There is Still a Pulse for the Opposition

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a convoluted 5 to 4 decision, upheld the president’s landmark domestic initiative – the Affordable Care Act.  In doing so, the chief justice, John Roberts, stated that the core part of the act, the individual mandate, was constitutional – not as a mandate but as a tax.  In doing so, the president won the battle over the measure but might have lost the war.  In the Supreme Court’s decision, it might have fired up the forces against the health legislation in the lead up to the general election on 6 November 2012.   

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, forces have marshaled against the law.  The first and most prominent of these forces were the Democrats whose party unilaterally pushed the bill through.  Very few Democrats have mentioned the historic health law since its passage and many who were its most ardent supporters went down in defeat in the 2010 mid-term elections.  As we near the general election, more Democrats have distanced from the president and his policies as a growing number have denounced the health law.  The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has openly challenged the president’s health law in the face of a state vote rejecting the individual mandate and a populace, who 70% of, disapproves the law.  

Prior to yesterday morning when the president acknowledged the victory he earned from the Supreme Court, it was difficult to find an instance where he championed the health care law to a national audience.  He will often speak on the measure at controlled events but seldom nationally.  It is here that the Republicans and Democrats who oppose the health law could find an opening.  First, the president and his supporters spent much of the lead up to the bill’s passage rejecting the notion that the mandate was a tax.  When the Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional as a tax, it invalidated the administration’s arguments over the last three years.  Even the chief justice’s rational, that it was not the Court’s job to rescue the population from their political decisions, hint at the problematic nature of the law and its mandate – its funding.  As a tax, it is the largest tax increase devised.  It is hard not to make political hay out of this.   

There are large problems with the Court's declaration of the mandate as a tax.  In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the Court did not interpret but rewrote the law with the switch in language.  Furthermore, beyond the difficulties it places upon the administration, it represents a problem as a tax.  Is a tax a tax if it did not originate within the House of Representatives, the only political body the Constitution says can create tax legislation?  At best, it represents a multifarious constitutional labyrinth to navigate before the law can be fully vetted.  This does not include the many other issues that are bound to emerge as the law, which many Democratic leaders confessed they had not read in full, comes into effect.

The biggest silver lining could be the injection of energy and purpose it gives conservatives.  The justices themselves encouraged the reaction by saying, 7 to 2, that the federal government could not punish or threaten states to participate in the program.  As states and activists digest this bit of information, the decision will drive some Democrats, if not to Mr. Romney, then away from President Obama.  The health care law, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said would have to go into effect to understand it completely, is so unpopular that had the Supreme Court struck it down, it would have lessen the urgency to vote.  Now, conservatives that have been a bit lukewarm towards Mr. Romney have a renewed motivation to vote this November.

As I’ve said before, Americans often define their freedom and liberties by the amount of choices they have.  The Affordable Care Act takes away many of those choices and puts them in the hands of the government.  Governments in general have difficulties in effectively and efficiently running industries.  Former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the senator from Arizona, once said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.  When deciding on 6 November, it would behoove Americans to remember that.

Eleven Players in Search of a Fan Base

For the last thirty years, soccer sycophants have professed the coming golden age of soccer in the U.S.   The first professional league in the 1970s and the dynamism of clubs like the New York Cosmos with a who’s who in past prime European and Latin American stars did not do it.  The 1994 World Cup and the subsequent 1999 Women’s World Cup, though having the distinction of women ripping off shirts to celebrate goals, did not manage it.  During the 2010 World Cup, the U.S. men’s team won their group, highlighted by Landon Donovan’s magical goal against Algeria.  It was the Americans first time to win their group in an eon and to date, it has not managed to ignite American passion for soccer.  On each occasion, commentators have said that soccer had turned a corner and each time, American soccer fans, like unlucky grooms, have been stranded at the altar.   

I have a couple of theories as to why this is so and much of it is ingrained in the American psyche.  Additionally, it should be known I’m a fan and love the sport and so I write this article from that point of view.  Yet first, I should mentioned what is not a reason for its stagnate popularity.  I do not believe it has much to do with the pace of the game and whether it is “boring” or not.  I personally find basketball a dreadfully boring game yet it is quite popular.  Even my beloved sport of baseball, considered boring by many people, is the national pastime.  Secondly, I don’t believe it has much to do with the fact that the U.S. is not good at it so therefore, Americans write it off.  If there is one thing that Americans love it is an underdog and they have relished being in such a role in the past (my Russian readers will fondly recall the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team).   

Still, there are three reasons that might explain the lack of soccer’s success in the U.S.  One, it sounds silly but Americans have a problem with ties.  Like the person who only sees things as right or wrong, Americans can handle victory or defeat but the ambiguity of a tie sends them into a catatonic state.  To the average American, if nothing is resolved, nothing is achieved and the tie runs contrary to our sense of how battles are fought.  Two, the acceptance of faked injuries, something for which some national and club teams are notorious.  To the American mindset, the faking of an injury to procure a call or possession of the ball, or worse a penalty shot, is bad form and the height of poor sportsmanship.  It is also puzzling that many national teams and announcers accept it with a nod and a wink, as if it were a playful indiscretion and not cheating.   

Lastly, Americans are beset with a litany of sports options with longer and greater histories and connections to the United States.  Baseball, football, basketball and hockey are rooted in the 19^th-century and are an ingrained component of American sports culture.  That does not even include the sports which have regional dominance and preference like lacrosse and field hockey.  We also have various levels of these sports, from high school to minor leagues to colleges to the professional leagues.  Americans simply have little time to devote to a new passion.   

As I’ve said, I’m a fan of the sport.  I root for the U.S. but I understand we lack the infrastructure for young soccer stars to rise as they do in Europe and Latin America.  Perhaps, we will never have the tradition and the abilities to consistently challenge such powers as Brazil or Spain but we will always be competitive and there is a chance that one day, we will shock the world.  We’ve done it before.

Making Room For Space

We on Earth have just awakened to the great oceans of space and time from which we have emerged….What happens in the first second of the next cosmic year depends on what we do, here and now, with our intelligence and our knowledge of the cosmos.
            Carl Sagan, 1990

In January 1986, I was embarking on the last months of my junior year in high school.  That January, as we watched in the library (the only place to find a television), the Challenger exploded into pieces over the skies of Florida.  I was a boy then.  As a man, as a teacher, I fielded questions about the space shuttle Columbia, which broke apart over the skies of north Texas in 2003.  My students did not know the story of Challenger first hand but they had heard of it, in particular, with relation to the more recent tragedy.  Their questions were obvious.  Why are we doing this?  Are there not a million other things for which we can use the money? 

As we experience occasional failure in our attempts to explore space, people ask if the cost is worth it.  It has been said before but it bears repeating.  I believe we, as a race, need something bigger than ourselves for which to strive.  People need something that takes us from our ordinary and mundane problems to focus on something larger and potentially more impactful.  As a race, we’ve never accomplished so much as when we were in pursuit of a magnificent and a previously unreachable goal. 

Where is the John F. Kennedy who said the reason we should shoot for the moon is for the same reason Rice plays Texas in football?  Science has always galvanized the country but science today focuses on those things too small to see and therefore, provides no intellectual and national focus.  What about something more tangible like a moon colony?  People laughed when former Speaker Newt Gingrich mentioned this in a debate during the Republican primaries but he has stumbled upon something.  What about a colony on Mars?  Carl Sagan felt it was indeed possible, and to an industrious, imaginative and bold people, what is not possible?      

Absent of something big to achieve, mankind tends to devolve into petty arguments and capricious debates that have few long-term consequences.  It is as if we are feeding off ourselves to occupy our time.  One societal commentator suggested that people have arrived to a point where they see alone time as something to be solved, not a time to simply think and contemplate.  If we had a larger goal to consider, would we have tons of television shows where self-indulgent, repugnant personalities wallow in their own dramas while acting like immature high schoolers?  Do our lack of goals and aspirations reduce us to the lowest common denominator?  Are we not the personification of the axiom that idle hands are the devil’s playground? 

Since I was a young boy, I enjoyed watching Star Trek with my father and grew increasingly interested in the notion of space.  As much as space captivated me, however, I really did not have the tools nor the guidance from teachers on how to pursue that interest.  My interest in the space shuttle had been stoked early on when the first flight of a reusable shuttle returned to earth, but I had little connection to it because of my perceived limitations.  However, I always dreamed of space and what secrets and wonders it held.  I would ask my father if God would allow us to travel the stars and the universes when we arrived in Heaven.  In the 1800s, the West represented the last frontier and it fired the imaginations and efforts of Americans toward making its settlement easier and more palatable.  Today, as the show says, space is the true final frontier.  Within this far away boundary exists the salvation of the human race. 

We, as a country, have been known throughout the world for contemplating and attempting magnificent things.  Stephen Fry, British actor, once said that the U.S. is the only place where people say, “Only in America,” and mean it as a compliment.  We need to return to a spirit of innovation, invention and exploration.  The U.S. needs to remove itself from some of its inconsequential issues and set its sights towards something loftier, something more worthy than what currently occupies our collective time and thought. 

The Blackboard Jungle, Revisited

When I was young, I was fascinated by movies like Glenn Ford in The Blackboard Jungle or Sidney Poitier in To Sir, With Love – an outsider going into “tough” schools and fighting the attitudes of students, parents and teachers.  The other day, I visited a very large, inner-city school for a job interview.  The school was recently saddled with a negative rating from the state and was looking for teachers to boost their social studies department.  I spoke with a couple of, I assume, very nice people.  One was the director of curriculum for social studies and English instruction and the other was the department head for the social studies department.  Over the course of the next thirty or so minutes, it was made clear to me what is wrong with that school and inner-city schools in general.   

First of all, and this applies to all schools, the fear of litigation and “unfair hiring practices” has compelled schools to use a “script” of ten questions or so through which to judge each applicant.  How can one appropriately evaluate someone through standardized questions?  It is symptomatic of the U.S. education system and the Department of Education’s paradigm.  They seek the most streamlined, standardized way to conduct business.  So, in an attempt to evaluate possible teachers, they picked a system of questioning that is designed only to get canned answers to canned, obvious questions.  What is gained from these questions?  It is hard to tell because it took little intellectual effort to come up with them and for a cagey, teaching veteran such as myself, it takes even less effort to answer.  During my answers, I have to shoehorn in my views and my theories of education to a group of people to be heard (and then, in all likelihood, ignored).  Unless school officials are capable of and allowed to ask better questions of teacher applicants, I’m not sure how one can hire better teachers. 

Second is the horrible mindset of school officials in inner-city schools.  When former president George W. Bush introduced his No Child Left Behind education policy, he referred to a soft racism.  It was a racism of reduced expectation for minorities.  When the subject of the interview turned to testing, the coordinator said that the school’s test scores were fine and their biology scores were great, given their demographics.  For the record, the school is made up of a predominantly Mexican-American population.  I was not aware, having earlier taught for seven years in such a school, that Mexican-Americans were predisposed to do poorly in biology.  She masks her racism by saying that she is there for the children, where she is needed the most.  Even the use of the word “children” infantilizes them – a part of her mindset.  The liberal philosophy cannot be enacted unless someone is placed in a permanent state of disadvantage.  So, under the auspices of helping, they perpetuate an “ingrained” sense of ineptitude.   

The denouement of this debacle came when I asked my final question.  Why should I teach at this school?  Earlier in the interview, the curriculum director asked if I was willing to take a job teaching “regular” classes and not Advanced Placement – something I’ve done nearly exclusively for the last ten years.  I was honest in that I said it was a factor, a large factor, but not the only one.  When I asked my last question, the curriculum director said, “You have to want to be here.  We want people here for the children and not for any personal desire to teach this or that.  It must be for the children.”  First of all, that does not answer my question.  Second, it is a ridiculous philosophy.  By that notion, I should not even be interviewing but content with my current assignment because it is for the “children.” 

Until inner-city schools are operated and driven by administrators and teachers that expect the exact same standards as the “good schools” expect of their students, these beleaguered programs will never progress.  As long as administrators seek out teachers with the same non-sensical philosophies as they, the students will continue to wallow in a state of disadvantage.  When we seek to extend students latitude for their failings, we continue to cripple them.

A Son's Reflections on His Father

As a child, I looked and acted like my father.  In many ways, he provided me a moral compass and created a paradigm that I took into adulthood and has done much to define me.  Oddly, his own moral compass went awry and while at times, he was the best of men, at other times, he was the worst of them.  However, I cannot focus on one part of his life but must take him as a whole because much of what I am, much of what I believe and espouse comes from my father.  Today, I stand as a professional and as a man because of what my father was and was not.  For that, I love and appreciate him. 

One of the first characteristics that come to mind when I consider my father is toughness.  My father was intimidating.  He would shoot a glance at me and today, he is the only man whoever intimidated me.  Yet, in his toughness, he had a practicality that allowed him to address things and act with a measured response.  As a professional, faced with classrooms filled with high school students, I’ve addressed them in ways that make the most sense.  Like my father, I am angry only when it calls for it and at times, also like my father, I affect emotions to get what I need from my students.  It might sound an awful lot like manipulation but in my father’s mind, it got the job done.  He was a believer in corporal punishment and I was on the receiving end of that philosophy more times than I can recall.  However, it was not done lightly or often and it was always followed by a conversation.   

A second characteristic that I think of with regards to my father is his commitment to learning and reading.  His scholarship as a minister was an inspiration and while it took some time to take, my home office and library is an extension of him.  To my parents, the pursuit of knowledge was not to be found solely in universities though those institutions have something for the eager student.  However, my father taught me to seek out knowledge in books – to know something, one must not just hear it but must read and consume it.  Like my mother, my father was always surrounded by books and it was through books that I found my own way.  Eventually, it led me to a university and my father’s commitment to scholarship was something I took with me.     

Lastly, my father represents a way to view life and he did so through two favorite sayings.  One, “it is important to let people know what you stand for but equally important to let people know what you won’t stand for.”  As my wife and colleagues will attest to, this paradigm makes me difficult to deal with.  When I see something wrong, I tend to say it, regardless of my position.  I do so respectfully but I do register my disapproval.  For my father, he would have said that my profession requires a duty to the students and not to their parents or my bosses.  So, my actions must have their interest, their long-term interest at heart.  Sometimes, it might cause immediate failure or disappointment but in the long-term, it will help.   

Second, “no one outside of this family cares about you or your problems so seek your own way.”  This might sound a bit Draconian but my father, if I can speculate, wanted me to exist outside the opinions and attitudes of others.  The vast majority of people dispensing advice are not doing so to make your life better but theirs.  Therefore, one must trust in oneself to find the way and deep down inside, we all do know the right way.  Inherent in this advice was for me to trust myself and trust my instincts.  I don’t believe he meant to discount all help for surely, at some point, we all need it but we must be extremely selective in asking for such help.  

Like most father/son relationships, we’ve had difficulties.  And, I’ve not always been the best son.  Yet, I cannot look in the mirror and discount what he has done for me.  When I was in the first weeks of boot camp, I was writing these horribly morose letters, powered by home sickness.  After a few of these letters, he wrote back that if I wrote another letter like that home again, he would never write me in the future.  He told me to grow up, stop crying and accept the responsibility that I took on.  I like to think my life has been defined by the independence that letter demanded – a demand for toughness, independence and commitment to knowledge and to my profession.  In the process, I believe I’ve become the best of my father. 

The Dangers of the Upcoming Mexican Elections

With the approaching Mexican presidential elections, there has been a great deal of turmoil and unpredictability that culminated in recent polls, released and called into question this week.  The polls showed Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the lead.  However, the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and its candidate, former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, are only a few points behind.  The ruling party, the National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate, Josefina Vázquez Mota is third.  In the midst of all this jockeying are some important possible consequences to the Mexican elections.

Since the writing of the new Mexican constitution in the 1920s, in the aftermath of the Mexican civil war, only one party existed and the PRI kept a stranglehold over the government and the direction of the country for the subsequent eighty years.  As one might find in one-party states, the PRI was known for horrible corruption, connection to “unsavory” types to say the least and an institutional disregard for the lives and lot of ordinary Mexicans.  In 2000, Vicente Fox became the first non-PRI president.  Over the last twelve years, Mr. Fox and current president, Felipe Calderón, have sought to put in place a series of reforms to change the calcified rapacity that existed under the PRI. 

It would be, potentially, very dangerous for the PRI to return to the presidency in Mexico.  Mr. Nieto has said that his time as the governor of the state of Mexico and its economic success could be segued into Mexico as a country.  He blasted the failed reforms and policies of the PAN but not all is as it appears.  First of all, Mexico’s economy has done quite well over the last twelve years.  Its GDP, GDP growth rate and its GDP per capita are all on the rise.  There is a greater level of true democracy seen in Mexico than at any time in its history.  As for the PRI attacks on the PAN, it is more complicated.  The PRI has maintained a sizeable minority in the Mexican parliament and the majority of Mexican states are run by the PRI.  This has put the formerly authoritarian single-party group in a strong position to obfuscate the government’s plans. 

Of course, the biggest charge levied on the PAN is the violence that has characterized the country over the last couple of years.  Yet, there is something positive to be taken from this.  Even with the horrific tales of violence and mass killings, deaths are down overall.  Additionally, the amount of stories reported and the gun battles that have dotted the countryside suggest it’s a reaction.  Comfortable drug cartels do not make trouble for themselves and the violence suggests that the government is making headway in their efforts.  Having said that, the government needs to press their work because the gang violence has the potential of destroying the many gains Mexico has made since 2000.

What does Mexico have to lose by turning to the PRI?  I imagine there is a small chance that PRI has seen the error of its historical ways.  However, that would require an organizational introspection and reform that is not supported by the evidence.  The violence with drug cartels has forced Mexicans to reconsider the direction of their country and the PAN might suffer as a result.  It does not help that Ms. Mota has received less than lukewarm support from President Calderón and Mr. Fox.  A return of the PRI can lead to a return to the previous way of doing things in Mexico.  That could make the cartel violence pale in comparison.   

At the turn of the 20^th-century, the United States went through a progressive period where institutional corruption and illegality were combated.  Movements spanning the spectrum attacked one societal, industrial and governmental ill after another.  Mexico needs its own progressive movement and the leadership with the courage to confront those bringing the country down.  The PRI has not shown a capacity to do this.  Whether the PAN or PRD can, only time will tell. 

The Sudden Attention to Breastfeeding

Over the last couple of weeks, several stories have emerged on breastfeeding.  The recent controversies began with a Time Magazine cover showing a woman rather defiantly breastfeeding a boy old enough to ask for it.  Earlier this week, a photo showing two women in military uniform breastfeeding sparked similar outrage.  I’m left with two questions.  One, who are these outraged people?  Second, why are they outraged?  After reading one of these articles, I wonder when people will start treating “outrages” like adults.

First, let’s address the Time Magazine cover.  There seems to be two schools of thought on the cover.  It shows a woman staring into the camera while her son, who looks to be three or four, sucks on her breast while standing on a chair to reach it.  There have been two major objections to the cover.  One, the woman’s cold appearance seems to belie the rather nurturing act being shown.  The photo was one of many taken of the mother and son, some of which showed her “properly” caring and motherly.  The editors at Time chose this one but since I don’t have an problem with stern-looking breastfeeders, I’m not moved in one way or the other on the cover. 

The other issue about the cover was the woman herself.  She belongs to a group of parents who follow the attachment parenting method in which a child is seldom if ever separated from a parent during the first few years of their life.  As a result, the woman in the article and many others who follow this technique breastfeed well past what others might consider wise or appropriate.  This can include children as old as five or six.  I must tread a little lightly here because I understand my natural deficiencies – I’m a male and I’m childless.  However, it would seem that once a child can ask for the breast and belly-up themselves, that seems a bit odd.  However, these parents also make the point that humans are the only species to feed other animals’ milk to their young.  It is more natural and beneficial to give the child the mother’s milk than that of a cow.  This seems logical but I’m not sure this means it must come from the “tap” as it were. 

The second story involves a group of military women who were photographed breastfeeding their babies while in uniform.  For those who do not know, military members are restricted in the behaviors while in uniform.  Restrictions include any display of affection, from holding hands to kissing.  One Air Force spokesperson (smartly enough, they choose a woman) suggested that while the military does not have any specific regulation against breastfeeding, it would seem logical it would not be allowed while in uniform.  However, one of the women photographed retorted that when confronted with a crying, hungry child, why would you take the time to completely change clothes?  I must say I side with the mothers on this one.  I’m not sure why the act had to be the subject of a photo shoot but the act itself seems harmless.

Of those women who breastfeed, they range in their actions.  Some are shy and go to great lengths to sequester themselves for the act.  Some are defiant and basically dare anyone, particularly a male, to look in her direction while she is breastfeeding.  They seem to actually scan the room, seeking anyone who would turn this into a side show.  The third group performs it as a natural act of motherhood.  They are completely oblivious and unconcerned to those who would object.  I don’t understand the objections.  With all due respect, I think people need to get over their problems with breastfeeding.  Of all the things happening in public that should be featured in a major news magazine article and made the point of critical commentary, this is not one of them.