A Wonder of Stars

The list of celebrities who are involved in human rights causes is, thankfully, long. Most celebrities are affluent and have the flexibility and the resources to get involved to a degree that ordinary citizens cannot. Most of us go to jobs that have inflexible schedules and if we did have the flexibility to come and go as we pleased, we likely wouldn’t have the financial resources to support extended time away from work or home that some causes require. What is more, celebrities have significantly higher profiles than the average citizen, and their faces and personas give the causes they champion notoriety and therefore strength. We revere our celebrities. We crown them” stars” because they remind us that a human being can rise to uncommon heights. Many of us wish we could help others like they are able to help others, but we cannot, so we do what little we can, understand that every little bit helps, and thank our stars to take up the slack for the advancement of human rights.

Some critics pretend to know what motivates celebrities to lend themselves to human rights causes: that the causes are dumping grounds for the guilt that may attend lives of affluence and privilege; that the benevolence associated with taking up a cause somehow assuages or offsets a public perception of Hollywood hedonism; that having your name and face put to a cause is just another self-centered spotlight, another photo op, another PR stunt; or that it is simply another fashionable bauble on an evening gown or a tuxedo lapel. But what does motive matter if a star’s efforts in a cause make a positive difference in the lives of the downtrodden and dispossessed? Doesn’t selflessly helping less fortunate people advance civilization despite a subset of murky motives? Certainly, although it would make little sense to countermand humane endeavor by inhumane endeavor.

Celebrities make movies and TV programs and music that are often times violent in content. People are hurt, maimed, tortured, raped, murdered, and killed in incredibly realistic ways. I am a Vietnam combat veteran and I almost walked out of Saving Private Ryan because of the over-the-top, violent special effects in its first twenty minutes or so. The empirical data that indicates that media violence leads to violence and desensitization to violence in children is questionable at best. For every finding in support there is a finding in opposition. Apparently, the data tell researchers what they want to hear, so objectivity in studies is dubious. I single-parented my first daughter and I was not particularly vigilant during that time in my life about what we watched on TV or at the movies. I even rented a VCR and showed Alien at her ninth birthday party. She is thirty-seven-years old now, has a Master’s in Nursing, her own family, and is an upstanding and outstanding citizen so, apparently, media violence has had no harmful and lasting effect on her. But that is not to say that media violence can’t have a negative effect on some children. What about children who live in violent, abusive homes and also have a steady diet of media violence that, perhaps, desensitizes them to their own plight and positively reinforces the violent behavior that seems a rule in their homes? If so, is it possible that they might have a propensity to pass that violence on to others, including their own progeny, without forethought? We don’t need to scrounge around for a debatable “study” to use as a surrogate for our own rational minds. We know that we can’t answer that question with an absolute “yes” or a “no.” We also know that it is not a question to answer capriciously because the potential consequences for a knee-jerk “no” can be grave when you factor in a 2009 report from Child Help that states that “approximately 3.3 million child abuse reports and allegations were made involving an estimated 6 million children” and that “14 percent of prison inmates were abused as children.” You could argue those statistics, I’m sure, if you are inclined to see this as a numbers game. Nevertheless, the victims of violence in America are deprived of their human rights and often their lives. In fact, America has the highest prison population rate (2.3 million) in the world so, in a very real sense, we are all hostage to violence. We all must look over our shoulders and stay away from the shadows, and that kind of compulsory, intrusive vigilance deprives us of freedom of movement, place, and peace in this land that boasts its freedom. Is it probable, at least, to assume that some of that deprivation owes its origins, in part, to violence in media, media which owes its success, in large part, to its stars?

Off-loading the responsibility on parents who should not allow their children to watch violent media is a cliched excuse and a palliative that can’t soothe because all parents are not responsible enough to keep their children away from harmful things—like loaded guns, unhealthy foods, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, and profligate peers. The reason that we have laws is to protect ourselves from one another—and ourselves. Some states (e.g. Oregon Revised Statue 339.010) even have laws that require parents to make sure that their children attend school, and parents in violation can be cited into court. And, indeed, the Motion Picture Association of America has devised a motion picture rating system that warns parents that a film may contain scenes with sex, violence, substance abuse, profanity, and other mature content because the motion picture industry itself understands that these scenes may be harmful to children. Ironically, the movie industry’s own rating system tells us in no uncertain terms that media violence is harmful to youth. However, the rating system is unenforceable—as it should be— and was instituted primarily to ward off government censorship, so its effectiveness ostensibly relies on parents who are not always reliable. This same irony is laughably palpable on the Surgeon General’s warning on cigarette packages: “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy”—but light up while you're reading the warning. What is more, movies are no longer restricted to a theater where eons ago admittance was monitored by a uniformed usher. Movies these days are readily available at children’s delicate fingertips on devices that fit in shirt pockets. No parents required.

I am not naive enough to suggest that violent films be outlawed anymore than I am to suggest that cigarettes and alcohol should be outlawed. However, I wonder when celebrities glide among the starving and diseased masses in, say, Darfur, if they consider that blowing someone’s brains out in their next movie is perhaps also a cause of human rights deprivation—and what might happen if they took up that cause by refusing to promote violence in their principal work.

Save the Students!

Although faced with stiff opposition, the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 has saved the black-footed ferret, humpback whale, bald eagle, American alligator, grizzly bear, Florida manatee, California condor, and the grey wolf. Incontrovertible proof that political will, persistence, prioritizing, and adequate funding work. In 2012 alone, "U.S. federal and state governments spent just more than $1.7 billion to conserve endangered and threatened species."

Our school children are by no means faced with extinction, but there's little doubt that they are endangered. Just since the Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012, "there have been at least 239 school shootings nationwide. In those episodes, 438 people were shot, 138 of whom were killed."

In 2018, 17 students were killed and 14 were injured at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, and two students were killed and 18 were injured at Marshall County High School in Benton, Kentucky on January 23.

By contrast, in 2018, one US soldier was killed and four were wounded in worn-torn Afghanistan. Although a number of factors contribute to the low casualty rate among US troops in Afghanistan, one factor must inarguably be that soldiers live and operate, where guns and bombs abound, under tight security.

Given that schools in America have routinely become the targets of disturbed individuals--typically young males--using a "variety" of guns, why aren't schools more tightly secured in much the same way that America's airports and government buildings (3 billion square feet of building space in over 900,000 structures) maintain layers of security at taxpayers’ expense? The Transportation Security Administration's 2018 budget is approximately $8 billion.

Add to that, that "the bipartisan budget was expected to include $716 billion for military spending in 2019," much of it used to fund wars in countries (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria) that pose no immediate threat to Americans at home, not to mention that the Pentagon . . . "had lost track of more than $800 million in construction projects." Difficult, then, to argue that money is an issue in protecting kids in the nation's schools by funding much the very same security measures in place at the nation's airports and government buildings. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be part of the conversation given the overwhelming focus on gun control and mental health issues--that may or may not deter school shooters--as the only solutions to a horrendous problem that plague America at this very moment.

No doubt that any gun control legislation will help protect students to some degree--but "some" is not enough. What is more, since the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, "more than 100 gun control bills have . . . been introduced on Capitol Hill. All have failed." One hundred thirty-eight students and school staff, who are now dead, were waiting on lawmakers to protect them after Sandy Hook. Approximately 50.7 million students across the nation are waiting "today" for protection from the next school shooting. And, regretfully, there will be a "next." "Thoughts and prayers" and political high resolution optic proposals assuage--or dupe--much of the public and typically serve only the master.

True, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban "reduced" the number of mass shooting deaths by 54.4 percent in a ten-year period, and, although the reduction was staggering and a welcome beginning to an evolution of sensible gun control, "reduction" has no meaning to the 81 students and staff who were killed during that same period and could have been saved had guns been stopped at the door. And then, tragically, the ban stopped automatically in 2004 because of the Sunset Clause and mass shooting deaths skyrocketed by 49.6 percent, from 81 to 163 student and staff deaths (colleges and universities included) between 2004 and 2018, lives that, again, could have been saved had guns been stopped at the door. How one reconciles the Sunset Clause that operates under desuetude, or obsolescence, is a grievous conundrum. Did the authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban conclude that school shootings in particular would become obsolete after ten years?

The outcry to once again ban assault weapons is no doubt justifiable, especially after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting where an assault rifle was used. However, banning assault rifles is only a small step in protecting students today given that 66 percent of the weapons used in mass shooting (1982 through 2012) were handguns, 16 percent were standard rifles and shotguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as assault weapons. Logically, then, in order to protect kids in schools today, all guns would have to be banned, and over 300 million guns in circulation today would have to be collected and destroyed. And that's just not going to happen.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is another strategy that will help keep school children safe, but past legislative efforts--The Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007--intended to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed have been, for the most part, ineffective simply because each act, in itself, admits shortcomings that require enhancement by a following act, not to mention that the latest act, the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007 was repealed and signed into law on February 28, 2017 by President Trump, thereby rendering the previous acts' mental illness clauses effectively impotent. Today, "[t]he reality is that, in most states, law-enforcement officials often can do nothing to prevent even an obviously troubled person from buying guns, let alone take steps to confiscate guns that the person might already own." At first glance, gun control law after control law that aims to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed points to an evolution of better and better gun control. However, when an act is repealed, the evolutionary chain is broken and "better" is not forthcoming. In that sense, gun control today is in an amoebic state.

Evolution, “a gradual development of something,” works through small incremental changes over long times. America, still young and very much the Wild West, will likely evolve out of a wholesale need for guns like Europe has. Until then--a long time, indeed--and while politicians are forever stuck on the spin cycle advocating, proposing, signing on, and voting for solutions--and then repealing--and while the public at-large hopes and prays, it's time "today" to protect the nation's school children by ensuring that guns are stopped at all entrances by metal detectors, scanners, trained security personnel, et. al. Many will argue that airport and government building security systems in schools is draconian, an extreme. But then so is the death of just one student. That, you cannot argue.

Making America Common

I am a retired high school English teacher and maintain a stake in education because I loved teaching and students, have two school-aged children myself, and understand that effective education forms the bedrock of civilization. It follows that without effective education we run the risk of becoming uncivilized by degrees. Nations mired in poverty, disease, and civil strife all share a lack of effective education if they have any education at all. Whether we like it or not, all of us are inextricably linked in varying degrees. How you are and what you do affects me, and how I am and what I do affects you. Your best self will find me in myriad ways and my best self will find you in as many. The flip side is obvious.

Much controversy surrounds effective education in America. However, before we delve into the controversy, I think we have to first define effective education from the bottom up rather than the top down. Administrators, officials, politicians, and so-called experts attempt to define a process they more or less know in theory but can't know it practice because they are not the ones who stand before students day in and day out for years on end. A few observations and book reads don't make experts in a classroom. Administrators who once taught, quit teaching. Posting recycled hackneyed mission statements in gilt frames, adopting and filing curriculum for curriculum's sake, sitting in on a class or two, and occasionally patting kids on the head is no redemption. Effective education begins in the classroom between teacher and student, all else is descriptive and ancillary. It works like this: A teacher, an expert in their subject who has passion and high expectations, delivers that knowledge to students in a variety of ways appropriate to grade level, in a venue that facilitates and enhances learning, checks and records students' understanding, and opens the door for all members of the education community. This paradigm should be gift wrapped in undying aid from all support systems which includes any system outside the classroom, particularly administrative offices all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But that's rarely, if ever, the case. If the classroom--the students and teacher--is not the top of the hierarchy in practice rather than rhetoric, then learning fails--and it's all too clear that that's what's happening.

Alarm bells sounded, not particularly among an apathetic public, but among politicians, education officials, education experts, and industry leaders in the US when The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), began testing 65 member and non-member nation's 15-year-old students' scholastic performance in mathematics, science, and reading. The test was first performed in 2000 and repeats every three years. The program's aim is to improve education policies and outcomes among participating nations. In 2000, the US ranked an average 17th among the 65 member nations and has since dropped to an average 29th today. Asian countries--China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan--consistently hold within the top 15 spots in all three categories: math, science, and reading. China has been number one in all three categories since 2009. Seems to me that Race to the Top, which prioritizes Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) is much a race to the top of the Great Wall. What about the millions of kids who don't want to run that race--or simply can't?

The faux-fix is Common Core, which is a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy. These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The standards were created to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live. On the surface, Common Core looks good. Who would argue with high academic standards, a hundred percent graduation rate, and success in college and career and "life?" Interestingly, Common Core's logo states "Preparing America's Students for College and Career" but leaves out life, which obviously encompasses myriad other worthwhile and noble pursuits outside college and career. The inclusion of "life" in the CC narrative and not the logo is, to my mind, evidence of an aside and merely PC window dressing. Not all K12 students aspire or have access to a college education. Common Core appears to ignore students who want to be plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, farmers, small business owners, artists of all kinds, food workers, a plethora of other pursuits that don't require a college degree--and the 14.5 million children who live in poverty in the US. It's almost as if the authors of Common Core believe that writing up, codifying, and branding a list of one-size-fits-all academic standards automatically inspires academic pursuit over non-academic pursuit and eliminates the poverty that pushes effective and fair education, much less a college education, out of reach of millions of children. Common Core is a top-down approach that appeases its authors and supporters while blinding them and the public to the underlying issues that have created America's dismal education system: poverty and urban decay, inequality, lack of parental involvement, public apathy, inadequate funding, overcrowded schools, poor teacher training, top-heavy administrations, fraudulent administrations, sports over academics, screen saturated kids, et. al.        

According to Common Core, the state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. I'm curious, have governors, state leaders, state commissioners, chief state school officers, ever taught school? Why are teachers left out of the mix? Common Core states that The Common Core drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts from across the country. However, a perusal of the list of the CC standard's authors shows most of the writers had little K-12 teaching experience--and no current experience--but were, instead, tied to the testing industry, which will obviously profit from national standardized testing--not to mention the profit motive behind corporate America's interest in STEM education, which, at its core, is to prepare all students, including girls and minorities who are underrepresented in these fields, to be proficient in STEM subjects.

There's little doubt that rapid advances in technology require a STEM-educated workforce. However, STEM is inextricably tied to Common Core and Standardized Testing, which necessarily means that millions of kids will have to get over a bar not of their choosing--or one they can't get over at all due mainly to circumstances beyond their control. In fact, in fall 2015 The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tested a representative sample of high school seniors in the 2016 graduating class. After seven years of Common Core curriculum and assessment, the NAEP tests showed the average performance of high school seniors dropped in math and failed to improve in reading from 2013 to 2015. Worse, while scores improved for students in the highest percentile group in reading, they dropped in reading and math for students in the lower percentiles. These were the students that Common Core and the high-stakes testing regime were supposedly designed to support the most. States reporting CC standardized test scores in 2015 show that, on average, 70 percent of students fail the test. One would think that nearly eight years of the Common Core failed experiment would be sufficient proof that it is not the solution to America's dismal education system. How many more students must suffer the indignity of failure, blows to their self-esteem, and injury to their school communities at the hands of bureaucrats who don't know what's best for America's youth?

Common Core's chief problem is advertised in the title itself: Common! What is "common" about a nation where the Founders established a society that would embrace diversity and celebrate the differences that various cultures would bring to the United States? According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "America is a nation of nations, made up of people from every land, of every race and practicing every faith. Our diversity is not a source of weakness; it is a source of strength, it is a source of our success." True, the playing field that is America can be leveled, theoretically, in terms of equality--but it cannot be leveled in terms of ability, proclivity, desire, and dream.

The solution to America's failing education system is far from simple--but, at the very least, the solution should not move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, educators, and school communities, only to put them in the hands of distant bureaucracies who often codify sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voices, concerns, and realities of America's students and communities.



References are available in hyperlinks.

A Well-Regulated Militia?

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults [. . .]." Benjamin Franklin at the closing day of the convention in 1778.

"If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates." George Washington at his farewell address.

May I be so bold.

If we deconstruct the Second Amendment into story form, it becomes clear. The main character is the militia. What's a militia? A militia is a fighting force that is composed of citizens--people if you will--of a nation, state, or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation. What does the main character want to do? It wants to keep the state free and secure. How can the main character accomplish this dangerous and noble challenge? It has to be well-regulated--constrained, governed, inhibited, ruled, controlled, guided, administered--and it has to have guns, or arms. During the American revolutionary period, individuals, called Minutemen, comprised a well-regulated militia who volunteered to be ready for service at a minute's notice, which necessarily required them to keep their "muskets" at home. Today, they are known as the National Guard and they keep their weapons safely locked up in armories.

Considerable fuss has been made over the grammar, punctuation, semantics, and syntax of the Second Amendment, but I trust my story deconstruction is clear enough. If not, I refer you to Mark Moe's (another retired English teacher) A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights.

And then there's that "unorganized militia" thing.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and [. . .] under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

That an "unorganized militia" can be a "well-regulated" militia is a blatant contradiction given that "regulate" (from late Latin; 3rd to 6th century AD) means, among other things, "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" and is inarguably synonymous with "organized."  Is an unorganized militia simply citizens packing guns willy-nilly? If so, doesn't that exclude them from the "right to bear arms," thereby restricting gun ownership to the National Guard and the Naval Militia? If not, what would be the purpose of an "unorganized militia" given that states have a national guard?

Is there any need for an "unorganized militia" in the 21st century? It's highly unlikely and imprudent to believe that a foreign conventional force could successfully invade the US, and I rather doubt civilian gun wielders could thwart a nuclear attack (Picture a guy/gal with a Glock firing away at an incoming ICBM), not to mention the US has the best military in the world fully capable of defending America (Civilian gun wielders would just be in the way). As you will no doubt remember, the Japanese tried invading America in 1942 when the US military was more or less fledgling and we all know how that ended. That was seventy-two years ago! No one's tried it since.

True, terrorism is always a threat, but terrorism--as we have seen--is typically carried out in stealth and with explosive devices. Thwarting such attacks is the bailiwick of the clandestine intelligence community and they have apparently done a fair job given the paucity of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Gun-toting citizens do not possess sophisticated intelligence gathering capability, and even if they did, they do not have the mobility to intercept terrorists before they have struck.

That pretty much ascribes an unorganized militia's mission to one of self-defense or the defense of neighbors or bystanders, but given that in 2015 there were 20,885 gun injuries and 10,293 non-suicidal gun deaths suggests that the "unorganized" militia is powerless against criminal elements who naturally use the element of surprise as an "organizational" method. In other words, in matters of self-defense or the defense of fellow citizens, one would have to be at the ready--wide awake, loaded gun drawn, patrolling neighborhoods, highways, and byways 24/7 (the domain of law enforcement)--which would also put family, friends, neighbors, and bystanders at risk of accidental shooting. It happens often, we know, and, unfortunately, to your own children. "While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception and doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot." Better to invest in a security system, pack pepper spray, and get a noisy dog.

For those of you who will echo that "guns save lives" as per the NRA and The National Rifleman, I refer you to http://content.time.com/.../article/0,9171,152446,00.html. 

What about those private organizations that include paramilitary or similar groups who refer to themselves as militia, unorganized militia, and constitutional militia? According to historian Mark Pitcavage, "The militia movement is a right-wing movement that arose following controversial standoffs in the 1990s. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, anti-government Posse Comitatus. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled (antithesis of "well-regulated") by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the 'tyranny' is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order. The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations." Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist who detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people and injuring over 600, was a member of The Patriot Movement, a militia group "centered on a belief that individual liberties are in jeopardy due to unconstitutional actions taken by elected government officials, appointed bureaucrats, and some special interest groups outside of government, to illegally accumulate power." 

A cursory search of standoffs between militia groups and law enforcement will reveal that so-called militiamen abandoned defense of the radical groups they intended to protect or gave up peacefully when confronted by law enforcement, which suggests that militiamen are less interested in fighting for freedom than they are in playing Rambo on weekends for the sake of bravado. Those who step out of their fantasies run the risk of ending up like Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in 2001, or like his accomplice, Terry Nichols, who is serving consecutive 161 life sentences without possibility of parole. Join up if you like--but I suspect you have better things to do.

Americans now have the right to own guns NOT because of any provision in the Second Amendment but because some Supreme Court Justices claim to know the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution. The meaning of the Second Amendment is not self-evident, which is why it gives rise to much debate. My guess is that the Framers intended for the Second Amendment to be enigmatic--or it wouldn't be--so that posterity could argue the merits of gun ownership in a way that would be judicious in their own time, in a way that would ensure "domestic tranquility." That the United States has the highest rate of gun related deaths per capita among developed countries (though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership) is a long way from judiciousness and tranquility. That, you cannot argue.

America, however, is young yet, still very much the "wild west" relative to Europe, and a work in progress. Civilization tends toward greater human flourishing, and I have no doubt that America will evolve out of its need for guns.