~synthesis~

Words and Meaning and Intent

Joanne Jacobs wrote about families in Claremont, California who "raised arms" (metaphorically) on both sides of whether dressing up as a "Thanksgiving character" demeans anyone. It's worth a read.

This is Political Correctness Gone Wild. It's in schools, the workplace, the community, it's everywhere.

Is a blind person blind or visually-impaired? Is a fat person fat or heavy? Is a tall person tall or vertically-empowered? Is a black person black or African American? Is a toilet a toilet or a restroom? If I utter the words "gosh darn it" or "freaking" with emphasis, does anyone (even my 11-year old) not know what I really meant to say?

I'm Canadian, but was born in Tanzania. If I were American, I would literally be "African American", but am not allowed to use that adjective to describe myself. Why?

Are we doing this in the interest of politeness? If so, what is the level of politeness that a Western person feels today toward a person of Muslim faith? We, our media, and our political leaders routinely use phrases like "Islamic terrorists", "Jihadists", etc.. This has caused a pretty universal (and I hope unintended) antipathy towards all Muslims. There have been many examples of Christian Terrorism, but this hasn't resulted in the same kind of broadly-felt antipathy towards people who practice that faith. Why? Because these people are simply described terrorists, not "Christian terrorists."  A cynic might conclude that this is another intended choice of words...

It seems these euphemisms are in themselves a reflection of bias and discrimination.  Or better said, we're only interested in the right kind of political correctness <-- it seems awfully  Stepford doesn't it?

There's another side to this discussion. The meaning of certain words can be felt to be sacrosanct.  For example, David Wiley wrote about how the Latter Day Saints support Proposition 8 principally because "marriage" has a very specific meaning to them and its sanctity (forgiving the pun) must be preserved.

First, I really appreciate David's viewpoint and his willingness to share it. I empathize with his perspective. 

But aren't there other words that carry the same weight and import to people who share David's faith, or people of other faiths? Words like "God" or "Faith" or "Church" or "Temple."  All of these words have distinct legal, social, and personal meanings. And each of the three is different. 

Why was "marriage" singled out? The legal definition of "marriage" in no way shapes or alters the religious or personal definition of marriage. What about "divorce"? In some faiths, divorce is not permitted. Should we then erase this word from our Code of Law? No - we simply understand that they (religion and law) are distinct, and recognize the need for both worlds to coexist. Marriage in the case of Proposition 8 speaks simply to a legal definition within our Code of Law. It in no way comments on the social or religious or personal. Just as divorce doesn't.

The laws of our society ought to be and hopefully are completely a-religious. Legal terms are used to describe specific concepts and rules that govern the rules of our society; for example, "battery" has a totally different meaning in a court of law than it does at Toys R Us.

So I don't agree with David. Nor do I agree with either side in the Claremont Thanksgiving debacle. Nor do I agree with the profusion of politically-correct phrases are becoming vernacular.

Words have meaning and implication to the speaker and the listener. Changing the first to accommodate the second makes us liars and delusional. Attempting to use one definition or context to further an agenda based on a different definition or context demeans our integrity.

Let's all stop this before it goes too far, and the Thought Police takes over our entire society.

Undaunted

I read a wonderful editorial in the New York Times today by Suketu Mehta. It was in response to the terrorist acts in Mumbai over the last few days.  I completely share his view.

Let us not be daunted by them.  Let us not allow them to dictate our choices, acts, decisions - our very freedom.  If we permit this, they have won, their cause is made more just, and worst of all, their motivation to repeat this act is strengthened.

When the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked in 2001, the United States and the rest of the world reacted immediately and with profound intent and anger in the face of fear and a recognition that "this could happen anywhere." In the case of 9-11, names of terrorists and their organizations became part of our vernacular; freedoms and individuals' rights were trampled by our own governments; nations spent billions curtailing our realities, seemingly to "make us more secure;" we all succumbed ...and they won. Our rights and freedoms were erased, the very shapes of our lives were altered, we became victims - all of us. They were legitimized. They won.

Mehta goes on to talk about how Mumbai is a free and freewheeling city - it is not filled with metal detectors and excessive security, thus making it a "soft target".

Rather than succumbing to the same knee-jerk reaction, Mehta opts for something better:

But the best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever. Dream of making a good home for all Mumbaikars, not just the denizens of $500-a-night hotel rooms. Dream not just of Bollywood stars like Aishwarya Rai or Shah Rukh Khan, but of clean running water, humane mass transit, better toilets, a responsive government. Make a killing not in God’s name but in the stock market, and then turn up the forbidden music and dance; work hard and party harder.

If the rest of the world wants to help, it should run toward the explosion. It should fly to Mumbai, and spend money. Where else are you going to be safe? New York? London? Madrid?

So I’m booking flights to Mumbai. I’m going to go get a beer at the Leopold, stroll over to the Taj for samosas at the Sea Lounge, and watch a Bollywood movie at the Metro. Stimulus doesn’t have to be just economic.

Bravo.

Let us never be daunted by terrorists or terrorism.  Let us never elevate them to the point where they get to change our world and our lives. Declaring war on them affords them an honor that is only granted to sovereign nations - they are but a band of pathetic criminals. They are insects. They don't get to do this, and it is up to us to carry on undaunted.

Edu-Luddites

I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin.  I've written about him a couple of times already. Thanksgiving is a time for TV, I've been watching the first season of the West Wing again, and was struck by these two scenes (with my yellow highlight):

TOBY: ...The Torah doesn't prohibit capital punishment.
RABBI GLASSMAN: No
TOBY: It says, "An eye for an eye."
RABBI GLASSMAN: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city  gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it's just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, it doesn't have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn't have to kill.

And this:

SAM: Mallory, education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. School should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

The first is from the episode entitled: Take this the Sabbath Day, and the second is from Six Meetings Before Lunch. The conversation is about capital punishment in the former, and public schools in the latter.

Relevance? Last night, I wrote about Bob Watt and Redefining Learning; this is a bit of a sequel to that, specifically, the social why.

As I learn more about education, I am surprised that there is such deep entrenchment among those that care, so much desire to maintain the status quo, such an obsession with making sure that "my kids learn just the way I did."  It's horrible.

The dream is that all edu-luddites reflect on this and realize that in the words of Wayne Gretzky, "a good player skates to where the puck is, a great player skates to where the puck will be."  We must be ever-vigilant to never want to skate to where the puck was.

Analogy: when their children turn 16, parents will often bow to the pressure of buying them a car. More often than not, it's a old beater car that, well let's face it, won't really be missed if the kid gets in that inevitable car accident.  Oh?  But what about your child??  Won't they be missed?? Is it OK if they are damaged in this accident because the car didn't have the best accident avoidance and safety technology? How do you reconcile caring more about the car than your child??

Hence the second quote by Sam Seaborn. It's how we should feel about schools, teachers, and education. It has to be the best it can be and must set tomorrow's standard. 

You can argue that "if it aint broke, don't fix it" - and in some cases I might agree. But what about our current education system aint broken? I've written about this many times, the last three postings are here, here, and here. We have to fix it. But as with a virulent cancer that will spread if not checked, we need aggressive and revolutionary intervention or the patient will die.

"For all [we] know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of it's time, but it's just plain wrong by any modern standard."  "We don't need little changes. We need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should make six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense." 

Let us summon the guts to make it so.  Let us also hope that President Elect Obama is a fan of The West Wing.

Redefining Learning

I had coffee with a very interesting person on Wednesday, Bob Watt. He's been a player in the business of Education for many moons here in the Seattle area, across the State of Washington, and beyond.

It was obviously a great learning experience for me (considering I've only been in the education space since February), and I really appreciated Bob's time and willingness to share his insights and help educate me. Our conversation spanned many aspects of education, focused specifically on early childhood.  It was fascinating.

Bob introduced me to the work of I-LABS (Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences) at the University of Washington.  He has graciously arranged for me to tour their facilities - I can't wait!

One insight he shared, based on work at I-LABS: when you observe the brains of two sets of eight-month-old children (one in Taiwan and one in Seattle) as they are being spoken to in Mandarin, both sets of brains react the same way! Implying that both sets have the same capacity to learn a new or current language. Very interesting.

Part two. Same kids in Taipei, and the Seattle group divided in three, one control group, where each month for 12 months the kids and their parents came to I-LABS to play for 25 minutes; the second group had a Taiwanese person sit with them for the same 25 minutes and read stories and engage the children in Mandarin; the third group received the same treatment as the 2nd except that the person appeared before them via a plasma display vs. in person.

12 months later (when these children were 20 months old), they repeated the same brain scans while being spoken to in Mandarin.  The Taiwanese children in Taipei obviously reacted to Mandarin; the control group had zero reaction; the "live" group reacted just like the children in Taipei (wow!); and the "plasma TV" group reacted just like the control group (double wow!!).

Interpretation: in person, 25 minutes a month for 12 months was enough  to help  a young child gain an affinity for a new language! And remotely, it carried no value whatsoever.

Wow!  The conclusion that Bob drew for me is equally interesting and more than a bit provocative: for the first ten or so years, there is tremendous value in increasing the ratio of educators to children. After that, additional data shows that students are able to learn quite well with less touch and even with remote (or computer-based) touch.

So - here's Bob's idea: let us invest in very high student:teacher ratios (10:1 or lower) and 7am to 5pm schooling that provides the most high-touch and greatest educational foundation to our students. Then from age 10-18, let's shift to even as high as a 60:1 ratio with increased computer aided learning.

If the result of this approach is that our education system now creates great students, all of whom graduate from high school with an intellect worthy of the DNA our parents gave us, how can we not do this?

But what is the opportunity cost of doing this? At a national level, could it be less money spent on unemployment insurance, reduction in crime (because more graduates are more employable and able to legally earn a family wage), reduced unwanted pregnancies, a higher GDP, improved quality of life for everyone, happier citizens?

When do we start?

Education CTOs Beware!

eSchool News posted an interesting article about the relationship between a CTO (Chief Technology Office) and her/his Superintendent. In a nutshell, they say you should be a good servant - communication and trust are the key ingredients.

I don't agree.

The role of a good CTO in any organization is to:

1. Know your business (i.e. the business of your employer); know it really well, and have total clarity on how success is defined, measured and achieved.
2. Know the ICT landscape as it relates to your business (not just the mainstream, but the periphery too); most critically, know where it's heading three to five years out; and know where others in your industry are heading.
3. Be a leader and visionary within your organization, championing the best of #2 where it materially contributes to #1, or where it will in the future materially contribute to #1.
4. Work with other ICT leaders in the business to make sure you have an ICT infrastructure that offers the most flexibility and latitude to be whatever it needs to be today and tomorrow with minimal change/remediation.
5. Be the force, help others use it, and use it wisely.

Anything else is too small, too narrow, and actually the job of an IT implementer vs. a CTO.

If a school system has a CTO, the implication is that they invested in this resource because they view ICT as a strategic advantage to achieve even more excellent learning outcomes for their students.

For a legitimate CTO that takes this role on without that kind of affirmation, I regret that unless you got lucky, you're in for an unhappy reality.

Communication and trust are important for every employee. The CTO needs to be more and have more. Much more.

Winning with Integrity and Grace

Candace Gingrich wrote an open letter to her brother Newt this week. In it she decries and castigates him for "living in a world that no longer exists." She essentially tells him (and everyone else who was vanquished) that they must now embrace and convert to the new world order.

This is wrong.  Horribly wrong.

I think Aaron Sorkin wrote this best with President Andrew Shepherd's speech in The American President:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

Candace, Newt has every right to believe what he does and advocate his position. Just because the Democrats won and the "liberal" ideal prevailed doesn't empower those newly crowned to be as self-righteous, intolerant and dictatorial as they claim the current Cheney/Bush administration has been. Herein lies megalomania of the worst kind.

Power corrupts.  Don't look in the mirror just now, Candace, you're not going to like what you see.

This country was founded on very powerful principles, and much blood was shed to win these rights for all the peoples of this land, not just those that won.  The winners especially would do well to remember this.

Moreover, the winners can look to Nelson Mandela and the example he set, which was to embrace and accept everyone around us, not just our own. It was Truth and Reconciliation, not truth and retribution or recrimination.

We can only hope that President-Elect Obama is ever-mindful of this, and makes sure Congress  remembers this always.

Finally, for those that have not seen the film, here's the speech in its entirety:

No Breast Left Behind

Marisa Acocella Marchetto is a person I admire deeply. She's a brilliant author, she draws beautifully, and she's a breast cancer survivor with a sense of humor and a huge heart.

I happened to be in the right place at the right time in August, and met Marisa on the patio of one of my fave joints in New York, Da Silvano. She was kind enough to autograph a copy of her new book, Cancer Vixen.  If you have or know someone who has breast cancer (and lets face it, this is basically everyone), this book is a must for you. I read it and have shared it, though I want to keep my copy 'cause she signed it for me:).

We had a connection on that patio. When Marisa talked about her efforts to provide free mamograms via St. Vincent's Hospital in New York to women who can't afford it or whose insurance won't cover it, and how she wanted to take her program national, I did a smart thing for once, and offered to help.

And have I learned a lot!

More than 200,000 women are diagnosed with, and 40,000 die from breast cancer in the United States every year. Mammograms can detect a tumor up to two years before a breast exam would. If detected and treated early, 96% of women are cancer-free after five years.

What does this mean?  Simple: 38,400 women in America die needlessly each year from breast cancer.

That's just messed up.

You have to believe that early detection = less-expensive treatment cost too - that just make sense. I'm going to invest some energy over the next few weeks to find data to back this up.

Now what does this mean? Simple: if every woman in America gets a free mammogram, we will not only save lives, but also save the insurance companies and the government money!

What to do about this?

As a starting point, we need to raise awareness and make it possible for every woman in America (including the 13 million women over 40 that have never had one) get regular mammograms. Marisa and I came up with this tag line: No Breast Left Behind. Here's Marisa's blog entry, and here's the link to the American Cancer Society site where you can buy t-shirts! 

But this is just the beginning.

 Neither Marisa nor I view this as a philanthropic mission.  That's just a stop-gap. What we really need is a national mission to eliminate or eradicate preventable diseases. Breast cancer the first; it's prostate cancer for men [ASIDE: our tag line for this one is: Keep Your Eye on the Ball and I have no doubt Marisa will come up with a suitably irreverent design! ;-)]; for both genders and people young and old, we MUST address diabetes, especially type-2 diabetes, which is totally preventable!

I intend to write more about this as we learn more, but believe that with the new administration about to move into the White House, the economic crisis, the ever-rising costs of healthcare, and the fact that most Americans will suffer one of these (and other preventable) diseases, the time is now for us to get started.

This is not about raising money. In fact, this idea has the unique characteristic of actually saving this country and our heathcare system billions of dollars.  All it takes is an institutional willingness to listen, and a social culture of prevention.

The Shape of Things to Come?

Kathleen Parker wrote an excellent article in today's Washington Post. Along the lines of the trend in shifting convictions in the Republican Party that I wrote last week.

I really hope she is right, because the best thing for America is to have two strong and effective parties in Congress working hard to moderate and balance the governance of this country. No matter who is in charge, when the government is completely one-sided, things don't work out well.

But is this really the shape of things to come? Is there a new dawn for the Republican Party? Will they abandon the ideals and strategy that lead to what has been a hugely successful run in politics?

I'm not so sure, and here's why:

1. Faith is not something that you shake based on just one defeat - religions would hardly have the longevity they've had if that were the case.
2. Some of the principles that drive both parties are just plain emotional, there is very little rational thinking when it comes to these issues (abortion, gay rights, faith-based initiatives like "intelligent design", etc.); and there's nothing that shows that those who were on either side of this two weeks ago have suddenly attenuated their fervor.
3. Those that voted for the Republican ticket in this election did so because of very strong convictions; the Democratic ticket attracted the middle and left, but the right stayed very much on the right.
4. Further to #3 above, this fact has led to a very simple result: almost every Republican in Congress in 2009 will have been elected by a very right-leaning community and likely share those values. 

Implications? Simple - the majority of the elected and presiding leaders of the Republican Party and their electorate are opposed to the premise that Kathleen Parker has forwarded.

Implications of this? Not so simple. It's unlikely that there will be an insurrection within the party, and it's equally unlikely that they will stop dancing with who brung them, including the very critical fact that they also donate to the party.

So what happens?

I think the Democrats are going to help their Republican brethren out, unless President-Elect Obama can beat it out of them, Dems (especially in majorities) are HOPELESS at getting things done.

Can you say: "Contract with America??"

Watch - there will be a new Herr Gingrich who comes to the fore in about 18 months. She or he will have the gravitas to galvanize the GOP, get them off their butts and make the midterms interesting.

[ASIDE: you have to read Ellis Weiner's excellent piece on our little Newt!]

I can say that I'm convinced that Frau Palin will not be this GOP hero - she just doesn't have the chops. 

Proposed inauguration speech - Education Section

Our nation has so many challenges ahead of it, but there is one thing that will do more to shape America’s future than anything else.

It is not a clean-energy policy, or universal health care, or safe and secure neighborhoods, though all of these are critical.

It is education.

Today our policy views education from a perspective that hasn’t changed since the Industrial Revolution.

I’m not opposed to tried and true, but I am FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to tried and failed, and tried again and failed again, and costing even more.

This is not the right way. This is not our way. And this is absolutely not the American way. 

We have to do the hard work required to reshape education for the 21st century.

But this will take more than just policy. Much more.

It will take the active participation of every parent, teacher, administrator and politician. It will require the commitment of every parent, teacher, administrator and politician. And it will require that every parent, teacher, administrator and politician open their minds to the idea that the past should not be repeated, just because it worked once.

I stand before you today as proof that we can’t think that way anymore.

Tomorrow we will not measure learning through standardized testing.

Tomorrow we will not disrespect and ignore the heroes of our education system – our teachers.

Tomorrow we will not make investing in our schools an afterthought that is the first line cut in a budget.

We can and we must change. Together we will change. Our destiny demands it.

The American way speaks of intention, it speaks of commitment, it speaks of passion, and it speaks of integrity. It also speaks of a future built on hard work, tough choices, and a tenacity that ensures success.

I ask all Americans to stand with me, resolved that we will prepare our children to face the wonder and blessing that is our future with the capacity to learn, the ability to judge, the insight to persuade, and the desire to reach.

Together we will fulfill this destiny.

Bailout madness

Update: David Brooks also wrote about this topic - another incisive mind and great editorial.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Thomas Friedman has a great mind. His Nov 11 editorial spoke to me.

In any right-minded world, it should be the goal of the stakeholders of that organization to ensure that the best possible management and governance are in place, and further that that management is committed to the sustained best interest of the organization. As the citizen stakeholders, we must act.

It's surprising to me that the management of all of the organizations, be they financial services, manufacturers, or lemonade stands who are asking for bailouts have never gone public with analysis of what happened, why it happened, the nature of their missteps, and most critically, specifics on what they intend to do to return their company to a position of strength.

Further, what do they intend to do with the cash infusion?  Just pay the bills and change nothing??  Does anybody with a brain believe that that's a good place to throw money?

What to do instead?  Well - I wrote a while back about the lending crisis, and I think a similar strategy should be employed with the automobile industry. Let's not give those that failed miserably more money to fail even more miserably.  Please.

So - how to motivate new car buyers?  How about this:

1. The American government creates a used car purchase and export program to donate used cars to developing countries. Used cars are purchased at the 2005 Blue Book value (to give the seller a premium).
2. The cars are then refurbished (economic stimulus to the car parts, servicing and detailing companies), and shipped (stimulus to the shipping/transport industries) to other countries, as negotiated by the Department of State.
3. Consumers are given an economic incentive (government funded loans through the banks (giving them the cash flow) @ 1% per year for 4 years) to purchase new cars. The incentive would also include a 4-year insurance discount of 25% (again funded by the government). 
   
4. Consumers are ONLY required to buy domestically-manufactured cars, but not just from the Big 3.  Any American-built car is eligible. The market forces should prevail, allowing consumers to spend their money where they choose. If the Big 3 don't have the best product, they don't deserve to win, but American automotive workers do benefit.
5. If one or more of the Big 3 end up failing because of this, the foreign manufacturers should have an opportunity to buy them out, but they should not be obligated to hire union labor, nor should they be held accountable for the legacy retired worker pension problem. The UAW should be obligated to liquidate its funds to cover what they can, and the rest is in the hands of the former employees. 
   

While this may sound harsh, it is reality. Others don't keep getting their pensions funded when they lose their jobs. All retirees receive state-funded medical care, and the rest is now in their hands, the hands of their families and the UAW, who after all was formed to take care of them.

I believe this type of plan could work quite well, while preserving the principles of a market economy.  No doubt some people will suffer, but the alternative of wholesale corporate welfare is even worse.

 The used  car buy-back reduces the inventory of these cars in the country (which is good), puts (on a percentage basis) more fuel-efficient and safer cars on the road than any other time in history (both in the US and elsewhere) and increases consumers' spending power. This type of stimulus approach has the added benefit of not rewarding the imbeciles that got us in this mess in the first place, and hopefully forces all of those decision-makers into corporate purgatory.

Complexity or Patronage?

Harvard Business Publishing has this great service that I've enjoyed for the last few weeks called "The Daily Stat".  The signal to noise ratio so far has been good, and I hope it stays that way.  The November 11 stat was a summary of a rather long analysis by Paul C. Light on the bnet Business Network. 

The Harvard Stat was two paragraphs long (or in my parlance less than one screen of email), and Paul Light's paper was 10 pages long; needless to say I read the former!  Ironically, the article is about how US Federal Cabinets have grown in the last century:).  

In summary, in 1935, FDR had 51 Cabinet appointees, and in 2001 Bush had about 500. It took Kennedy 10 weeks to get his appointees sworn in.  George W. Bush took almost 38 weeks to do this!  This put him 257 days into his first 100 days, which according to most is the peak performance during a Presidency.

It's like we've grown from a simple A-frame house of cards to this gigantic condo of cards. 

Why so big? Is it about the growing complexity of government or just plain patronage? Has the world really gotten that complicated? And even if it has, at what point does the government get so complex that it simply can't get anything done?

I would think the last two Presidents have shown us that the bigger the government gets, the more difficult it is to find people who have the integrity, commitment to public service, and willingness to be subservient to a larger mission than their ego.  There have been a bunch of incidents of unethical behavior:

1. How many Congresspeople have been suspected and eventually found guilty of some kind of ethical, social, or personal breech of trust and faith?  
2. How many Congresspeople were guilty of this behavior but didn't get caught?
3. How many in the Executive Branch were found guilty of bad behavior (in the Justice department alone)?
   
4. How many in that branch have either not been caught or have simply flouted any attempt at uncovering a breech of ethics or law (can you say "Dick Cheney")?

And this is just poor judgment and bad decision-making.  What about just plain ineffective performance? The travesty that is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. It blows me away that in many ways the 2004 Tsunami that affected Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand (among other countries), all of which have a less developed status according to the World Bank than the United States have done a better job of recovering from the almost 230,000 casualties, and incalculable physical devastation.

But it only takes one visit to New Orleans (Paul Miller - AKA DJ Spooky, someone I'm proud to call a friend visited New Orleans a while back for Weekend America) to see how abysmal this country's track record has been in not only helping people restore their lives but also helping make that iconic city safe from future hurricanes.

Big government has never equaled effective government.  I contend that the biggest reason for the humongous Cabinets that we have now is purely patronage - Clinton and Bush had WAAAAY more people to pay off than any prior President, the Lincoln Bedroom is only so big, and there are only so many nights in a presidency. I wrote about a new approach to campaign finance and timing - it would potentially avoid such problems.

I'm hopeful that our new President is able to see through all this, appoint an appropriately-sized Cabinet that has integrity, and is transparent and accountable. While he did raise a record-breaking amount of money, we can also hope that his backers did so because they had a higher purpose in mind than just a free nights lodging.

No convictions a good spanking can't cure...

Saw this article in the New York Times today. It seems the Republican Party (recently lauded for being stunningly well-organized) has begun to question the fundamentals/non-negotiables/principles that they have so passionately espoused over the last many years.

According to the article, the Republican glitterati is rethinking being pro-life and against gay rights because it alienated moderates who are apparently focused on esoteric issues like jobs, health care and education.  Go figure.

Why? Why those specific values? What will they replace them with? "Standard" Democrat views? I doubt it. Will they just remove these issues from the platform? Would 'twere true!

The last eight years have seen a largely dominant Republican government preside over some very non-traditional outcomes. Fundamental conservative principles of small government, adherence to the constitution, and fiscal conservatism were flaunted in favor of vast (and ineffectual) government, a blatant disregard for the constitution and the law of the land, and precipitous spending.

When socially moderate but conservative John McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate for president, I thought it was in recognition of all of these failings, but apparently not. Until the spanking, the Republican brain trust believed that everything was peachy on a policy front; perhaps why they dug Frau Palin so much. They felt that the electorate would once more fall prey to the 2000, 2004 fear-based tactics, and "four more years" of status quo would be our just reward.

As they jockey for position in the Republican leadership rodeo, I hope they go back to their fundamental conservative principles, and make those the preeminent voice of the Party. It would be a great way to be the voice of balance that tempers the temptation of a Democratic Congress to grow government even more and put our economic future in a bigger hole.

PS - Homer and Karl - separated at birth???

Student teaching?

Scott McLeod wrote recently about student-delivered professional development. Really insightful and right on regarding the use of technology and the students' proficiency therein.

I think there's a huge opportunity for students to participate (for credit - academic or community service) in training both educators and the community on the use of technology.

I would add Big Idea #6 to Scott's entry.  Why not also have students help with teaching content approaches and technique? I wrote earlier about how the students aren't learning as well as we'd like, and wonder if we're not involving them enough in the process?

One of my favorite examples of student-inspired learning is Pokemon (ok - so this isn't real learning - or is it??).

Most Pokemon aficionados that I know mastered the game in about six months. Mastery implies a full understanding of the Pokemon vocabulary, ecosystem, evolutionary paths, strengths and weaknesses of each character and appropriate strategies with which to select the right Pokemon and win battles, etc.

Moreover, each child also learns to interact with their peers, learn tricks and technique from each other, and of course battling to achieve supremacy in the game.

Finally, for particularly tough battles, students need to also do research online to uncover cheats that they can use to achieve status.

How did Nintendo build such an amazing learning environment? They started with a premise, built examples, tested it extensively with children, and then released the product. Each iteration of Pokemon is equally tested, children are involved in helping create scenarios, outcomes, etc., as well as providing insights on game play, use of vocabulary, etc.

It seems to me that Big Idea #6 should equally involve students, they should be co-creating the curriculum, participating even in defining learning outcomes, and then being active in refining the content to ensure that the learning outcomes are achieved. I recently met Marja Brandon, head of the Seattle Girls School. She is a visionary.  Among other things, the eight grade class at her school actually does this - the curriculum for that year is co-created with the students. 

Her students are out-performers (routinely excelling in AP classes once they move on from SGS), and equally importantly - don't just walk, but run to school because they love it so much. This is a wonderful school, and I hope to write much more about it in the days to come, but if you live in the Seattle area and have a daughter who is going into grade 5 or 6, this school MUST be on your list to evaluate, and I'm certain will be at the top of that list.

Change and Insomnia

OK so I've succumbed to a bit of late-night-itis as a result of sleeping until noon today. I was reading an interesting article on Sarah Palin (and yes - this is a whole lot like not being able to ignore the traffic accident) by Katha Pollitt and found a very interesting blog entry by Laila Lalami. 

She writes that perhaps maybe we should temper our enthusiasm for change because President Obama will only be able to do so much while in power, despite his incredible mandate.
 
I disagree with Laila. The audacity of hope is a powerful idea. Its time has come. While it won't be here in minutes, it comes through education. If Obama is able to do one thing that will be lasting, it would be to invest in building the best possible education system for this country.  I will write more on this later, but I wanted Laila to know that change is possible.

Immediate change requires cataclysmic events combined with fear-driven leadership <-- can you say September 11, 2001 + President Cheney/Bush? But let's face it, the electorate finally got its head out of the sand and decided not to be driven by fear.

Sustained change on the other hand requires the opening of minds and the creation of hope. That's something President Obama can do. Make 21st Century Learning real - give our children the capacity to think, the imagination to create, and a global perspective to understand.

The West Wing Prophecy

I think Aaron Sorkin is brilliant. I can't think of a single thing he's created that I didn't like. His ethos, the voice that he uses, along with the wit, intelligence and subtlety that he employs just touch me.

His ability to tell a story is special.

I've been watching the 2006 (final) season of the West Wing (one of my favorite shows), and I couldn't help but be struck by the incredible similarities between that season, covering the election between the white, older, more seasoned and centrist Republican (played by Alan Alda), and the younger, newer, Latino, and more liberal candidate from Texas (played by Jimmy Smits), and the election that just took place here in the United States.

In the storybook election, there is no dirty, vitriolic, angry campaigning. Both leaders owned their voices, ran their campaigns in a way that was true to their integrity, and consistent with their beliefs.  They weathered many storms without resorting to negativity. While there was tremendous temptation and push from the respective Party machines to go negative, both candidates resisted.

The result in the TV election went to the wire, and was won by the last state that was declared (Nevada). The reason (IMO) for the close result was because they were both great candidates, each of which would have served the best interests of the country, and the citizens had a really tough time making their choice.

While I like the result, I wish the real election had been this way.

Foreign Policy vs. Global Policy

Foreign Policy in my opinion is purely about economics. Global Policy is about human rights, multilateral action, and global security.

Defense is a purely domestic issue. It is not any one nation's right, or role, or obligation to be responsible for or take unilateral action against another sovereign nation no matter what. That's the role of a global league of nations. Which means that defense is about protecting your own citizens from harm, not from proactively endangering or attacking any other nation or its citizens.

So Foreign Policy = Economic Policy.

If you've been living under a rock, you'll disagree with me. Otherwise, you will have no doubts about this. The American mortgage crisis has become a planetary crisis, and are you ready for this? One that has resulted in the US Dollar actually rising against the Euro, Pound, Yuan, Yen, etc.  Why? The interrelationships between every economy are now more profound than ever, it manifests itself in banking, manufacturing, health care, pharmaceuticals, defense, transportation, you name it.

Foreign debt and balance of trade/payments are in my opinion irrelevant measures.   Why? Because there's no real difference between foreign and domestic anymore! Everyone's worried that China holds too much American debt, and that gives them some kind of hold over the American economy! But what can they do? Foreign ownership means that that entity is now deeply vested in your future - their success is now predicated on your success - talk about mutually-assured construction! <-- Maybe this should be the new world economy phrase:)!

There is no longer such a thing (especially for a country like the United States) as a local economic incident. So if a country is interested in declaring war against the USA, they end up (maybe even before the first casualties) potentially harming their own economy before this one! They will absolutely also affect other economies and nations that they trade with, have pacts with, and might even ally with. And all of these nations will visibly hate the idea of getting caught in the collateral damage. Unless a country is prepared to throw itself under the bus (literally cut off its nose to spite its face), to oppose another country, there is no point, value, or benefit to going to war.

 This begs the question - "what about those countries that have nothing to lose?"  Excellent question:) This is why economic policy and foreign policy are so intertwined. It is in the best national defense interest of every nation that has, to make sure every other nation in the world and every citizen in the world also has. This is not global philanthropy - this about global investment, global returns, and global opportunity. Building the infrastructure for the planet, making education, health care, and food available to everyone, and then going on to building roads, buildings, power plants, etc. are what every has economy should do as a matter of national defense.

Give everyone on this planet something to lose, and everyone on this planet will be more worried about protecting, preserving and growing their lot in life and less worried about being vindictive or bearing animus against anyone; they'll instead focus on and be excited about their children's futures, and there will be a smile on their faces.

The Worldwide Innovative Teachers' Forum

UPDATE #2:

Here are pointers to video recordings of some of the teachers' showcases.  Here are three that I was inspired by, and finally the link to all of the videos that I found.

1. Sarietjie Musgrave - South Africa
2. Nathan Kerr - New Zealand
3. Tom Fitzsimmons & Ciaran McLaren - Northern Ireland

To see all the videos click on any of the above videos and below the video you will see a link "WWITF" that will take you to the rest.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

UPDATE:

To learn more about the incredible work the teachers did, and to join, click Innovative Teachers Forum.  Once signed in, go to the Communities page, and join the Worldwide Innovative Teachers Forum 2008 - Teacher community.

Enjoy:)

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I'm in Asia this week attending a most fantastic conference - the 4th Annual Worldwide Innovative Teachers' Forum in Hong Kong. 
This evening (in about 45 mins actually) marks the end of an absolutely AWESOME week - we are about to leave the hotel for the gala dinner, where (per the link above) we will celebrate the accomplishments of the wonderful and inspiring educators that participate in the Innovative Teachers' Network, and recognize the winners of the best exemplars of Collaboration, Community and Content.  There's a fourth category, Educators' Choice as well.

We also witnessed the election of the new President of the United States this week (not sure if anyone noticed that:)), and it was so wonderful to see the global interest and heartfelt support for the new President-Elect. Knowing that Education and Educators is one of Barak Obama's top five priorities as he takes over is wonderful news.

My first experience with this amazing community of educators (they number more than 1.5 million (yes, million!) from over 100 countries) was around this time last year in Helsinki, which is where the previous event was held, and I hope I have the opportunity to be wherever the next Forum is held.

These wonderful people are my heroes.  They prove to me in no uncertain terms that the single most critical element to ensuring that present and future generations of students are well cared for and prepared for their destinies is educators.

If every educator in the world (irrespective of wealth, urban, rural, social, political circumstances) is like the 100+ people I had the privilege to meet this week, our children and their children are in the best hands.

It is a crime that our society (with few exceptions around the world) cares so little for the men and women that put their blood, toil, tears and sweat into becoming teachers. We must do more, they deserve recognition, reward, and reassurance of our support and commitment to them and their work.

Perceptions...

The United States is on the verge of history. It is likely that more people will vote than ever before, and it is a certainty that either the race or gender barrier in the highest office in this land will break.

But this election has also been historic in the way in which it has polarized voters due to each party's harsh and negative propaganda machine. There is a sense of despair on either side at the prospect of the other party winning. Maybe despair is too soft a word, others like anger, hatred, violence, and fear are part of the conversation today.

I wonder if in an altogether different part of the world, the Shias and Sunnis view Democrats and Republicans like Americans view those sects in the Middle East and elsewhere?  

Imagine that you are from (and living in) the Middle East, and watching the TV News channels (theoretically objective), radio show hosts, interviews with the candidates, their spokespeople, their political action sponsors, and the typical American voter (Joe the Plumber).  What is your reaction to the anger and angst and massively polar attitudes that you hear?

Here's hoping that people vote today with clear and open minds and strong and heartfelt conviction.  But here also is hoping that once the election is over, our focus turns towards reasserting the sense of common purpose and vision for a healthy, well-educated, prosperous and safe America, one intent on celebrating differences vs. vilifying them.

Images courtesy of Sirius Buzz & the Economist respectively.

Voting?

I can't. Mostly because I'm a Canadian citizen, and an American resident. Which means I get to pay American taxes, but have little say in nature of government that will manage them:).

This election has been an incredible experience (even for a non-voter like me). I began to get interested towards the end of the Clinton-Obama primary contest, and it's been hard to let go ever since, though more like trying to ignore an accident on the highway vs. wanting to watch the first moon-landing.

Two questions right up front:

• Why does it take so long to do this?
• Why does it require so many elections to select a leader?

Is this an outcome of history? Is it because the current election "system" was defined in the 1970s when communication was limited, TV, radio and newspapers were infrequently experienced, and it simply took time for the entire electorate to get a sense of the candidates and their platforms? Is it because we've become obsessed with the reality TV culture and need to spend months on end living in these bizarre people's lives? Or is it because we're more interested in the process and not the outcome?

From my very naive and external point of view, it seems to me that we can create some simple rules about an election given the nature of communication today, and the profusion of information and communications technology (ICT).

What if this were the new 2012 American election system - a-la Shafeen (assuming a Nov 6, 2012 election & 200 million eligible voters):

Duration (61 + 97 = 158 days):

• Party primaries begin June 1, 2012, and needed to be completed by July 31, 2012.  All the states vote together, and it happens on the last Tuesday in July.
• The National election begins August 1, 2012, and goes through election day.

Funding ($25m X # of candidates in primary + $150m = $450m total (assuming six primary candidates/party)).

• Total available funding for each candidate equals the total number of eligible voters X $0.50 = $100m max.
• Candidates can spend a maximum of 25% (1/4) of their budget for the primaries ($25m max).
• Therefore, only two candidates will spend 100% of the budget.
• Fund-raising for the primaries is private. There are no donation limits, but all donors must be identified. There are no anonymous donors, and donors must be American citizens or American organizations (i.e. based in and pay taxes in the USA).
• The 75% ($75m each) for the candidates in the national election is publicly financed.
• Candidate advertising may only take place during the time allocated for the election.
  
• Total accountability of all monies spent by all candidates is required, and their budgets must be posted on their website and is subject to audit.
• Candidates for lesser offices are bound by these same rules, their budgets are based on the size of their local electorate.
  

External agencies:

• Can not advertise on behalf of the candidate. Of course no-one can suppress freedom of speech, but advertising on behalf of (or against) a candidate can only be funded by the candidate's budget per above.
• The DNC/RNC are equally constrained. Their only latitude is the ability to use advertising to neutrally encourage voting.
• Oh - there's no such thing as registering voters anymore. Now every voter who is eligible is registered automatically.

Voting process:

• Voting comes with accountability - each person's vote is cast and recorded, and connected back to them. 
• Voting technology: in 2010 the next generation of mobile phones and ATMs emerged that identified people via thumb print or retina scan. These became very rapidly prolific due to risks of hacking for older-style devices.  90% of voters in 2012 now have one of these devices, and will vote at their leisure. There will be limited polling places for those that don't - these will be City Halls, Libraries, and Post Offices, where a voter can use similar technology (finger print/retina scanner to identify themselves and then choose their candidates) to cast their "ballot".
  
• Miraculously in 2009 the President listened to a 23-year-old Computer Science PhD student who described his PhD thesis, which is a very safe algorithm for secure voting based on the technology that underlies ATM networks.  So voting is now relatively secure, and results can be known within minutes of the polls closing. 

Overall:
In 2012 the election costs a relatively fixed (though still egregious) amount of money, it takes much less time, and results are audited and delivered to the public very shortly after the polls close.

Why isn't this possible??