Look At Our Families

As a kid growing up in the sixties and seventies, life was fun. Sure, we were in the midst of Vietnam and Watergate and I have vivid memories of young men and women demonstrating against our government but still, life was fun.

School was also fun. We still had to worry about math, science, reading, and history but for the most part, teachers made it as enjoyable as possible. Some were better than others but almost all were patient to a goof ball, class clown, who went to great lengths to avoid doing homework at all cost while having trouble sitting still in class. There was no Columbine and gangs were non existent except for in large cities.

Today, rarely does a day go by where there is not a news story about some kind of school violence. As a teacher, this troubles me greatly because I know it was not always this way.

In 1984, when I began teaching at Clifton Middle School in Monrovia, California, life was much different than it is today as a high school teacher in Hemet, California. When I began teaching, droves of "boat people" were arriving daily to southern California and filling our schools with children from far off places. Almost all came with a sense of hope for a better life despite their fears.

Our school was filled with more ethnic groups than I could count and yet it was rare for a fight to break out on campus. I took pride in the after school intramural program I established that brought many of these groups together in competition. Everyone respected the no fighting policy and I never came close to having to enforce it. I was equally pleased with the school fair I spearheaded which brought our students and faculty together in projects that resulted in food booths and games set up on our school's blacktop.

In 1986, my wife and I moved to a small town in northern California called Red Bluff where many of the students were often country bumpkins. While not always the greatest students, these young men and women were very polite. On more than one occasion, after a student was rude to me in class, several others would come up to me after class and apologize to me for the treatment I received. They always assured me it would never happen again and then they would find that rude student and "teach him a lesson."

Just the other day at the high school I work at, we had a student assembly. It was promoted for two weeks and we used an assembly schedule where classes that day were shortened. Unfortunately, during the assembly, two fights broke out and at least one student was arrested.

Had this happened twenty years ago, it would have been a major story in the local Red Bluff paper. Sadly, it did not even warrant a mention in Hemet's because they were busy covering the story of another near by high school that had seventeen students arrested after they began to fight with the school's resource officer causing police to converge on the campus and resulting in a school wide lock down. There was also additional coverage of the bomb plot uncovered at another high school somewhere else in this country.

People can blame who they want about our declining test scores and standing on the international level of academics. However, over the last twenty-eight years, I have taught at eight different schools, worked with twelve principals, seven superintendents, and countless school board members and not once have I ever heard any of these people ever say they support student violence and disrespect or suggest when it happens it is the fault of our schools. And yet, it is all too often the schools getting blamed for low test scores.

Poor student academic performance, school violence, and disrespect toward teachers, administrators, and school resource officers are the end result of one thing; a poor home life.

Monrovia, in the mid 80's, was not a thriving city on the outskirts of Los Angeles but rather a convenient place to raise a family for single mothers and unemployed adults. Still, despite this, when I called home on students who were not performing or behaving as they should, I almost always received the full support of the parent. They'd even come in and shadow their kid for a day if that was what was needed. Despite their struggles, these parents believed in education and wanted more for their children than they had.

Today, that is rarely the case despite the similarities that exist between Monrovia then and Hemet now. Parents who do come in all too often do so pointing a finger and raising their voices at the school rather than taking ownership of the problem they brought into this world.

Recently, I had a father try to convince me that the reason his daughter was behaving so poorly in class the week before was because this week she was "getting ready to have her period." Another parent claimed the note she brought to me was signed by him even after I pointed out I had two examples of his signature that were nothing alike. And last year, one mother told me the best part of her day was watching her son walk out the front door in the morning and her worst was seeing him return in the afternoon.

I would like to say these are the exceptions and not the rule but that is not the case. So hopefully, no matter your age or circumstance, when you read the stories about school violence, you will stop and think about where this disregard for our education system has its roots. Sure, the public school system is in need of many fixes but none nearly as needed in far too many homes across this country.

Answer The Question, Newt

The other day, CNN news man John King began a Republican debate by asking Newt Gingrich if he wanted to comment on his ex wife's claim that he wanted to maintain an open marriage. Newt's reply, in which chastised King and the media for asking such a question, drew loud applause and eventually a standing ovation. It's too bad he did not answer the question.

Thanks to the lies and indiscretions of Bill Clinton, questions like the one asked by John King to candidates with a checkered past personal life, like Gingrich, are fair game if you are running for public office.

Newt's response would have been a proper one had this been 1992 and he was being asked what kind of underwear he wore as was the case with Bill Clinton. However, when a candidate for president is on his third marriage and his current wife was the congressional staffer he had an affair with while married to his second wife, Americans are entitled to ask questions about the fitness of his personal life, past or present.

Candidates with questionable past financial dealings or voting records are asked and expected to explain themselves when they run for office so there is no reason one with a questionable past personal life should be excluded. Bill Clinton was hounded by the media over these matters as was Herm Cain, who recently dropped out of the primary process as a result.

These are difficult and challenging times for this nation and there is nothing wrong with voters wanting a leader they can be assured is not going to conduct himself in a manner that will adversely affect his ability to lead. George W. Bush was asked about his past drinking problems and Ted Kennedy never escaped questions about Chappaquiddick. To ask a candidate whose second wife claims he wanted to maintain an open marriage to explain himself is perfectly fair.

What's more troubling, Newt did not provide an answer, only a commentary about the media. If indeed Newt wanted an open marriage, he should admit it rather than hide behind a rehearsed response aimed to garner the vote of Christian conservatives. By simply telling us he has returned to his Christian roots is not an answer. Newt wants and needs the support of conservative Christians if he is going to have any shot of defeating Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination so it becomes easy for him to tell people about how he has grown closer to God rather than telling him he was once an adulterous male who wanted to have his cake and eat it.

However, Newt did not have this relationship with God when he was speaker of the house. His ethics were called into question and he eventually was voted out of office only to cash in as a well paid consultant to major lobbyists. If he is elected as our next president, many will wonder how he will handle the trappings of power that come with being the most powerful person in the world. Whoever our next president is, Americans deserve knowing we have a leader who will not embarrass the office or the nation because power went to his head.

Nothing about President Obama's past would indicate such a question should be asked of him. The same is true with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. However, this is not the case with Newt Gingrich and he needs to be held accountable for failing to provide voters with an honest answer to a fair question.

What's So Wrong With Euthanasia?

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, decided it is within the rights of any woman to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances and guidelines. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is irrelevant. What matters is the court ruled that women have control of their bodies which in essence means all citizens of age have control of their bodies. However, this is not true.

Today, 34 U. S states have the death penalty as part of their criminal justice sentencing. Criminals found guilty of certain crimes and circumstances may face execution.

In cases of both abortion and execution, it can be argued that the state is allowing for the taking of a human life and depending on your religious beliefs, may also be argued we are doing "God's work."

All states also have laws that allow the use of deadly force by law enforcement in an attempt to protect and serve its citizens. Few would complain about the police shooting a crazed gunman who takes hostages but again it could be argued they are doing the work of God.

Unfortunately, we do not allow citizens, under certain circumstances, to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves whether or not it is time to cash in their chips. High rise buildings and hotels have windows that do not open up to prevent citizens form ending their life. Bridges and over passes are covered in wire to prevent someone form throwing them self over to their demise. Why?

No one wants to be at the receiving end of a deranged person who decides your car is the perfect target to toss them self into so they can end their life which is what happened to my brother one morning on the way to work. You also do not want to be the person assigned to clean up after a college student decides to leap to their death from the top of a nine story building

like I once had to thirty years ago.

You can easily argue that in either case, the suicidal victims were mentally ill and if they had just received the proper mental health support they might have gone on to live productive lives. But what about those who are not mentally ill? What about those who are only guilty of having grown old or terminally ill? Should they not have more of a say as to how and when they pass?

Eighty to ninety percent of all the money we spend on medical care during the course of our lives is spent in the final two years of life. This is neither cost effective nor fair to the dying person who may prefer to leave this world sooner and leave behind whatever money they may have to loved ones.

What is so wrong with an elderly person who has decided they have lived enough and they have nothing left to offer this world from taking their life? Is it so wrong that they choose to go out on their own terms rather than feel like a burden to their family? The only people who benefit from keeping an old person alive is often times the medical industry.

Now, I am not suggesting we start authorizing the killing of elderly or sick people. However, I do think the decision to live further or not should be theirs just as it should be a woman's decision to decide whether or not it is best for her to go through with a pregnancy. What is the big deal if someone with a terminal illness decides they would rather swallow a few pills and end their life rather than go through a slow process that may end up leaving their loved ones drained while emptying their savings? Some, perhaps many, would choose to die on their terms with their dignity rather than on society's terms.

Does it make us a worse society if a cancer patient who has put all his affairs in order and said all of his good-byes decides to die on his terms rather than be kept alive as long as possible? We allow citizens to donate their organs to others upon death in order to help someone else live longer. Family members often are encouraged to "pull the plug" so doctors can harvest their organs for someone else. Isn't this playing God? A person of sound mind should be allowed to die in the manner of their choosing and not be forced to resort to extreme measures.

If you support a woman's right to an abortion or believe in either the death penalty or use of deadly force, you should support euthanasia. We either have total control over our bodies or none at all. You can not play God in some cases of life and death and not in others.

If Jesus Was An American

Periodically, I hear Jesus' name mentioned by politicians and political pundits who love to claim if he were alive today, Jesus would be a member of their political party. In their ignorance, they assume if Jesus were alive today, he would be an American. At any rate, I thought I would weigh in with my thoughts on the matter and tell you where I think Jesus would stand on the issues we face today.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, if he were alive today, Jesus would be an American citizen. How would he feel about our country?

For starters, would Jesus be part of the ninety-nine percent or one percent? I believe he would be part of the one percent. Jesus would be far wealthier than the average American if he had any desire to spread his message. In today's world, if you do not have money, or access to someone else's money, your voice goes unheard. I believe Jesus would make full use of today's technology. He would tweet away every chance he got. He would also appear on as many television news and talk shows spreading his message of love for all. He would command large sums of money to speak at universities or private functions. There would be a slew of books authored by him in which his sermons would appear and you could go into any Wal Mart or Target and buy his line of apparel which would be splashed with his message. Finally, his web site would be among the most, if not the most, viewed web sites on the planet allowing him to not only spread his word but to bring in millions of dollars every month.

In this regard, Jesus would not be much different than Oprah, Rush, or any other well know personality who seems to pop up everywhere. However, I also believe that with this wealth, Jesus would use that money for the betterment of all mankind rather than sinking it into get rich quick scams that add to his wealth while bilking innocent people of their hard earned money.

I also believe Jesus would be outraged over the number of Americans who live a glutenous life, both rich and poor, while others around the world starve. He would not like seeing a nation as wealthy as ours fail to deliver affordable health care to its citizens or to the citizens in other nations. I believe he would tell our citizens who make a life of living off of the welfare system to get off their butts and start contributing to our society rather than bleeding it dry.

Jesus would have little positive to say to those who do not vote but are quick to complain about the job their leaders do. While he would sympathize with the occupy protesters, he would also remind them there are plenty of jobs that need doing in this country if they can swallow their pride and do the dirty work that seems to to only be done by illegals or go undone.

I also think Jesus would be troubled by people who claim it is okay to bring harm to those who provide abortions while doing little to curb the number of people killed each year by hand guns or assault weapons. He would tell us it does not take a village to raise a child if that child has parents who put him before their career goals or material desires. Jesus would look at our schools and ask our leaders how can they expect so much from our children when few expectations were placed on them when they were young.

And in the end, Jesus would deliver a simple message, one that is easy to follow but all too often lost in a world made complicated by leaders who fail more than they succeed. He would simply tell all of us, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, black or white, to treat one another the way you want to be treated in return.

However, I also believe if Jesus were alive and living in America today, he would not live to see old age. You see, we have had plenty of others deliver a message of love and hope who have all to often been struck down too soon. Do the names Martin, Bobby or John ring a bell?

The world we live in can seem like a crazy place but it does not have to be. All we need is to live life by the golden rule and the rest will take care of itself. It was that way 2,000 years ago when Jesus first graced this planet and can be that way today if we allow it to happen.

Take Me Out To The Ball Game? No Thanks

I used to be a fan of the San Francisco Forty-niners but they lost me after eight years of crap. I did not bother to watch their Monday Night victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers and know it will take a lot more than one winning season to bring me back into the fold. I want to see how they do next year when they have to play a first place schedule for a year or two rather than this year's last place schedule. In fact, I am to the point where the off season of any sport is more enjoyable than the actual season.

The Boston Celtics, another team I used to follow passionately, also no longer interest me. I really lack any interest in the coming NBA season. I actually liked what I saw out of Boston's Jeff Green last year but now he is done for the season and perhaps forever. Here is a tip to Celtics General Manager Danny Ainge: The next time you sign a guy like Green to a one year nine million dollar contract, try making it contingent on passing a team physical. You now get to pay him to have heart surgery. If it is successful and he can resume his career next year, he will be a free agent again and maybe then you can sign him for 20 million. Brilliant move.

I stopped following baseball when they went on strike some time in the 80's. That sport is another one where the regular season is a waste of time. Six months of ESPN highlights of guys on steroids hitting home runs or players on speed making acrobatic catches gets old real fast. So does the obligatory nightly replay of a team mascot in an argument with an umpire and getting tossed out of the game. And to think, baseball wants to expand the playoffs because they think it will make the regular season more relevant. Maybe if you are a fantasy geek but the more teams that make the playoffs just makes the 162 regular season games less important in my opinion.

NCAA basketball is another sport with a pointless regular season. Just put every school in the frickin tournament and let the winner choke the life out of Dick Vitale. I will give them credit. At least they have a national champion based on a playoff system. However, how many years do we have to listen to talking heads spout off about Cinderella and her glass slipper? It's basketball. The players where free 200 dollar Nike shoes and shorts that hang down to their ankles. Every coach is a quality guy who really cares about his players and their education until another school offers him more money.

Maybe I should go back to watching the National Hockey League. Again, another pointless season with too many teams making the playoffs. Only now, we get to watch guys with scrambled brains play the game. It turns out hockey players receive more concussions than football players. Hmmm. I wonder if they are caused by the ice, the tiny helmets they wear, or the fact that they have been playing the sport since they fell out of their Canadian mother's womb? I love the missing teeth. That has to be a real turn on to the women and I am sure it is just a matter of time before the look catches on with the general public.

NCAA football is just the opposite. They actually have an exciting season and I enjoy watching the televised games. Too bad their post season is the most pointless thing on the planet. I am hoping that USC's Matt Barkley decides to come back for his senior year rather than joining the No Fun League where he can legally get paid to play a game. Am I the only one who has no interest in the Dell Computer Poinsettia Pubic Hair Bowl or whatever other bowl game they come up with? What can be more fun than watching a bowl game that amounts to nothing more than an exhibition game coached by interim coaches because the participating schools have either already fired their coach or lost him to another college?

And forget about any sport where female athletes are the participants unless it is beach volleyball. Let's face it, that's all us guys care about when it comes to women's sports. We want to see them get all hot and sweaty and live for the hope of a wardrobe malfunction. However, if that were to happen, we would probably be shocked to see that woman we were perving over sporting a three inch boner as a result of all the PED's she has been doing. You see, female athletes cheat just like males.

Okay, there is still high school sports. They provide affordable fun for the entire family, right? The last high school basketball game I attended was at Hemet High School a few years ago. The school had to call for a squad of sheriffs to break up a fight between rival groups that attended the game. You couldn't leave the gym because the combatants did not have enough sense to take their fight across the street. No, they had to brawl right outside the main exit in the school's hallway. If I wanted that as part of my sports viewing experience, I'd go to a Raider game.

I think this winter vacation, rather than watching sports on television or attending an actual game, I will just take out my old electric football set and play a game between the Packers and the Jets. By the time I set up the offenses and defenses, run the plays with all the stopping and starting of the on off switch, I figure I can get in about 20 to 25 plays a day. At that rate, I may actually squeeze in two games during vacation. Best of all, I will have the best seat in the house, can drink all the cheap beer I want, won't have to worry about work stoppages, will enjoy the free parking, and know that I won't get beat into a coma by rival fans.

If, as many people say, sports is a reflection of our society, then like everything else, it is in need of major repair.

Meet The Real Republicans

The Republican party has shown Americans what it really stands for recently and for most of us, it isn't pretty. There is a reason why Newt Gingrich is their front runner and will remain so unless he does something really stupid.

To show what Republicans really represent, lets begin by looking at those who wish they were the front runner.

First, there is Mitt Romney, a former governor who has experienced great success in both government and the private sector and who for a long time was the Republican front runner. It is hard to imagine why republicans would not want Romney as their choice to square off with President Obama. He has no skeletons in his closet or they would have come out by now and he has been happily married to one woman and raised a family any parent would be proud to show off. Sure, he is labeled a flip flopper, which may be true but then again, it may also show that he maintains enough of an open mind to know when and why to change his positions. Besides, if you look at most candidates, you can find some position they have changed on and could call them a flip flopper too.

Romney is not the choice of the big money wing of the Republican Party -- Christian Fundamentalists -- because they do not want to see a Mormon in the White House. It is that simple. If Romney were a Catholic or Protestant he would be a shoe in for the party nomination.

"That's not true," is the cry of Republicans. They claim to be an open minded party and love reminding us they are the party of Abraham Lincoln. That may have once been true but they more closely resemble the party of the Taliban with their hatred of anything that goes against their Christian beliefs and the Book of Mormon is right up their with the Koran on their burn list.

So Romney is out.

Why not Herman Cain? Okay, he has suspended his campaign amid allegations of a long time affair and reports of sexual harassment dating back to the nineties. I am not sure why this is a big deal to a political party who is supporting a guy on his third marriage and who actually left one wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. However, that is no big deal to republicans because A) Newt claims to have since come back to his Christian faith in the process of getting his life back in order, and B) Newt is not black.

"Wrong again," claim Republicans. "Newt is one of the smartest and most articulate politicians out there and that is what makes him our guy."

I will admit, Newt is quite intelligent and well spoken and seems to be the only candidate who actually answers the questions he is asked in debates rather than just rattling off talking points. However, if you ever listen to John Huntsman, you would find him just as intelligent and well spoken as Gingrich and he has served as a governor and government representative to several nations. Oh, but wait, he is also a Mormon so scratch him off the list of the party of the open minded.

Republicans could go with Governor Rick Perry of Texas but lets admit it, he is down right stupid. For this, I applaud the Republican Party for not backing a guy who continually reminds us he is the commander and chief of 20,000 troops. The Texas governor should have locked up the nomination by now but every time he opens his mouth in a debate he proves to us his predecessor, George W. Bush, was a rocket scientist compared to him.

Alright, so no Mormons, no blacks, and no stupid Texans. Well, how about an older guy like Ron Paul? "Not a chance," says Republicans. "We don't need some geezer who speaks his mind and breaks with the party line like he does." They're right. If they did, they could just run John McCain again and save money on campaign posters in the process.

Hey, how about running a female as your candidate? "Just as long as it is not Sarah Palin," you say. Actually, Republicans like Palin but lets face it, her priorities are focused on herself and her bank account. She can't afford to be the president. Besides, she does not have the kind of family you want to show off to the country. "Let's keep her on FOX where she can serve as a better looking Rush Limbaugh."

That leaves Republicans with Michelle Bachman, who for some reason, even they find to be a crazy lady. The only other viable female candidate the party has to offer is Condoleezza Rice but we all know wealthy, white, Christian males don't want to see an intelligent black woman calling the shots.

Okay, so no blacks, no females, no Mormons, no independent thinkers, and no stupid Texans. That just leaves Newt or Rick Santorum to choose from.

Newt has years of experience working in congress and has since gone on to make millions of dollars off of his "consulting" expertise. He knows how the game is played in Washington D.C. and will ensure the money wing of the Republican Party stays satisfied. He also will not hesitate to use our military in more pointless wars while insisting taxes do not need raising when there are plenty of programs left to cut.

Rick Santorum just hasn't been around long enough to master all that Newt has so I predict Republicans will run a Gingrich/Santorum ticket with the hope Newt mentors Rick as well as Obe Won mentored Luke in Star Wars. Together, in the ideal world of the Republican Party, they will lead our nation for sixteen years and guide us to the kind of greatness that only a real Republicans can appreciate; the kind that continues to benefit the one percent at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Reform Welfare Before Raising Taxes

Below is my full response to the Riverside Press Enterprise newspaper's recent article regarding polls showing California voters are likely to approve tax hikes to help support our public schools.

As someone who has spent the last twenty-eight years teaching in three different school districts in three different parts of our state, I want to urge voters to reject any proposals to increase taxes to improve public education.

Over the last three years, the state has been brutal to public education. Budget cuts have resulted in massive teacher layoffs, the elimination of performing arts programs, and the realization that our public schools are not getting the job done.

This mess is the result of decisions made by our elected leaders who now want to see hard working taxpayers clean it up by increasing their taxes. This is not a solution to a problem as much as it is a punishment for being employed in this state.

If our leaders want to create more money and ear mark it for public education, they can start by ending the incentive to be a life long recipient of welfare. Rather than rewarding welfare recipients for bringing more children into the state who flood our schools with their low skills, lack of desire to improve, and even less parental support, we need to cut their benefits and encourage them to find another state to live off of.

Student enrollment would quickly decrease relieving school districts of the pressure to hire more teachers and implement programs for people who give us little to no return on our tax payer investment.

Test scores would also increase as would graduation rates and our state could marvel at seeing the percentage of college ready students go through the roof. California might even return to the top tier of states on the education front rather than remain at the bottom.

Ridding the state of its massive welfare population will also allow school districts to place a halt on new construction and allow them to better utilize existing campuses. With fewer campuses also comes the need for fewer administrators whose six figure salaries dwarf those of any teacher and save districts even more money.

Our schools can no longer be education centers for children from supportive and motivated families while also serving as glorified day care centers for parents who are unfit to have children in the first place.

If we eliminate the welfare problem that is sucking this state of much needed resources and replace it with a system that is designed to help those in temporary need rather than reward people too lazy or unskilled to work at all, we instantly improve our public schools.