a modicum of skepticism, the Campaign Desk editors review the broadcasts themselves:

"...Carlson, not suprisingly, used the news to rib his co-host...speculating on what Carville's hiring might say about the state of the Kerry campaign. The notion of a conflict of interest apparently never crossed Carlson's mind.

...Cooper noted yesterday that a 'group of familiar faces' recently joined the Kerry campaign, including Begala and Carville. He then exchanged some harmless back-and-forth with Carville, noting that Kerry is making some strategic changes and that Carville is glad to help.

Larry King asked Paul Begala...yesterday, 'Are you going to work on the Kerry campaign, that was in The New York Times yesterday?' Among Carlson, Carville, Cooper, King and Begala, only Begala seemed alive to the potential hot potato implicit in the question. His halting reply: 'Yes--no, I work for CNN, Larry, I'm going to keep working for CNN...I absolutely--I support John Kerry. And I will advise him as I would advise any Democrat who wants advice, but I do it for free and I do it for love. So I'm going to continue to advise Kerry and support him but I'm not going to work for anybody but CNN.' "

Wow. That little speech has absolutely convinced me that Begala will be able to keep his two roles completely separate. And there's no doubt in my mind that CNN is continuing to take the high ground by exercising only the highest standards of journalism. After all, I see nothing wrong with "keeping two attack dogs like Carville and Begala on the payroll even after they sign on with the Kerry campaign." Yeah, right. Nothing wrong at all.

Update: Lots of interesting comments accompany this piece. You can find them here.

Update: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly weighs in on the Begala and Carville conflict of interest in this New York Daily News op-ed.

Some Time for Ourselves

"It would do the world good if every man in it would compel himself occasionally to be absolutely alone. Most of the world's progress has come out of such loneliness."

   - Bruce Barton (1886-1967), American businessman

I found this little essay titled "The Beauty of Solitude: Spending Time Alone to Rejuvenate" over at the DailyOM website and thought it worth sharing.

For those of you whose careers are still in full sway, whose children haven't left the nest and demand big slices of your time, or whose daily responsibilities make a moment to yourself virtually impossible, I dedicate this post. Perhaps you'll find something in it that gives you pause, allows you to clear your mind, postpone your obligations, truly relax and focus on yourself for awhile:

"Time alone isn't easy to come by and reserving time for oneself feels unnatural or unimportant. But all life is a balance, and, while we enrich our outer selves with activities and hobbies, we have the tendency to ignore the quieter inner self which is the source of creativity and serenity."

How does a person go about finding time for herself? It's not always easy. I remember when I was still in the business world with a hectic travel schedule, customer and supplier meetings to attend, employee and union relationships to take care of, a constantly ringing telephone and an in-box full of correspondence that had to be answered, I sometimes felt trapped-- unable to escape the continual grind and wishing the day would hurry up and get over.

In the evenings and on weekends when I should have been relaxing and focusing on my family and myself, I didn't always capitalize on that free time, often having my mind on something that I hadn't done or that needed to be un-done back at the office. Solitude, at least for me, was in short supply.

You can get away though, and it doesn't always require that you physically transport yourself to a distant location. Said another way, you don't have to wait until you can take a vacation to find time for yourself:

"Early in the morning or late at night, when others are sleeping, are perfect times to steal a few moments alone without any interrupts to let your mind wander, to prioritize, or simply to rest and replenish. During longer periods of solitude, you may want to engage in solitary activities that bring you peace, joy, or comfort, such as writing in a journal or taking a long bath. Take advantage of unexpected solitude whenever you can. If you find yourself caught in traffic, turn off the radio, and spend a few fulfilling moments de-stressing."

I found that using the wee hours worked for me. Being a person who requires less sleep than most, I would use the quiet time between midnight and 2 AM to get my batteries recharged. Reading something enjoyable, working a crossword, writing in my journal or writing letters worked wonders for me.

When I had more time, like on a weekend, I'd go fishing. Sometimes I'd take a friend, but often I went alone. When I returned home, whether there were any bass in the live well or not, I always felt refreshed.

Taking care of our own needs can be a challenge, especially in the world we live in today. With so many other things demanding our time, it's easy to allow that aspect of our lives to go unattended. But we shouldn't. We shouldn't because there's a price to pay for that inattention. If, when we reach the end of our life the debt to ourself is great, we'll most likely regret that we didn't allot some time for self-nurturing. Regrets, as we all know, are so unnecessary, especially when we know better. And we do know better.

Evolution: Of a Political Nature

"I don't know why, but they seem to have a tendency to separate us, to keep us from one another, while nature is always and ever making efforts to bring us together."

   - Sean O'Casey (1880-1964), Irish playwright

Karl Zinsmeister says the two U.S. political parties have changed, no longer fitting the stereotypes of the past:

"Democrats: the party of the little guy. Republicans: the party of the wealthy. Those images of America's two major political wings have been frozen for generations.

No more. Starting in the 1960s and '70s, whole blocs of 'little guys'--ethnics, rural residents, evangelicals, cops, construction workers, homemakers, military veterans--began moving into the Republican column. And big chunks of America's rich elite--financiers, academics, heiresses, media barons, software millionaires, entertainers--drifted into the Democratic Party."

He supports his premise with data from polls of those who voted in the 2000 election: only 7% of voters in pro-Bush counties earned at least $100,000 while in pro-Gore counties 14% were at that level of income. In those same counties 38% of Bush voters earned less than $38,000 compared to 29% of Gore supporters below that figure.

Zinsmeister points out that contributors to the Democratic Party are increasingly the well-to-do:

"The financial pillars for Democrats are now super-rich trial lawyers, Hollywood entertainment executives and megabuck financiers. Both parties have their fat cats, obviously, but Federal Election Commission data show that many of the very wealthiest political players are now in the Democratic column."

He tells us that lawyers are by far the largest donors to the party of the common man, contributing 71% of their money to Dems and 29% to Republicans, and that ultra-wealthy brokers and bankers are not far behind the lawyers in their generosity to theDemocrats.

Zinsmeister says that John Kerry "is a perfect embodiment of the takeover of the Democratic Party bywealthy elites":

"If elected, he would become the richest man ever to sit in the White House...And there are now many Democrats like Mr. Kerry--from Sen. Jon Corzine to Sen. Jay Rockefeller--who are simultaneously top of the heap in wealth and on the left in politics.

Migration of the rich and powerful to the Democrats has been so pronounced, John Kerry has actually pulled in much more money than President Bush this spring and summer. Mr. Kerry's fund-raising totals have routinely doubled or even tripled Mr. Bush's sums. And while Mr. Bush has relied heavily on flocks of small donors, the money on the Kerry side has come much more from well-heeled individuals like the Hamptons beach-house owners who handed him $3 million in one day at the end of August."

How will this shift impact the Democrats' chances of capturing the White House this fall? Mr. Zinsmeister feels it will have a negative effect:

"From Andrew Jackson to George Bush the elder, U.S. politicians have known that leaders who put on airs or otherwise separate themselves from ordinary Americans will be penalized by the electorate."

Who can really say? Zinsmeister may be right, but I don't think the statistics he uses to support his view make a strong enough case that the "common man" has deserted the party of FDR and the rich have replaced him. I do believe, based on what I see around me, that there are many more lower and middle-income Americans who support the Republican Party today than there were when I was a young man. Conversely, there also seem to be many more Americans in the top-income brackets who've thrown their support to the Democrats.

No doubt, both parties find themselves with a different mix of constituents than the ones who were party faithfuls 10, 20 or 30 years ago. This can't help having an impact on their policies as they attempt to address the concerns of these voters. Capturing seats in Congress, winning governorships, or taking the White House will require strategies that would never have worked when, as Zinsmeister said, the Democrats were the party of the little guy and the Republicans catered to the rich.  

 

Sloppy or Dishonest?

"Once a newspaper touches a story the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists."

   - Norman Mailer, (1923-      ), American writer

Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit links to a sloppily researched article by Kate Zernike in the New York Times and asks, "When, oh, when, will we get a decent press corps?"

What has Glenn so frustrated is Zernike's use of an untrue story about George H. W. Bush which showed up in the Times back in 1988:

"Maybe she copped that from Juan Gonzales in the Daily News a couple of days earlier, who wrote: 'Can we ever forget the look of utter amazement on Bush, the father, the first time he found himself facing and electronic scanner at a supermarket counter 12 years ago?' "

According to Snopes.com, Bush was neither where the piece said he was nor was the author of the article present at the event.

Errors like this make you wonder if reporters are not getting the little stories right, how well they're doing on the big ones. Deadlines on major breaking news might put pressure on writers to release their work before every single detail is verified, but something like the Zernike and Gonzales pieces that are not that time-sensitive should be dead-on accurate in my opinion. That said, I'd be inclined to chalk their oversight up to plain old sloppiness, rather than dishonest reporting.

I can't be as generous in my assessment of the recent Associated Press bogus boos story, however. It was a flat-out fabrication according to Hindrocket over at PowerLine. I would agree, as Hindrocket suggests, that its author should be fired. In fact, I would go even further and say he should never be allowed to report for any major, or minor, news organization again. He's broken the trust of every reader who gets the news from outlets who use the AP as a source, and there are hundreds of these. 

This Reynolds post explores the breach of trust rather thoroughly. Read the whole thing, and when you're finished ask yourself how we've arrived at this point. When did it become acceptable to fictionalize what is supposed to be news? How much of what we read assuming it is factual is anything but? 

Your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe something good may be coming out of all this. The media's seeming reluctance to police themselves is creating an army of fact-checkers in the blogging world. These folks are refusing to allow traditional media to get away with anything less than honest reporting. Armed with their powerful search engines and connected to each other by an extensive informal network, they are verifying almost everything being published today.

To me, that's a giant step in the right direction. Anything that's happening that will help bring a higher level of honesty and integrity to our print and broadcast media is a good thing. I applaud these new detectives and urge them to continue their criticism of those who are not taking their responsibilities as journalists as seriously as they should. 

Where Is Osama?

"Some defeats are only installments to victory."

  - Jacob A. Riis (1849-1914), Danish-American journalist

Sarah, a friend of mine, left a comment on yesterday's post and summed it up with a legitimate question: "Where is Osama?" I wish I knew, but I don't.

Coincidentally, tonight as I was reading through some other blogs I ran across a post on Bill Adams' Idler Yet weblog that spoke to Sarah's question. Bill links to this story from the Air Force Times that suggests the arrest of Osama Bin Laden is imminent.

It seems I've heard this rumor before, though I can't recall where specifically. I haven't taken it seriously because I don't believe we'd be publicly announcing that we're closing in on Osama. Why do that, possibly tipping him off that we're about to spring the trap? Broadcasting our plans for achieving his capture makes absolutely no sense. No, I think we'll do our best to surprise the old boy in his sleep, and announce his arrest only after he is handcuffed and in one of our jails.

I'm also aware that some have suggested that Dubya has already captured Osama, has secreted him away somewhere, and plans to bring him out sometime between now and November 2. A Republican coup if I've ever heard one! Though laughable to me, it's to this theory that Mr. Adams speaks:

"So, although Osama's capture this month would be logically foreshadowed by publicly observed events--it would still strike many people as a rabbit out of a hat. The hard-core Democratic response is predictable, but if the Democrats want to make a majority of Americans believe it was a put-up job, they have to act immediately. They must vigorously spread the rumor, already started for them, that Osama was captured, oh, about a month ago and is being held secretly until a better 'capture' time closer to the election. There needn't be any quibbling over evidence, since in their hearts they have always believed that Bush would do this, because this is what Satan would do."

If you're into conspiracy theories, you'll enjoy reading the rest of Adams' piece. If you're not, don't bother, unless you're in need of some comic relief.

As for your question Sarah, all I can say is that Osama is somewhere, maybe dead, maybe alive. If he's alive, I believe he'll eventually be caught and brought to justice. Sadly, his capture won't bring an end to international terrorism, but it would represent major progress in our fight against Al-Qaeda. That's something I think we'd all like to see.

Update: San Francisco Chronicle's James Sterngold speculates about the impact the capture of Osama bin Laden might have on the war on terrorism, particularly with regard to al Qaeda. 

 

 

 

The Issue That Trumps All Others

"He serves his party best who serves the country best."

   -Rutherford B. Hayes (1822-1893), 19th U.S. president

This November many lifelong Democrats will be casting their vote for President Bush rather than their party's candidate, Senator John Kerry. One of the Dems who will be making this switch is Ed Koch, former New York City mayor. Jeff Jacoby writing for TownHall.com, explains why in a column titled "Why Koch is on Bush's Bandwagon":

"Ed Koch identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat...says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center--the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling...No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs.

But he's voting for him in November.

'I've never before supported a Republican for president,' Koch told me last week. 'But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter.' "

Koch told Jacoby that he has serious doubts that his party's leadership has the resolve to "press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict." He points to the Democratic Convention, where 9 out of 10 delegates wanted to get out of Iraq, as revealing the antiwar mindset that pervades the Democratic Party leadership. He has no faith that Kerry would have the courage to stand up to those who are now in charge of his party:

"But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? 'That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign,' Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and 'when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want.' "

Democrats and Independents who feel as Koch does, that terrorism is the most crucial issue facing our country today, will very likely vote to re-elect the President. Voters who see terrorism as less important than issues like the economy, health care and education will probably vote for Kerry, unless they are Republicans.

With terrorist activity continuing to occur, as it has in the past few days at a school in the Russian town of Beslan where hundreds of innocents have been murdered, Americans will be constantly reminded that this threat remains with us. Bush's resolve with regard to these enemies is a known. Kerry's is not. For that reason, I believe that unless we see a drastic reduction in terrorist attacks throughout the world, we will see a landslide victory for the President this fall.

I think this issue, and this issue alone, will determine who our next president will be. If I'm correct about this, then in order to win Kerry must convince Americans that he will be a better commander-in-chief than Bush. That will be a terrifically hard sell, especially with long-time Democrats such as Koch publicly announcing their support for the President.