My Beauty Best Teacher

William Langley writes:

Greg Mills, the director of the Brenthurst Foundation, a leading South African economic think tank, says: "I think Live 8 was a good thing, in the sense that it raised the profile of Africa in a way that it hadn't been raised before in the post-war world. But in doing so it exposed the reality of what has gone wrong - the failures and lack of initiative of African governments.
"I think these lessons are being learnt. There is a new generation of Africans who are uncomfortable with foreign aid. They see that it undermines self-respect, saps initiative, encourages dependency, and creates many of the problems that it is supposed to alleviate."
The aid business is one of the few things in Africa that is booming. Every year, as thousands of the brightest and best-educated Africans flee to work abroad, 100,000 foreign "experts" arrive to hand out Western money.

via The Telegraph

In Reuters:

"If you have an Al Capone as Head of State, an Al Capone as governor of the central bank and Al Capones in every other institution, how can one succeed?" Ribadu said, referring to the American gangster who ran crime syndicates for several decades.
"Unfortunately that is the situation in most African countries today," Ribadu said in a telephone interview from Washington, where he is living in exile and working as a fellow at the Center for Global Development think-tank.

More here

In today's Sunday WaPo front page article by reporter Bill Turque, the title suggests that there will be an upcoming showdown between AFT President, Randi Weingarten and Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Well, I certainly hope not. I know headlines sell newspapers but I am sick of the Post's negative posturing. Let's get on with the business of negotiating a contract that supports student achievement and is fair to teachers. I venture to guess that maybe- President Parker didn't meet our end of January deadline since he didn't give a quote to the Post. Wonder what Parker will say tonight on the Sunday robo call ? I hope he hasn't missed another union deadline. Don't you ?

I encourage you to check out today's front page story on page A1

Education Heavyweights Prepare for D.C. Contract Fight
Teachers Union Head, Schools Chancellor Face Off on Tenure Protection, Reforms

"When the District's teachers union unveils its long-awaited contract proposal this month, a head-to-head struggle will be fully joined between two of public education's most prominent and strongest-willed leaders: Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.

At stake is not only the fate of Rhee's ambitious attempt to transform the District's failing schools, but also a significant early battle in a nationwide campaign by a new generation of urban school reformers. They want to dramatically elevate the quality of teaching and learning, even if the effort sparks labor tensions with politically influential teachers unions. That could produce ripple effects for the Obama administration, which enjoyed heavy union support in last year's election but has also placed school improvement high on its domestic agenda.

The 14-month struggle between Rhee and the 4,000-member Washington Teachers' Union, AFT's local affiliate, is a potential watershed for Weingarten. She wants to protect her 1.4 million-strong national membership from the spread of what she calls Rhee's "scorched earth" approach and roll back the broad public perception that teachers unions are an impediment to reform because they harbor mediocre or incompetent instructors.

In speeches and commentary, Weingarten has outlined a view of how teachers should be paid, evaluated and, if need be, fired that is fundamentally different from Rhee's. She has denounced Rhee's core objective to weaken tenure protections and link individual pay and job security directly to student achievement. She asserts that such systems breed resentment and discourage the kind of collaboration among instructors that truly improves schools. What she doesn't explicitly say is that individualized rewards for performance could also pose a threat to her union's future.

For the former labor lawyer, elected to the presidency of the nation's second-largest teachers union in July (the National Education Association has 3.2 million members), it will be a high-profile test."Randi is the most important teachers union figure in the country today," said Thomas Toch, co-director of Education Sector, an independent Washington think tank. "She's a pivotal figure in this conversation. The stakes are very high for her in D.C." (Posted by The Washington Teacher). Article courtesy of WaPo.

Read more

Being President of the United States means being competent in international relations and being a good commander in chief. We have Congress to take care of our domestic issues- to pass laws, to push for legislation, to come up with rules and regulations on how we are governed- but Congress has few powers and abilities to act on the international stage, and so our Founders gave those powers to the President. One of the President's most important roles in our system is Commander-in-Chief of our military, and to assist him in this he appoints a very powerful advisor known as the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense position has historically been considered one of the most powerful advisor positions in our government, and has been held by such illustrious people as George Marshall, Robert McNamara, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and when the position was called Secretary of War, was held by Henry Knox, James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Jefferson Davis, Edwin Stanton, William Taft, and Henry Stimson. These are the names of future Presidents and the winners of major wars- this position has historically been a position that major talent is appointed to.

The election of President Barack Obama (Democrat) in 2008 changed all of this. First, Obama kept on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and for all the good qualities of Mr. Gates, he is and always was simply a placeholder until someone better could be appointed. When Rumsfeld left, Bush needed to replace him, and felt that he needed a moderate and uncontroversial nominee in order to get confirmed by a hostile Democratic Congress that believed in the certainty of our losing the War on Terror (one of the many things in which Democrats have thought was truth and been proven wrong).

Following is an analysis of the candidates who are being considered to replace Gates as Secretary of Defense provided by RealClearPolitics. When you read this, try to pick up on the screaming incompetence that the Obama administration exhibits during this process:

Last August, rumors said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Defense Undersecretary for Policy Michelle Flournoy, former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed were among the possible nominees. To that list, sources add Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter.

Hillary Clinton would have nothing to gain, and much to lose, in taking the Pentagon job. At State, she has more freedom to claim headlines and grow her credentials than she would fighting the Pentagon budget battles. She won't do it. (my comment: best option won't take job because recognizes how sucky Obama is as President and is already scheming to replace him)

Chuck Hagel has been campaigning for the job for as long as most can remember. But Hagel is too much of a headline-seeker. Obama would have to worry as much about him in that job as, well, as he has to worry about what Joe Biden will say next about Afghanistan.(my comment: option two is a moron and can't be part of cabinet because Obama already has to many moron's in his cabinet)

Michelle Flournoy is a more likely choice, a notch ahead of John Hamre. Flournoy served as president of the leftish Center for a New American Security before taking her current post and after she served in various mid-level Pentagon policy posts. And because we've never had a female Defense Secretary, she'd be another Obama "first."(my comment: option 3 is being considered for an important position like this merely to make a political point and use external characteristics of people to score political points, and also headed a group that's projections have been wrong about pretty much everything)

Hamre, a defense intellectual, has for ten years been the president of the Center for Strategic and International Study, a nonpartisan think tank. Hamre is well respected on the Hill and could be the bureaucratic type Obama would want to lead the Pentagon for the next two years (my comment: option 4 doesn't sound too bad- this means Obama will only nominate him if his other unqualified and bad choices are rejected)

Jack Reed, a former Army Ranger, Harvard lawyer and liberal Democrat, would be a credible choice for Pentagon boss. But Reed's term doesn't expire until 2014 and there is no reason for him to end his senate term early. Reed's political ambitions would likely prevent him accepting the nomination (my comment: option 5 isn't real option- he won't leave his position)

Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam Marine veteran, may have a tough race in 2012. Virginia went for Obama in 2008 but since elected a conservative governor and threw out a few liberal Democrats in 2010. But Webb is an odd guy, short-tempered and notoriously hard to deal with. Webb would be a bad fit in the Obama cabinet which is dominated by lawyers and academics (my comment: option 6 isn't a real option either)

Not the least likely - but certainly the least-known -- is Ashton Carter. Carter is a Ph.D. physicist who has taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and served in several lower defense posts, is the sort of intellectual Obama is attracted to. His current job, as acquisition chief, makes him knowledgeable of budget issues and his policy experience in assorted national security areas makes him a credible candidate (my comment: this sort of logic is the sort of logic that characterizes Obama's incompetent administration- low level intellectual whose degree is in an unrelated field will follow in the footsteps of the greats- that's the new normal of Obama for you)

So will it be Flournoy, Hamre or Carter? Or a surprise nominee from Obama's inner circle? Whomever it is will have the hardest job in Washington for the next two years.

Whomever it is, with Obama picking the person, we can be sure that it will be a poor pick who will demonstrate little competence and leadership in this important position, and America will be less safe because Obama is in office still making decisions like this.

Reuters reports on some very welcome news:

The dire state of rich countries' public finances is likely to squeeze aid to Africa in the next few years, although it may be the bitter pill the fast-growing continent needs to wean itself off handouts..."

On greater skepticism from the tax-paying western public:

After the financial crisis, Western publics are understandably a bit skeptical about forking out for what they see as an open-ended commitment," said Tom Cargill, an Africa analyst at London's Chatham House think-tank..."

Aid is largely welfare:

African governments don't like talking about aid. It's like welfare," said Chatham House's Cargill. "But there should be the beginnings of a conversation about how we help African countries move to a situation where they do not need aid."

Todd Pitman writes "...When aid money keeps coming, all our policy-makers do is strategize on how to get more," said,James Shikwati the Kenya-based director of the Inter-Region Economic Network, an African think tank. "They forget about getting their own people working to solve these very basic problems. In Africa, we look to outsiders to solve our problems, making the victim not take responsibility to change."Moving the aid can be nightmare in itself. Africa's good roads are few, and often pass through the front lines of civil wars. But Shikwati notes an additional problem: Even African countries that have food to spare can't easily share it because tariffs on agricultural products within sub-Saharan Africa average as high as 33 percent, compared with 12 percent on similar products imported from Europe."It doesn't make sense when they can't even allow their neighbors to feed them. They have to wait for others in Europe or Asia to help," he said. "We don't have any excuses in Africa. We can't blame nature. We have to tell our leadership to open up and get people producing food..."

Liberals often talk about being anti-war, about promoting peace and love and togetherness, but when it comes down to it, liberals love war and conflict and get us into more than even neo-conservatives do. I know what you're thinking- "Iraq!" (if you are a liberal, you brain is probably shouting that word in some sort of knowledgeable self-righteousness, as if you know anything about anything). In reply I yell back- "Vietnam! WWII! WWI!" Oh, but that's old news, right- remember under Clinton, everyone just held hands and sang love songs? Oh yeah- Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan- Clinton had us involved in more conflicts than even that 'war-monger' Bush did. So, when I read the following story about how liberals are no longer protesting wars now that Obama is in office, I was not surprised- the only reason (THE ONLY REASON) liberals were against the War in Iraq is because they play petty political games with America to increase their personal power.

The story appeared in The American Conservative (link to it here), and goes like this:

The antiwar rally at the University of Iowa was sparsely attended. The below 30 degree weather might have had something to do with it...The big truth is that the antiwar movement has largely collapsed in the face of Barack Obama’s victory: the massive antiwar marches that were a feature of the Bush years are a thing of the past. Those ostensibly antiwar organizations that did so much to agitate against the Iraq War have now fallen into line behind their commander in chief and are simply awaiting orders.

Take, for example, Moveon.org, the online activist group that ran antiwar ads during the election—but only against Republicans—in coalition with a group of labor unions and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. These donors are no doubt wondering what Obama is doing escalating the war in Afghanistan and venturing into Pakistan.

As Greg Sargent noted over at WhoRunsGov.com, a Washington Post-sponsored site, “Don’t look now, but President Obama’s announcement today of an escalation in the American presence in Afghanistan is being met with mostly silence—and even some support—from the most influential liberal groups who opposed the Iraq War.”

In response to inquiries, Moveon.org refused to make any public statement about Obama’s rollout of the Af-Pak escalation, although someone described as “an official close to the group” is cited by WhoRunsGov as confirming that “MoveOn wouldn’t be saying anything in the near term.” A vague promise to poll their members was mentioned—“though it’s unclear when.” Don’t hold your breath.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal-Left think tank that sheltered many foreign-policy analysts who opposed the Iraq War and was beginning to develop a comprehensive critique of global interventionism, has recently issued a report on Afghanistan that includes a number of short-term, medium-term, and long-term (ten-year) goals, including among the latter: Assist in creating an Afghan state that is able to defend itself internally and externally, and that can provide for the basic needs of its own people. Prepare for the full military withdrawal from Afghanistan alongside continued diplomatic and economic measures to promote the sustainable security of Afghanistan.

Simply substitute Iraq for Afghanistan, and what we get is the war policy of the Bush era. That the center is run by John Podesta, who served as Obama’s transition chief, is perhaps explanation enough for the complete turnaround. One wonders, however, if the center’s more anti-interventionist scholars, such as Matthew Yglesias, whose popular blog has attracted a substantial audience, will be forced to toe the new line—or be forced out.

One also wonders when this administration will decide to let the American people in on the news that the Af-Pak war is slated to last at least a decade, if not more. During the campaign, and well before that, Joe Biden was self-righteously denouncing the Bush administration and its journalistic amen corner for not “leveling with the American people” and admitting the magnitude of our commitment in Iraq. Yet the administration of which he is now part is just as evasive on the question of an exit strategy and timeframe in Afghanistan and now Pakistan.

Biden’s counsel of restraint apparently lost out in the internal debate, and the Hillary-Gates escalators triumphed. It is inconceivable that the vice president would go public with his criticisms—he’s no Cheney. And opposition among the Democrats in Congress is low-key, minimal, and effectively marginalized.

A recent headline in The Hill tells the whole sad story: “Anti-war Democrats remain silent about Obama’s policies.”

President Obama is often compared to FDR or John F. Kennedy, but I agree with Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, who worries that he’s more likely to turn out to be another Lyndon Baines Johnson—a president who triumphed against a perceived warmonger at the polls and embodied liberal hopes on the domestic scene but was then driven from office by a war-weary electorate and an insurgency within his own party. Add a rapidly expiring economy at home to an increasingly unpopular war—or series of wars—abroad, and you have a recipe for disaster: Obama’s Vietnam and the Democratic Party’s Waterloo.

Ghana's Danquah institute calls for examination of e-voting Mac-Jordan writes in Global Voices:

...the Danquah Institute (DI), a policy think tank, research and analysis centre, is urging a national platform for stakeholders to lead the discussion on the possibility of facilitating the adoption of biometric voter registration, and subsequently the e-voting system in Ghana.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ushahidi Ghana Meet up (ushahidi.com)

John Schram in The Walrus:

Image via Wikipedia
Today the maturing democracy in Ghana is the envy of much of the continent. Freedom House, an American think tank, rates it as one of only nine African countries that are truly “free”: twenty-three others, including some with post-colonial histories rather like Ghana’s, such as Nigeria, Tanzania, and Kenya, are only “partly free.” The remaining sixteen are not free at all. Atta Mills, Akufo-Addo, and Afari-Gyan could show them a thing or two about how to run a democracy.

More here

Andrew Mwenda makes a case for turning off the Aid spigot:

“The best thing the West can do is nothing,” he says...“White society is being blackmailed. The white world looks at Africa from a position of guilt,” he told a seminar at IPN, the London think tank. The beneficiaries of aid are governments, politicians, the staff of aid agencies and charities, he says. Head in hands in mock despair, he reels off a list of “charities” that sprang into being when the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria began to disburse its millions. “There was Children of Hope, there was Hope for Children, there was Help the Children.”

Continuing...

Aid is the problem, not the solution, he says. Debt relief is a Moral Hazard. What is the incentive for country “A” to continue paying interest on its borrowings if country “B” steals the money, defaults and then gets debt relief.

“Countries that are deserving don’t get aid,” says Mr Mwenda. Aid creates the wrong incentives, he argues. It makes objects of the poor, passive recipients of charity rather than active participants in their own economic betterment. Africans don’t need handouts, they need better institutions, land reform and access to cheap mortgages.

via TimesOnline

Richard Behar at Fast Company delivers a special report on the China-Africa relationship:

While America is preoccupied with the war in Iraq (cost: half a trillion dollars and counting), and while think-tank economists continue to spit out papers debating whether vital resources are running out at all, China's leadership isn't taking any chances. In just a few years, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has become the most aggressive investor-nation in Africa. This commercial invasion is without question the most important development in the sub-Sahara since the end of the Cold War -- an epic, almost primal propulsion that is redrawing the global economic map. One former U.S. assistant secretary of state has called it a "tsunami." Some are even calling the region "ChinAfrica."

Illustration courtesy of Plamen Petkov

In recent months, Obama has been compared to the likes of Jimmy Carter (recent Democrat who lectured to us as our nation dropped into malaise and high interest rates), Herbert Hoover (progressive Republican who thought active government and debts would stop a recession), and Woodrow Wilson (progressive Democrat professor who lectured to nation and strengthened unions while nation went into recession). These are all fair comparisons and each has its merits, but for some time now, I keep coming back to the idea that Barack Obama's Presidency is in reality a Michael Dukakis Presidency.

In Whatever Happened to the Massachusetts Miracle? I first wandered my way on to this idea when I realized that soon after Democratic Presidential-nominee Dukakis lost in 1988, the so-called 'Massachusetts Miracle' of prosperity also went bust, and his high-regulation, managed-growth, high-taxes, generous-welfare policies left a state that was mired deeply in debt, facing budget shortfalls, and not growing.

As the years have gone on, it has become increasing clear that Obama is Dukakis, as was written in my post Obama is Dukakis?:

...Both creatures of the liberal Northeast and of Harvard, with no sense at all of most of the rest of the country; both rationalists who impose legalistic criteria on emotion-rich subjects; both with fixed ideas of who society’s victims are, which do not accord with the views of the public; and both with a tin ear for the culture and a genius for creating wedge issues that split their own party...

In that post, I was highly critical of John McCain's campaign, which failed to capitalize on all of the weaknesses that Obama brought as a candidate, and contrasted it with George H.W. Bush, who was able to capitalize on all the weaknesses that Dukakis brought as a candidate:

...GHWB capitalized on the fact that Dukakis wasn't 'American', didn't like saluting the flag, blamed America for everything (later on Dukakis blames America for 9/11), and didn't reflect the values that made America great. GWB hammered away at how Dukakis was simply an elitist, no-nothing, Harvard-educated liberal who was purely smoke-and-mirrors and who, if put in charge of our nation, would never make the hard tough choices that have to be made. If you don't believe me, watch some of the ads yourself- check out at the website the ads "Tank Ride," "Revolving Door," and "Willie Horton." There is no coming back from those body blows that GWB inflicted on Dukakis.

On the other hand, for some reason John McCain didn't run a brutal, hard-hitting campaign that called Obama's policies, judgement, and character into question. He didn't go after Obama for his church, he didn't attack him for his terrorist friends, he didn't call into question his 'Americanism', he didn't question his patriotism, he didn't attack his naive views, he steered away from questioning his lack of experience, and he didn't attack Obama for his elitist schooling. On every major important point that McCain could have capitalized on, he pulled back, and only gently batted Obama around a bit. Oh, he hints here and there about stuff, but nothing smacks you in the gut with the full brutal face of a real battle that Obama could have brought against Obama. If you don't believe me, watch the ads yourself, and lick at the kitty milk that JSM poured playfully on Obama- see the ads "Celeb," "Education," and "Storm" for examples of how weak and unfocused the attack on Obama by JSM was.

So, I guess we have whoever ran GWB's campaign in 1988 to thank from saving us from the mess that we find ourselves in today, and we have whoever ran JSM's campaign in 2008 to thank for us finding ourselves in the mess that we are in today (may that person be smacked around by milk jugs)...

Months after I wrote these posts, it turns out that Dukakis actually visited the White House to give Obama advice- it was written in my post Dukakis Gives Advice to Obama: Obama Gets it?:

...Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, the failed 1988 presidential nominee, recently visited the White House and delivered his strategy for the midterm elections: pound key precincts across the country with the message that Republicans want to implement the same policies that led to the Great Recession. Asked if the White House aides were receptive, he said, "I think they certainly get it." He declined to name the aides he met at the White House...

...Obama gets it- the Democrats in general are now all running on the 'blame Bush' strategy, even though they controlled (House for 4 years and Senate for over 6) and the White House for (3)....

Apparently, as usual, my instincts were right, because today my favorite numbers guy Jay Cost broke down the latest polling data, and Obama does not track like Clinton or Carter, but tracks most closely to Michael Dukakis:

...Accordingly, I think that at this point the Democrat that Obama most closely resembles is Michael Dukakis. To appreciate what I mean, let’s compare Obama’s current standing among different political groups with the 1988 exit poll results.

(see graph)

These are some very eerie similarities – Dukakis, unlike Carter, was able to hold together his party coalition. He lost the 1988 election because Republicans were firmly united behind George Bush, and independents broke decisively toward the GOP.

This is roughly how the current political landscape appears, which leads me to conclude if the election were held today, and the GOP nominated a reasonably attractive candidate, Obama would do about as well in the popular vote as Dukakis did. Given the geographical polarization of the electorate (i.e. the red state-blue state divide), Obama would surely capture more than the 111 electoral votes Dukakis carried. Even so, it would be a sizeable Republican victory. Not quite as smashing as Reagan’s victory in 1980, but still substantial.

Moving forward, I think that is the best way to compare Obama. Not so much to Carter, who was hampered by internal divisions that did not plague Obama, but more to Dukakis, whose final vote share is roughly consistent with Obama’s job approval rating over the last 18 months.

This is all good news- not good news that Democratic policies are destroying our nation, but good that we have been shown the way in the past by hard-campaigner George HW Bush how to defeat someone like Dukakis/Obama (new nickname for the list- Duke Bama?). One can only hope that the next Republican nominee will follow the path and defeat Obama, whether it is an establishment moderate like Romney or an outsider conservative like Bachman.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever read anything Dukakis has written? Leader-Manager in the Public Sector: Managing for Results or Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story.

Laffy's Flickr PhotoStream

Like a gas tank running on empty, we teachers who give too much without refilling our tanks can start sputtering and stopping during the long haul of the last six weeks of schools. Dickens' "these are the best of times, these are the worst of times" are never more true.

Let's contemplate the things that help us stay motivated, excited, and high performing during the last few weeks of school.

1 - See Long Term.
I look at every student and know my time is short with them. I ask myself:

• What are the things that if I do not address that someone will say "why didn't someone ever teach __ that?"
  
• What is something I know of that each student is good at doing? (put in on report card comments, or tell them.)
• What am I teaching with how students earn grades? (A grade given for doing nothing teaches a harmful lesson.)

2- Be a Blessing.
Blessing takes many forms. It can mean speaking well and lifting someone up but making something up is lying and that is never a blessing.

Take the two types of things we found (areas for improvement and the things a student does well) and turn it into a blessing in the form of lesson plans, life lessons, AND encouragements. Today in my classes, we'll take time to read and discuss an article from the New York Times about the 5 Habits of Highly Successful CEO's as a life lesson.

Sometimes drawing the line in the sand and NOT "giving" a child a grade is the blessing the child needs to learn the hard lesson now. The world is full of kids who grew up having things given to them in school and they wonder why they can't keep their job only showing up 4 days a week and giving a half effort.

3- Being "Battle Hardened" is Good.
As I read the New York Times article I mentioned, I had to laugh that "battle hardened" is listed as a habit of highly effective CEO's because that is the same with teachers.

Why do so many teachers quit during the first 2-3 years of teaching? They think it is going to be easy and they probably make the decision in the spring when they are going to be worn out.

Good teaching isn't easy! We lay awake at night upset about kids. We think about them, pray for them, get angry at their parents, etc.

Teachers are on the front lines of a war against the decivilization of society. See problems as learning opportunities for both the student at hand (see #1) and the students watching.

Never give away your nobility by acting in ways that demean your profession (we all have ;-( ) and if you feel yourself tired or losing it with a child - put measures in place to help you deal with the triggers by enlisting another teacher or administrator.

4- Being "set in your ways" is not.
The good teacher knows that there are new horizons not explored and sets an example to her students of an explorer who has just begun the journey.  

5 - Be yourself.

Don't try to be cool. If you are, you are.

Most teachers worth their weight in gold must wait to be thanked until their students strike gold. When students see they are masters of knowledge and how to acquire that knowledge they will thank you. If you get it early, count yourself fortunate.

6 - Be Realistic About Short Term.

Look hard at the school calendar to note the events and activities that will serve as a distraction. Good teachers study human nature. They time tough lessons when kids are ready to learn and tweak pedagogies based upon the emotional and physiological needs of students. Sometimes, teachers look back at #1 and know that teaching kids to do tough tasks when they are tired is a good thing. The good teacher knows when to do which!  

7- Be Good to Yourself
Show me a teacher without rest and I'll show you a powderkeg waiting for a match. Every 90 minutes you need a break according to one of my favorite books, Way We're working Isn't Working. Walk outside. Talk with a friend. Get up from your desk and disconnect. It is counter-intuitive that rest sparks increased productivity but the research bears this out. You have to intentionally plan breaks and times of rest. Staying up more than two nights in a row past midnight grading papers is asking for  trouble.

8 - "Sometimes You Gotta Let the Rough End Drag"

Granny Martin was a smart woman and I miss her every day. In May, I write this on a note card on my fridge to remind myself I don't have to be perfect. During the last month of school it is best that a teacher lay aside hopes of being polished, poised and perfect and know that it will be a bit crazy and chaotic. The things that should never drag are the safe, respectful environment built for students. To keep it respectful at school, you might have to let the laundry go at home or bring home pizza once a week. It is OK not to be perfect, especially if you have a hungry brood of your own at home waiting to be fed every night.

9 - Laugh and Learn.
 He who laughs, lasts! If you can't laugh and enjoy the kids sometimes, why teach? For most of you, standardized testing is almost over. Do something fun. Plan a lesson packed in learning AND enjoyment.

I have three boys in my noon study hall: Camel, Knee Knocker, and Squirrel. (yes, those are my nicknames for them) They work, I work, but we laugh. I'm not their BFF and am tough on them in class but I enjoy seeing them come in my room b/c I know they will keep me young. When you are old you will remember the laughter and learning.  

10- Finish Well.

When you think back on the school year, you'll always remember how it finished. Finish well and with the honor, nobility, and sense of humor deserving of your profession.

Your Pep Talk
To all you amazing teachers out there - you are the heroes to a generation that sees you as their present enemy.

Do right by their future selves and know that their present selves may have to disagree with your intent. 

Our job is not to be liked or loved, although that usually comes with the territory of being good at what we do - it is to teach.

Remember your noble calling, teacher. No one can take away the nobility of a teacher except the teacher herself.

Jack McHugh put together a stunning list. Maybe you are old enough to remember back when every aspect of your life or business wasn't taxed. Or maybe you remember starting your own business, without getting a license from the government. Maybe, but I don't remember those days. I have grown up in tyranny and seen it only increase as I have gotten older. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our Founding Fathers fought and died for less than this.

Here is a list of 55 Taxes On You and 116 Licensure Mandates for those who want to start a business in Michigan. First, here are all the taxes that government has slapped on us to steal our money: Accounts Receivable Tax, Business income tax, Business Gross Receipts Tax, Business Tool and Equipment Property Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax. Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties, Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Service Charge Tax....

Seriously, are you still reading this list of taxes? Do you think the government taxes all these for the money, or is it just to control us and do a little social engineering? You know, pick winners and losers like government is God or something?

Here are more taxes: Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax, Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal/State/Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Use Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, and Workers Compensation Tax...

As if those aren't enough taxes, the Democrats and Obama are proposing two new giant taxes- Cap and Trade and taxing employer provided health care benefits.

I'm not going to go through all the license requirements here- you get the picture. Check them all out though if you want, and email me and let me know which license requirement you think is the most insulting. Personally, I'm a little surprised that you can't clean out a sewage tank without paying the government money for a license (Sewer Pipe Cleaners License). Oh well.

Kind of makes you look longingly at the days of a Stamp Tax, doesn't it?

In Massachusetts Miracle I wrote:

I found this fun fact about Dukakis on wikipedia- Soon after his loss in the 1988 Presidential election to George Herbert Walker Bush, the so-called 'Massachusetts Miracle' of prosperity also went bust, and Michael Dukakis was little more than a 'lame duck' Governor for his final two years in office. At the close of his tenure, Massachusetts was mired deeply in debt facing a budget shortfall of more than $1.5 billion.

Barack Obama is Micheal Dukakis.

From the Weekly Standard's Duking It Out: The Dukakis administration that never was:

As Barack Obama sees his ratings descend toward the high 30s, he is increasingly described as the second coming of James Earl Carter Jr., whose presidency, gone but hardly forgotten, lives on in masochists’ minds. The comparison is unkind and not quite on target: This is less Carter II than the lost presidency of Michael Dukakis, which seemed a sure thing at this date 22 years ago, and from which we were saved by the elder George Bush.

Of course, no one thought Dukakis could be the messiah, but in other ways the connections are strong: both creatures of the liberal Northeast and of Harvard, with no sense at all of most of the rest of the country; both rationalists who impose legalistic criteria on emotion-rich subjects; both with fixed ideas of who society’s victims are, which do not accord with the views of the public; and both with a tin ear for the culture and a genius for creating wedge issues that split their own party.

So what happened? If Obama is Dukakis, how did Obama win while Dukakis lost? It is time, boys and girls, for a little lesson in "How to Run a Campaign and How Not to Run a Campaign: Comparing HWB with JSM."

Let's take a look at one of my favorite websites, The Living Room Candidate. This website contains all the major campaign advertisements that were run on television from 1952 to today. They are sorted by year, theme, issue, etc. This is a great website because in watching it you learn one of the most important facts about being elected- it doesn't matter how good the candidate is, it only matters how good a campaign they run.

In 1988, Dukakis had a 17-point lead in mid-summer, lost to Bush by 8-points in the fall. What caused that 25 point swing? Probably some of the most brutal campaign advertisements you'll ever see (aside from LBJ). When I show these ads to my students, they gasp in shock at how utterly punishing those ads were, and when you're showing a crowd of high-school kids these ads for the first time in their life, they are a good judge of whether they are effective or not. When I ask them what they think about GWB's ads, they say "there is no coming back from those for Dukakis." What was so brutal and effective about GWB's campaign advertising? Back to the article...

It was a campaign that quite openly exploited primitive racial-sexual fears. More subtly .  .  . the Bush campaign exploited nativist prejudice. .  .  . Dukakis is not an American, Dukakis is different, this was the unwholesome subtheme that tied together the pledgehammer assault. .  .  .

That's right- GHWB capitalized on the fact that Dukakis wasn't 'American', didn't like saluting the flag, blamed America for everything (later on Dukakis blames America for 9/11), and didn't reflect the values that made America great. GWB hammered away at how Dukakis was simply an elitist, no-nothing, Harvard-educated liberal who was purely smoke-and-mirrors and who, if put in charge of our nation, would never make the hard tough choices that have to be made. If you don't believe me, watch some of the ads yourself- check out at the website the ads "Tank Ride," "Revolving Door," and "Willie Horton." There is no coming back from those body blows that GWB inflicted on Dukakis.

On the other hand, for some reason John McCain didn't run a brutal, hard-hitting campaign that called Obama's policies, judgement, and character into question. He didn't go after Obama for his church, he didn't attack him for his terrorist friends, he didn't call into question his 'Americanism', he didn't question his patriotism, he didn't attack his naive views, he steered away from questioning his lack of experience, and he didn't attack Obama for his elitist schooling. On every major important point that McCain could have capitalized on, he pulled back, and only gently batted Obama around a bit. Oh, he hints here and there about stuff, but nothing smacks you in the gut with the full brutal face of a real battle that Obama could have brought against Obama. If you don't believe me, watch the ads yourself, and lick at the kitty milk that JSM poured playfully on Obama- see the ads "Celeb," "Education," and "Storm" for examples of how weak and unfocused the attack on Obama by JSM was.

So, I guess we have whoever ran GWB's campaign in 1988 to thank from saving us from the mess that we find ourselves in today, and we have whoever ran JSM's campaign in 2008 to thank for us finding ourselves in the mess that we are in today (may that person be smacked around by milk jugs). Oh, of course if McCain was President we would have had a recession, and Democrats in Congress likely would have passed bloated budgets, but likely the national debt would have only exploded by a trillion or two a year, unlike what has happened now, and likely Iran would not be happily building a nuke to nuke Jews, and probably a mosque wouldn't be being built at Ground Zero, and likely we'd be emerging from the 'Bush recession' rather than already starting the 'Obama Depression.'