News To Me

Daily Five Minutes 12/22/09--ClimateGate

The scientists that have been researching human-effected climate change in the UK have now admitted that they witheld or downright falsified data and research in order to further their position. To some this reflects the political nature of science, while to others it is more sinister, and nothing less than "sham science" to extort more money from governments.

I have a rather eclectic opinion on climate change, a mixture of "it's human driven therefore humans must reverse it" and "it's part of nature's cycles and there isn't much we can do about it." I was interested to find a pundit whose opinions quite nearly match my own. I found his comments in, of all places, a football column. To be fair, Gregg Easterbrook is a Fulbright Scholar who happens to write a good football column, but still...

Here is an excerpt from his column that is a good summary of the whole issue:

• There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this.
• The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated.
• That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is.
• Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas.
• Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions.
• Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions.
• Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.
• The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem.
• A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach.
• If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I find it unusual and refreshing to have someone lay out the common sense of the matter. Thanks Gregg!

Daily Five Minutes: 12/20/09--Charter Battle in the News

No one really reads this blog on Sunday anyway, but here is a quick update on the Charter school situation.

As I mentioned on Friday, there was a brouhaha on Thursday night at the school. Well we have grown from a mention in the Daily Herald to the local big name--two stories in the Deseret News--followed by another mention in the Daily Herald. The second Daily Herald article is particularly detailed, and quotes one teacher as saying the environment at the school is "toxic." (for the record and by way of full disclosure, the "man" mentioned in paragraphs four and six was me).

My question remains the same as before: if this were a public school, wouldn't this be a bigger story? A local school Board removes a popular teacher and then stonewalls the public (and the teacher) about the reasons why. This sounds like a "60 Minutes" episode, doesn't it? Wouldn't MSNBC be decrying the lack of school oversight and Joy Behar sounding off on this on The View and at least local people-in-power vowing to review this situation and make changes? And yet...

...while the local newspapers eventually caught on and covered the story, it was reported in the Saturday editions, when virtually no one reads those papers. So the power of the press, or media power in general, isn't being used to effect this situation. The local people-in-power don't seem to know or care about this particular school, or its troubles.

If the school goes under because of this problem (Thursday night one teacher said that this situation would crash the school "brick by brick"), the collective community will probably shrug and say, "Well, it was a Charter school anyway. Serves those parents right for not having their kids in public schools."

This situation is the whole school choice issue writ small. If school choice is going to work, then there must be some way--other than market forces--that requires smaller, charter or parent-run schools to be held accountable for their actions. If market forces are all that there are, that means that parents' only choice is to move schools, since working to improve the situation without external help seems pointless.

I hold out hope that this is not a pointless exercise on the part of this school, that the Board and the parents and the teachers can work collectively to resolve the "toxic" nature of the environment, that future oversight issues can be addressed with proper parent representation. I hold out this hope because I believe in rational discourse between reasonable adults. Unfortunately, history shows me that rarely are adults truly rational, that pride often rules where logic and thought fail, and that it is often harder to reverse an unpopular decision (and in this case, I believe a wrong one) than it is to simply dig in one's heels and hope that the problem boils over.

But I will still hope.

Daily Five Minutes: 12/19/09--Why the Yankees Should Worry

After the phrase "Pick My Brain" was voted the most annoying office phrase of 2009, I decided to change my random thoughts to "Daily Five Minutes," or DFM for short. So here goes...

The core of the Yankees late 90's success was a homegrown set of talent, surrounded by quality free agents (and quality guys). With the Yankee payroll, that formula was unbeatable, and came within two fluke plays of being a six-peat from 1996-2001. The key to that strategy? Core guys in the farm system, who want to be Yankees forever (think Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, Pettitte, Rivera--a pretty good nucleus around which to build a team).

Now fast forward to today. The Yankees have just won the World Series with an astronomical payroll (even for them). They have admitted that they need to cut back, and perhaps take a page from their early 90s success.  Following that successful formula of the 90s, the Yankees should be developing the next core of young players, around which they can add the quality free agents. Yet...

...ESPN predicts the top 20 best players of the next decade, and there are no Yankees on it. Here's the list.  Robinson Cano and Jesus Montero (minor league catching phenom) are honorable mentions, and no other Yankee is on the list.

Now, these being the Yankees, they will certainly find a way to add talent to their team. Texeira is only 29, Sabathia 28, Joba and Phil Hughes are 23 (!), so they will definitely be a vital part of the majority of the next decade. But with no real prospects (other than Montero), it makes us Yankee fans nervous...

To put this in perspective, ESPN also did a best 100 players of the last decade. Yankees (who played at least part of the decade for the Yankees) are listed as 2, 4, 15, 16, 19, 24 (Rivera), 25, 32, 34, 35 etc. What will the next decade bring? As I said, it makes Yankees fans nervous...

More Charter School ...Discussion

So our little school (Renaissance Academy) made the big time news: the Provo Daily Herald. Here's the link (read the comments too; they're fun).  Last night the school's Board held an Emergency Public Forum, agreeing to hear what parents had to say on the recent issues.

So, I went. It reminded me a little of a political party convention: there were a lot of people who wanted to talk, and several of them had really good things to say, but on the whole the meeting was ... long.

Several teachers spoke out about the climate of fear that has crept into the faculty. "If Teri Griffin can be fired like that, than anyone can be fired," said one teacher. Another added, "I fear for my job and that fear is increasing because I am standing here saying that I fear for my job. But unlike other places where people might worry about losing their jobs, my worry affects your children's education."

My take on it is this: the Director of World Languages, whose firing kicked up the furor, was outspoken and a little obstinate in opposition of some constraints placed on her by the Board. Given her obstinance, the Board was able to fire her "for cause," most likely insubordination.  That they fired her two weeks before Christmas smacks of some "last straw" event or conversation, where the Board just felt they couldn't take it anymore.

Absent any information from the school to the contrary, I am free to 'imagine' any scenario I want regarding the termination. The problem for the Board is that the teacher is very well-liked by parents, including us. By firing her in the way that they did at the time that they did, they lit a fuse under every complaint about the school (petty or substantive, real or imagined).

At the meeting I shared this thought: reinstate her. The big elephant in the room is that everyone agrees she is/was a great teacher. Surely whatever were the reasons for her termination can be handled by well-meaning and reasonable adults. If they don't reinstate her, then there will continue to be an outcry about everything the school does as imcompetent, biased, or worse.

So to the school I say: reinstate her. Appoint a moderator to work with the insubordination, if that's what it is. Deal with the problem directly, rather than stonewalling a response and hoping things will blow over. They won't, and that situation will be much worse than what you are facing now.

Pick My Brain: 12/17/09--Trust Issues

Last night I got mad. I was mad because someone I trusted implicitly--in this case a religious leader of a former congregation to which I belonged--violated that trust egregiously. I won't share the details (too private on my end and too maddening on his end), but suffice it to say that my trust in the relationship between pastor and member of the flock was shaken.  In this particular instance, information shared in confidence was used to defame a family member, and information given--nee promises made--were discovered to have been untrue (at best) or outright lies (at worst).

It made me want to be "lawyerly". When I have dealt with antagonistic lawyers in the past, they usually follow up our conversations with a document outlining the discussion and asking me to agree that the document contains the essential elements of the conversation. They do this so that there is a written record of the conversation, and so that neither one of us can go back later and say, "I never said that or agreed to that."

Should I have to do that with my religious leader? "Uh...sorry for the hassle, bishop, but could you sign this document indicating the details of our latest meeting? You know, just in case you decide to deny the things you said later on?" Uggh. I would hate to become that person.

Trust is a big thing with me. I don't like to violate trust in simple things with my kids. I don't like it when people in positions of implied authority abuse that authority and with it my trust.  I don't even like it when public figures that I have come to admire abuse that form of trust.

I generally give people more trust than they have earned; my brother has told me that that is a flaw of mine, and it certainly has gotten me into trouble (I believe his exact words were, "You often reward trust and loyalty were none was tendered.").  I have trusted people with money, only to have them renege on agreements made. I have trusted people with information about me and my family ("You're far too open with the details of our life," my wife tells me), only to have them use that information either to belittle or embarrass me later.

While there are other examples of violated trust, almost always that trust has been reciprocated, and both sides have been enriched by it. I guess that's what frustrates me the most: when that mutually beneficial relationship of trust is broken to my detriment, it causes me to begin to distrust every relationship and every situation. It causes me to want to be lawyerly.

Uggh.

Pick My Brain: 12/16/09--Charter School Oversight

There are some 'goings on' at my children's charter school. The school administration has taken some steps recently that have the entire school population up in arms, either in favor or against. For example, over the summer the Board voted to remove a position from the Board called, "Keeper of the Vision" (KOV), whose role it was to make sure that Board decisions were made in keeping with the original intent of the school's Founding Parents. Then the school year started with a popular foreign language teacher not receiving a contract; she taught anyway, only to receive a contract that was a fraction of her previous year's salary. Then just yesterday the school dismissed the Director of World Languages, actually escorting her from the building during school hours.

This behavior was seen by many parents as an abuse of power by the Board and Administration. Four of the Founding Parents broadcast an email to many of the other parents at the school that read, in part:

We are disappointed in many of the decisions and actions of the leadership of our school over the past year and their inability to appropriately handle conflict resolution.  Today’s actions of terminating the employment of [name omitted], World Language Director, are a reflection of the Board’s and Administration’s inability to do what is in the best interest of our most important stakeholders – our students.

Strong words, indeed. The letter goes on to detail many of the complaints these Founders have with the current Board, and culminates with this:

It is time to take action...Here are some actions that other parents and faculty have suggested to help facilitate change:

1. Picket in front of the school during carpool this week
2. Sign petitions while waiting in carpool
3. Participate in a boycott on Wednesday Dec. 16^th where teachers would call in sick and parents would not send their kids to school that day.
4. Write emails to administration and the board [followed by the email address of the Principal, Vice Principal, Board President and all of the Board members]
5. Attend a meeting to become more informed on the current situation

And so it was, when I dropped my kids off at school, there were about a dozen parents picketing the carpool drop-off lane with signs that read, "Parents Demand Answers," "Teachers are the Heart of the School", etc. I used the occasion to teach my children about Freedom of Speech and Right of Assembly (thank you, 1st Ammendment), but it was still a difficult thing for them to see.

That was followed by another flurry of emails from parents of the opposing perspective. One such email read:

I am extremely disappointed in the previous founding parents and Board members who are supporting picketing, boycott, strike, or keeping our kids home from school. This is shameful and in my opinion should not be supported by any of us. Calling for a boycott by the parents/students/faculty is not an action that bespeaks major concern for the education of our children.  In fact, I'd say it indicates just the opposite.  Shame on you - leading a revolt against the current board of directors?  No one did anything like that when you were the ones making the hard decisions. I believe the slogan adopted was "this school isn't for everyone - if they disagree let them seek education elsewhere". [emphasis added]

The poor teachers and students are caught in the crosshairs of this battle over power. Afterschool tutoring was cancelled for today due to an "emergency faculty meeting." One teacher felt compelled to say that yes, she would be in school on Wednesday. Another wrote this heartbreaking email:

I wanted to let you know that I will be teaching my class on Wednesday. This does not however show that I am in agreement with the administration or with the founding parents in regards to the letter many of you have been sent. I do not know all of the facts that have led up to this situation and problem. Please feel free to do as you wish and desire.

I am here to teach your children and we will be finishing our unit on Festivals and Holidays around the world. We will be completing our gifts and allowing the students to learn through creative ways. [emphasis added]

Why is that heartbreaking? Why does a teacher have to remind us that he is there to teach the children or that he would allow the students to learn? Shouldn't that be a given? Isn't that why he became a teacher in the first place?

I have omitted the names of the school and the participants in this drama because I think that the specifics of the situation obscure the larger picture, which is:

Who oversees Charter Schools?

Public schools have school districts and superintendents to keep them in line, and teachers have teachers' organization and representation to make sure that they are treated fairly and schools all have some form of parent organization to give the students and parents a voice.

But at a charter school, run with public money no less, there is virtually none of this oversight. The Board can act with impunity as it sees fit, responding only to...well, itself, I guess: there is no real course of redress for anyone. Well except for one: I can remove my children from the school, or a teacher can quit. There is a public school nearby, and I can simply move my kids from this pseudo-private school to the public one.

That's what I call the "Armageddon answer" to difficulties. Don't like it? Leave! It is the grown-up equivalent of a wounded grade school kid saying on the playground, "If you don't play by my rules I'm going to take my ball and go home!" In this case, "If you don't like how we run the school then leave!"

Surely reasonable adults can arrive at reasoned decisions. However that rationality requires a few things:

• Transparency. You fire a teacher for cause? What was the cause? At a public school that information is kept private, but at a Charter School it must be made public. Why? So that the Board/Administration action can be measured by the school's families, and assessed for whether or not they agree with the direction of the Board. 100% of Board meetings should be open to the parents' community, including discussions over salary and discipline
• Vision. Why does the school exist? What are the guiding principles? Most Charter Schools (including this one) have this published and posted clearly. But when actions of teachers, programs or the administration appear to be in contrary to those principles and values, it should be transparent enough for everyone to see, and they should be held accountable.
• Accountability...to the parents. Public schools are accountable to the School Board and the State Board of Education. Charter Schools must be accountable to the parents.

Elementary school goes by much too quickly for children to be worrying about whether or not their teacher will be here for the rest of the year. Worse, we cannot wait until school Board elections to "vote out" an overly aggressive Board (or Board member); we can't lose a year of a child's eduction due to a power struggle between teachers and administrators.

So who oversees the Charter Schools? Dunno, but it doesn't appear to be these guys...

Pick My Brain 12/15/09

Yesterday's post on Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, et al and their fathers was my most read post on this blog. One of my friends wrote me an email with this correction:

Interesting perspective. Counterpoint: I lost my father when I was a small boy, but the short time I had with him still provides a firm moral compass. I hear his guidance in everything I do. (My son looks just like him, which brings immeasurable joy to my heart.) These guys (sans Tyson) knew their dads well into their adult years and well into their professional careers. Somehow that wasn’t enough time together? As my dad would exclaim, “The Hell you say!”

I think he is right; the vast majority of positive parental role models continue to have effect long after distance, age or death prevent their immediate impact. It just struck me that those four examples (and maybe others) of high performing athletes followed by a fall from grace could be traced to their fathers' influences, almost exactly.

As a follow up, I particularly like the work of Michael Gurian when it comes to raising boys and the role of a father in general. In his book The Wonder of Boys, Gurian asserts that far too often we are treating boys as if they were defective girls: not sensitive enough, too aggressive, too short attention span, etc. At the same time we shouldn't simply rely on "boys will be boys" philosophy to excuse poor behavior. Instead he favors an intentional program of treating boys like soon-to-be men, with both physical and emotional differences.

I have read to my boys the Harry Potter books, which are excellent hero-in-waiting adventures. We have also enjoyed The Dangerous Book for Boys, which isn't so much about danger as about old-fashioned "boying around" fun. I support the Boy Scout program (two of my sons have earned their Eagle Award), and numerous academic, athletic, and performance-based programs to help my sons grow into adulthood.

And that's what I'm thinking about today.

Tiger Woods and the Role of Fathers

The Tiger Woods scandal is everywhere these days. If you haven't heard about it, then I can't believe you are reading my blog, but here it is in a nutshell: Woods, arguably the greatest golfer that has ever played, has maintained several illicit sexual relationships over the past few years, while maintain a squeaky-clean, family-man image with his model-gorgeous wife. There are more details to the story, but that is the gist of it.

My take on it is this: Tiger misses his father.

Sorry that that is so simplistic, but I believe that there is some truth to that. Tiger's father provided an anchor, a yard-stick to measure his life against, a support mechanism to balance all of the fame and adulation. When Tiger's father died, Tiger said, "My dad was my best friend and greatest role model, and I will miss him deeply."

Earl Woods died of cancer in 2006; Woods' affairs began in 2007. Without the anchor, the role model, the yardstick, even someone as talented as Tiger Woods let his life run off of the rails.

Tiger is far from the only star athlete to have similar problems. Michael Jordan was unable to control his gambling addiction in the wake of his father's shocking murder in 1993. He withdrew from basketball for a time, ultimately to return and be successful. But without a guiding hand, his life became increasingly difficult, and he divorced his wife in 2002 (followed by a brief reconciliation and then a final divorce in 2006). He allegedly had affairs during the aftermath of his father's death and his gambling addiction ran into the millions of dollars per year. In the minds of many, his image was forever altered by his bitter Hall of Fame acceptance speech. I believe that had his father been alive, Michael would not have become so bitter.

Mike Tyson never had a father, having been abandoned by his natural father when he was two years old. Tyson had repeated troubles as a child, finally being rescued from reform school by boxing legend Cus D'Amato. When Tyson's mother died, D'Amato became his legal guardian, and the only father figure Tyson would ever know.  D'Amato got Tyson to channel his ferocious nature into the bouts in the ring, and thereby control it. When D'Amato died in 1985, Tyson was beginning his career as the youngest heavyweight champion of the world. By 1990, without D'Amato to guide him and mentor him, Tyson's professional discipline had disappeard, and he lost the heavyweight  title to unheralded Buster Douglas. Two years later, his personal life would also disintegrate, as he battered his wife, and began a decline into laughing-stock status, in and out of jail and the tabloids. 

There are other less well-known examples. Chuck Knoblauch, an all-star second baseman for the New York Yankees, idolized his father. His father coached Chuck in Little League and later in High School, and was a personal and professional mentor. In 1996, Chuck's father was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's disease. The distraction proved too much for Knoblauch, and by 1999 he was a shell of the former All-star caliber player he had once been. He became incapable of throwing a baseball from 2nd base to 1st base--a purely mental roadblock that directly coincides with his father's struggles (according to baseball-reference.com, he had eight errors in a complete season in 1996, in 1999 he had 26, and by 2000 he projected to more than 40 when they stopped letting him play 2nd base).

In each of these cases, and countless others, a father has provided the anchor and yardstick to an extremely talented son. Without that anchor the son has slid into self-destruction. As a father I am humbled by the realization that my sons look to me for an anchor, and that my actions can continue to guide them even when I am not present for every moment of their lives.

My own father is still alive. At 88 years old he is extremely active (tennis 3-4 times per week, a new college course every semester, busily writing physics papers and reading up on history). While I am far from famous, I have had my share of difficulties. Still, for me he continues to provide a rudder to my life; even as everything around me can seem to be in chaos and turmoil, my father is a rock, a foundation to which I can always turn for guidance and direction.

I did not intend this to be a treatise on the importance of fathers; there are plenty of good examples of that. This is simply an observation: these famous, successful men owed a lot of their success to the influence of fathers or father figures. Their downfalls, to varying degrees, can be traced at least in part to the sudden or unexpected absence of those same father figures. Doesn't it follow that their recovery, therefore, would necessitate a reconnection with someone to play that mentoring role for them?

So to Tiger, I would say this: find that person who can provide that anchor on earth. At one time it probably could have been your wife, though that time may have passed. And Tiger? Try to remember the morals and values that made your father so proud of you in life. There really is no replacement for your Dad.

Friends and Money

When I was in college, I had a good friend named Steve. From practically our first week on campus, Steve and I were virtually inseparable. We pledged the same fraternity, attended the same parties, went on dates together, hung out together...and spent money together.

We used to joke that we didn't need separate bank accounts; if one of us had money, then we both had money. We didn't really keep track either. It wasn't a case of, "You paid last time so I'll pay this time." Since we were both poor students, we didn't really have a lot to spend anyway, and our expenses were low, so...we just shared it.

Even today, among my close friends, I find that sharing small amounts of money is almost a given. One friend can't cover lunch, or forgot his wallet? No problem; the rest of us will cover. This sort of free-flow of money among friends and colleagues is quite common (within reason, of course. If one friend is constantly mooching off of everyone else, then patience for that type of behavior goes away).

There seems to be a line that delineates good-natured sharing from business-like loans between friends. That line is somewhere over $20; if someone just 'happens' to need $50, most people don't just give it without asking for it back at some point (the line is probably and obviously higher for people who are wealthier than I). When the dollar amounts get larger than that, the situation gets trickier, and even the best of friends may write down a loan agreement or contract to protect themselves against their erstwhile friend who may have latent deadbeat potential.

Why is that?

It's just money, after all. Friends aren't (usually) talking about asking another friend to take out a second mortgage or not pay their own bills in order to lend the money. Most friends have good intentions about repaying the loan, and therefore most creditor friends should be willing. But money brings out the worst in us. Just as we don't want to give to beggars on the street, preferring to pass judgment on them, believing that they will squander the charity or that they brought it upon themselves, we don't want to give to even close friends for similar reasons.

This has become an acute thought for me lately, as I currently find myself in considerable financial need. No, this is not a plea for money (though I wouldn't turn down blog 'tips' in my donation jar). But rather a thought experiment: why don't I ask my friends for money? Many of them have it, after all--and even small amounts would be helpful.

I don't ask, simply, because I don't want to lose the friends. Several years ago a good friend loaned me some money; after a considerable amount of time, I was able to repay him (though without interest). He said that any time I needed money, I could come to him. Fast forward to five years later, when I, again, needed some assistance. This time he declined, stating that he didn't think it would help me, and that perhaps I should review my spending habits or financial decisions/planning. His reasoning? While he didn't state it explicitly, he must have thought that I brought this on myself by poor money management. Or that I would squander his charity by poor decisions and spending, and probably be unable to repay the debt. In his mind, therefore, my request placed me alongside the beggar in the street. Right?

Needless to say I won't ever go to that friend for assistance again. Not that I blame him; it certainly is NOT his fault that I have the challenges I have. But the simple act of asking him for money has changed our friendship forever, even though we both said there would be "no hard feelings" on either side regardless of whether or not money was lent.

Perhaps we are used to the It's a Wonderful Life type of giving: George Bailey, good guy with a heart of gold and poor as a church mouse despite his financial genius, needs money and the whole town gives to him and his family in a big basket. But that giving was essentially anonymous, right? Only Sam Wainwright from New York steps up to the plate to offer $25,000 in his own name--and only then after his former girlfriend sent him a telegram. Everyone else just tosses in money and joins in the satsifying chorus of Auld Lang Syne.

So that's how we give...anonymously. We give to Katrina victims--they needed it, right? We give to strangers and to organizations (Red Cross) and Salvation Army Santas and church collection plates (or their equivalent) and starving children in far away places. But to friends? To people right next to us who we know and love and with whom we have shared a friendship who could really use the help?

Not so much. And in fact, they would never ask anyway.

I hesitated to write this post, and after it was written I hesitated to post it. I don't want it to come across as a beggar's plea. However, the thoughts are true, and, despite the desperate-sounding nature of the content, I decided to post it anyway.

Pick my Brain 12/09/09--Salvador Del Mundo

My wife and 11-year-old son, along with a sister-in-law and her daughter, are acting in the LDS production of "Savior of the World." It is being performed for the first time in Spanish. My son plays Nathan, the shepherd boy who sees the star and greets the Christ-child in the manger. It has been a challenge for him, as he doesn't speak Spanish, but he learned the parts and has a mom and family who have tutored him.

Anyway, if you speak Spanish or know someone who does, please invite them to see the production in Provo, December 18 and 19. We would love to see the crowd full!

 

This is the KSTU story about the production (though you can't see any of my family members in the video).