Onion: "Future U.S. History Students: 'It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage'"

Here is an article from The Onion I read a week or two ago, and it took me a while to post it.  It is funny as always, and more importantly, it does speaks some truth.  There will be a day where U.S. History students will wonder why the hell it took so long to legalize gay marriage, just like students today question why the hell it took so long to end slavery or give equal rights to African-Americans.  As someone who teaches an American social studies class, I can tell you that students do question these things.  My favorite passage:

Mr. Bernard, 58, told the class that he himself could remember how in the 2030s gay marriage was still a somewhat touchy subject in certain parts of the country.

"It's true," said Mr. Bernard, gesturing to a holographic projection of late-20th/early-21st-century antigay preacher Fred Phelps on the classroom's V-screen. "Most people had come around by the time I was your age, of course, but you would still read and hear things about how certain people in New Washington were trying to overturn the court's ruling. Hard to imagine anyone being that adamant about gays not marrying, but those were different times."

"In fact, I remember President Romney even gave this speech once calling gay marriage 'an issue that continues to divide many in our nation, including myself,'" Mr. Bernard continued. "Of course, that was before his openly gay son, Craig, served four terms as president a couple decades later."

 The last paragraph of the article really depresses me, mainly because I afraid it might be true:

After concluding the week's examination of the history of gay marriage rights, classroom sources in the year 2083 said they would be moving on to the topic of how their grandparents' generation was too late to do anything about global warming.

Movies 2010

Picture from iStockphoto

Tonight is the Oscars, and being a complete film buff (some would say movie snob), I have decided to look back at the films of 2010 with this post.  You may be wondering a few things.  First, most people do their film review of 2010 at the end of 2010, and it is almost March 2011.  Very true, but I don't get to see some of the previous year until the early into the next year.  Often times, it takes award shows that come after the new year for a film that is worth watching to get known.  Also, it is often the case that when a film comes out, it is in limited release and doesn't open at the local theater until January or February.  I allow myself some time to catch up on what I can and then give my favorites. 

By the way, I haven't seen every film of 2010.  Not even close.  I am a teacher, so I don't have the time to go out and see every film.  Therefore, what I discuss here is based on the 30-40 or so films I saw last year. 

Finally, I realize this is generally an education and current events blog.  But there is more to my interests in life than that, and I have never set out to put limitations in what I would discuss on this blog.  Films are a real passion of mine, and I don't mind using this blog to discuss them (it's my blog, and I'll do what I wanna).  I have even thought about doing my own film reviews on this blog, and I still haven't ruled that out yet.

In any case, directly below are my Top 10 films of 2010.  As I said, there are many films I did not see in 2010, so that may be why certain movies did not make the less.  Nonetheless, here is the list of the best movies I did see:

 

Picture from Screen Rant

1) The Social Network
2) Black Swan
3) The King’s Speech
4) Inception
5) Shutter Island
6) The Town
7) Winter's Bone
8) Restrepo
9) Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
10) Dinner For Schmucks

Picture fromDigital Daily

Next, here is the list of who I think SHOULD win Oscars tonight, not my prediction who will win.  As far as best picture goes, I have no idea who it will go to (it will, of course, be between The Social Network and The King's Speech).  In any case, here are my personal picks:


Best Picture: The Social Network
Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech
Best Actress: Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Best Director: Darren Aronoksfy, Black Swan (Won't Win Though)
Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
Original Screenplay: David Seidler, The King's Speech
Best Documentary: Restrepo
Most Deserving Production Category Nominee: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, The Social Network (Music-Original Score)

Finally, here is a list of miscellaneous awards of my own.
 
Worst Movie: Alice in Wonderland
Funniest Movie: (Tie) Dinner For Schmucks/Hot Tub Time Machine
Best Action Movie: Inception
Best Drama: The Social Network
Saddest Movie: Restrepo
Best Action Sequence: Fight scene in the dream hotel, Inception
Best Suspense Film: Inception
WTF Movie of the Year: Black Swan
Best Love Scene: Natalie Porman and Mila Kunis, Black Swan
Funniest Scene: Hotel room, drug-induced fight scene, Get Him To The Greek
Best Romantic Comedy: Scott Pilgrim vs The World (hey, technically, it is a romantic comedy)
Best 3D Movie: Jackass 3D (OK, this was the only 3D movie I watched this year)
Biggest Oscar Snub: Emma Stone, Easy A (Best Actress Category)
Honorary Mention:  Winter's Bone.  I mention it because I come from rural Missouri, where this film is shot and takes place.  Now, I do come from central Missouri, and the film takes place in southern Missouri in the Ozarks.  Still, I am familiar enough with the life and culture of the area, and am quite impressed how authentic it looks.  In addition, one of the major roles in the film was given to a local wire-cutter in one of the towns near-by.  Kudos to Hollywood on this one!

A Video for Sunday

Since the Oscars are tonight, I wanted to find a good speech or moment from a movie for this week's clip.  This seemed like a pretty good choice.  Here is the great Charlie Chaplin way ahead of his time in The Great Dictator which parodies Adolph Hitler.  At the time of release (1940), the United States had not entered World War II yet, and was still at peace with Nazi Germany.  Chaplin knew what Hitler and Fascism were really about, and made this movie at a time when the rest of the world outside of Europe was only starting to realize what evil he stood for.  The speech is quite inspirational, and I feel its words are still appropriate in today's world. 

I am Proud To Be in a Union!

 

Make no mistake about it, what is going on with the protests in Wisconsin is a very BIG DEAL!  

OK, so it is not as dramatic as what is going on countries like Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Tunisia.  Some have wanted  to compare Governor Walker to Mubarak or Gadafi, and compare the protests in Madison to the protests Tahrir Square.  These are not the same thing.  Not even close.  Anyone who compares Walker to Mubarak, or Hitler, or any other dictator are blowing things way out of proportion.  And no one who is protesting in Madison is risking their lives like the people protesting in Northern Africa or the Middle East.

Now that I have that out of the way, let's get back to the point that what is going on in Madison is still a BIG DEAL!  Make no mistake, what Governor Walker is trying to do is more than just a save money in the Wisconsin budget.  It is not as if the public-employee unions in Wisconsin are just being selfish, and aren't willing to compromise. Everyone understands these are hard times for state budgets, and the unions in Wisconsin have acknowledged this.   But what Walker is trying to do is bust the public-sector unions in the state of Wisconsin.  

This story is not only about the future of unions in Wisconsin, but it is also the beginning of a greater battle for the future of unions in the United States.  By no means are unions perfect, and I will not pretend that every union that has ever existed has fairly represented the interests of it's members.  Indeed, I will not pretend that I don't have some issues with the union I belong to.  Nonetheless, I understand that the value of unions are too important, and I am still damn proud to be a member of a union.  All things considered, unions are really the only groups left of any relative influence in our political process that can claim to stand up for the interests of working Americans, and not big business.  

 Why are unions so important?  Well, here is a video put out a few years ago by a group in Australia regarding some of the things unions have fought for over the years.  Some of what is discussed are exclusive to Australia, but a number of these things exist in the United States as well because of unions.

Last week, Rachel Maddow did a piece on her show about why the story in Wisconsin is so important to the future of labor, and why unions are so important to our republic, both now and throughout modern American history. 

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 Finally, I recommend this piece by Paul Krugman on the situation in Wisconsin.  Here is an excerpt:

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.
There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.

As I am writing this, I worry that someone who comes across this piece might think I am writing some type of left-wing propaganda.  Yes, I am a proud liberal, and I am sourcing two very prominent American liberals in this post (Maddow, Krugman).  But please, if you are reading this, I hope you will look at the bigger picture of what is going on with this story, regardless of what your politics are.  This is one of those issues that is beyond left and right.  It is more than a state budgetary matter.  It is about the influence of big business and corporations, and the future of working class Americans.  Whatever your politics are, if you are a working American, I ask you to understand the importance of this story.  Then, Get Mad!  Then, Get United!

A Video for Sunday

Here is one of my all-time favorite music videos.  Pearl Jam teamed with Spawn creator Todd McFarlane in 1998 to show a very dark, grim view of humanity.  WARNING: This video contains lots of disturbing images.

Poverty, PISA, and the Myth About Public Schools in America and Around the World

Photo from Space Goddess

Recently in his Class Struggle blog, Jay Matthews has taken on two conventional myths about public education.  The first myth is that at one time, American schools were great and in recent years, they have greatly declined.  The truth is, as Matthews cites Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute, is that we were never that great, nor are we now that bad.  American schools have always been mediocre.  We have based traditionally based the success of American schools on test scores like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).  On such test scores, American students have always scored less than stellar on such comparative tests, even as far back as the 1960s.  While this is not really a good thing, this does not suggest that America, or American schools, are inferior to others around the world.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been one of the world's superpowers.  We have been the world's dominant country in both economics and military power.  While I would argue that there are better ways to measure the success and well-being of a country, it certainly can't be said that because we have never ranked that great on standardized tests, that we are are some how an inferior nation that struggles compared to the rest of the industrialized world. 

Picture from Finland Educational Guide 

The second myth that Matthew's looks at is that other countries around the world have superior schools because they test better.  These countries include schools such as China, India, and the country many consider to have the top education system in the world, Finland.  While there is certainly a lot to laud about Finnish schools, their superiority in test scores is actually something that is of great debate currently in Finland.  

Loveless is less dismissive of Finland, which has been scoring well for several years. But he says Americans who love the Finnish model of paying teachers higher salaries, decentralizing authority over educational decisions and eschewing high-stakes standardized testing should tune into the debate the Finns are having about their schools. 

Finnish children were doing well on international tests before those reforms were adopted. That suggests that cultural and societal factors might be the more likely reason for their success. Many Finnish mathematicians say that the country is catering too much to PISA, which emphasizes word problems and practical applications of math, and neglecting to prepare students for college math. 

Loveless says more than 200 university mathematicians in Finland petitioned the education ministry to complain of students increasingly arriving in their classrooms poorly prepared. "Knowledge of fractions and algebra were singled out as particularly weak areas," Loveless says. 

 So the reason that Finland tests so well on international scores is because there education system is geared towards testing well.  That alone doesn't make their schools more superior than other countries, and in point of fact, is the topic of great debate in Finland.  This same point was made by both Diane Ravitch and the Wall Street Journal a month ago about China's schools.  As Ravitch writes:

In The Wall Street Journal, Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, lamented that those high scores were purchased by sacrificing such qualities as independence, curiosity, and individuality. Even educators in Shanghai, he wrote, recognize that the singular devotion to test scores was "producing competent mediocrity."  

 In the quote from Matthews above on Finnish schools, I highlighted a sentence that he wrote, but really didn't explain.  That being about "cultural and societal factors" as one explanation why Finland does so well in schools.  What are those factors exactly?  Well, I believe Ravitch stumbled upon the problem in her piece:

The other salient factor about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates. 

In recent years, we have become accustomed to hearing prominent reformers like Secretary Duncan, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein say that reference to poverty is just making excuses for bad teachers and bad schools. But there is plenty of evidence that poverty affects students' readiness to learn. It affects their health, their nutrition, their attendance, and their motivation. Being hungry and homeless distracts students and injures their health; living in an environment where drugs and violence are commonplace affects children's interest in academics. Living in communities where many stores and homes are boarded up, and where incarceration rates are very high, affects children's sense of possibility and their willingness to plan for the future. 

Researchers for the National Association for Secondary School Principals disaggregated the PISA results by income and made some stunning discoveries. Take a look at this link ("PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid"). It shows that American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels. Thus, the picture painted by doomsayers about American education is false in this respect. We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty. Poverty depresses school achievement because it hurts children, families, and communities.

Picture from China Smack 

 The truth of the matter is that, all things considered, American schools are no worse than most countries around the world.  If anything, our schools as they exist in many neighborhoods are just as capable of outperforming schools in Finland, China, or any other industrialized nation.  There certainly are things that our country can do better to improve the quality of schools and education as a whole.  But the main reason that a school district usually struggles to begin with is poverty.  The reason that inner-city school districts struggles with lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, violence, increased teen pregnancy, and so on is because of the poverty that most of the students and their parents live in.  Everyone knows this is the case, and has known it for years.  For all of the well-being and economic success our country has had compared to the rest of the world, poverty (and all of the societal problems that are linked to it) is the great albatross around America's neck.

I find it interesting that so-called education reformers believe the key to fighting poverty in inner-cities today is battling teacher unions, funding charter schools over public schools, and narrowing the curriculum to focus mainly on reading and math test scores.  While I am sure most of them have good intentions in their actions, their policies will only make things worse for our country.  They are hurting public schools in inner cities, and treating them as if they are the source of so many problems.  True, inner city schools have serious issues, but it is not public schools as a whole that is the source.  Wealthier, suburban districts with low poverty rates don't seem to have the same problems that these school districts have, and those schools have teacher unions, and government regulation.  It seems that so much money and energy that the reformers spend on fighting unions and opening charter schools could go to the root of the problem to begin with.  There are better ways to improve public schools and fight poverty than the current conventional thinking by reformers.

Colbert Takes On Those Evil Children

A judge in New York says a four year-old can be sued for negligence.  Colbert explains why small children are really little sociopaths.  I am sure the bleeding hearts out there will say something like, "Oh, their brains aren't developed enough to understand the complexities of blah, blah, blah . . ."  Colbert takes these so called "experts" down a notch.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Enemy Within - Toddler Edition
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Could Iran Be The Next Egypt?

The last time I wrote about Egypt, Mubarak said he wouldn't run for office in September, but he wasn't stepping down either.  I wrote that it wouldn't be a matter of if, but when Mubarak stepped down from power.  Now, of course, Mubarak is gone, and the question everyone is asking is "what is next for Egypt"?  For the time being, we should allow Egypt to have their moment.  The people of Egypt have earned this after 30 years of corrupt and dictatorial rule.

 

Photo from The Atlantic Council 

Just so people remember that blood was shed in this revolution, here is a website to remember those that died during the protests of the past few weeks.

Another question people are asking is, "Who Is Next?"  Based on the events in both Egypt and Tunisia, some believe that pro-democracy movements will continue to spread across Muslim and Middle Eastern countries.  One country that has naturally been mentioned as a possibility of a new revolution taking place is Iran.  While I don't want to make any presumptions, it would not be so crazy at this stage to suggest a pro-democracy revolution could take place there.  If you are not familiar with the Green Uprising after the 2009 elections in Iran, familiarize yourself NOW.  For starters, here is the Wikipedia web page to look at explaining the events.

 

Photo from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish

 

And according to news sources, it appears that anti-government protests are already being planned for Monday in Tehran.  Again, I don't want to be presumptuous, but revolution in Iran is not out of the question.

 

I understand that from a strategic, foreign policy standpoint, there is not much President Obama can do (nor should he do).  However, there really is nothing more American than what is going on across the world today.  While these are different times, and these revolutions are taking places in different parts of the world for their own unique causes, I can't help but think of the American revolution whenever I see Tahrir Square or the Green Uprising.  The following words from our Declaration of Independence seem so applicable to what is going on today:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

On a side note, to those in the Tea Party who compare themselves to the Minutemen and think the Obama Administration is oppressing you and infringing upon your rights, I have this to say: Go talk to someone who has lived under the Mubarak regime or who lives in Iran, and compare and contrast what life is like for them and for you.  See who really has it rough.

Finally, check out this video in support of the Green Uprising in Iran.  While I am not a big fan of this particular Muse song, I do enjoy the video and the passion it evokes.

What is an IEP?

 

Photo from SenseAbillities, LLC

As a special education teacher, I really have two jobs. One job is everything that goes along with being a teacher (lesson plans, grading papers, actual teaching, etc.). The other job is being a case manager for students who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP). And while I personally enjoy the "teaching" job more than I do the case manager job, being an IEP case manager is just as important (if not more so) than the actual teaching job. So what exactly is an IEP?  The Special Education Advisor website explains:

An IEP is an Individualized Education Program for children who qualify for special education services by their local public school district.  It is not an Individual Education Plan.  Why isn’t it a Plan?  As the old saying goes, “plans are made to be broken!”  A program on the other hand must be followed!!  Congress in their infinite wisdom got this one right.  It is a legally binding document that must be followed to the letter of the law and tailored to meet your child’s unique needs.

  The article goes into further detail on what is included in the IEP.  I would say this is a pretty good summary.  However, I will respectfully disagree with one statement they make:

While no one member of the IEP team is the most important, and the process works the best when it’s a collaborative effort, parent participation is considered crucial.

I would actually say that parents and students are the most important part of an IEP team.  Parents and students (if they are old enough) are the ones who will end up having the final say as far as what goes into an IEP. 

A Video for Sunday

Richard Dawkins uses a piano to show the vastness of natural history.



By the way, a late Happy Darwin Day to everyone!

Glenn Beck's Wet Dream Come To Life

Also check out the Forgotten Man.  It is a doozy!  These images are by Jon McNaughton who Slate calls "the official artist of the Tea Party".

An image that reflects what is considered "average"

 

Description of the picture from The Agitator:

  

So this image purports to be a series of composites of the average woman from various countries and ethnicities. I was struck by how attractive they all are. This makes some sense when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective. But I think it’s also a little surprising because it’s not how we typically use the word average.

My thoughts exactly.   

A Crisis in American Biology Classrooms

 

Picture from Baloo's Cartoon Blog

This should be alarming to all who love science and truthfullness in education:

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise.

It is one thing for teachers to want to avoiding offending the beliefs of students, but it should not come at the expense of the truth.  End of discussion!

Medicine and ADHD

Picture from American Family Rights

I have been having a friendly debate with Lisa Nielsen over at the Innovative Educator blog recently about the use of medicine in children in ADHD. To paraphrase Nielsen's position the best way I can: pharmaceutical companies and doctors sponsored by big pharma are promoting the use of drugging children with ADHD, and profiting off of it. It is not that ADHD isn't a real disorder, but Nielsen believes that the real problem besides the influence of big pharma are that schools are too boring to keep the interest of students who have ADHD. So, rather than change the way lessons are taught, schools encourage parents to go to doctors, who will then put them on medication. Although I don't recall her saying anything like "medicine should NEVER be used on children with ADHD", that is what she seems to imply from everything I read from her on this subject. If I am incorrect in stating her position, I am sure Lisa Nielsen will correct me, as she should.

This debate of ours first started when I shared a story on a Ken Livingston video about changing the paradigm of education in America. I originally saw the video on Ms. Nielsen's website.   I said that while I agreed with Livingston's general arguments, I disagreed with the proposition that giving ADHD medication to children was one of society's more serious problems (I probably should have worded that with a little more detail and clarification). We debated this subject on Twitter, which inspired her to respond with a post dedicated to this subject. She has recently discussed this subject again on her blog here. Nielsen readily admits she is not a medical expert, but she does cite several medical experts who do say ADHD medication prescription to children is a serious problem. Nielsen herself says she either has ADHD, or likely has it, and has personal experience to draw upon.

I will admit I do not have the list of resources and articles that she does. I am sure if I took enough time to do the research, I could find lots support for the position that ADHD medication is a safe and effective option for treatment of ADHD in youth. All I am going to do is draw upon my own personal experience as someone who as ADHD practically his whole life.

I do not remember what age I was diagnosed with ADHD, nor do I remember when I started taking medication. The likely cause of my ADHD came from a series of seizures I had as a baby which were the result of negative reactions my body had from a particular childhood vaccination. I get the irony that I used one type of medication to help treat a medical condition that I received from another type of medication, but I digress. It wasn't just "boring schools" that my ADHD negatively effected, though it most certainly had an negative effect there.

My parents were often afraid to take me out in public because I might run around, decide to fiddle around or break expensive items in stores, or get lost. While listening to directions from adults can be difficult for any group of children, it was especially difficult for me. I am not referring to directions at school, but at fun, social events where instructions are often quite clear for most children. Instructions were often given in short, simple steps in subjects that were interesting to the children there (including myself), and often involved using one's hands or engaging in physical activity (day camps, scouting activities, athletics, etc).  Even then, my ADHD got in the way, and I would end up being confused with what I was supposed to do.  I would look quite foolish to my peers, and a great feeling ashamed happened because of this.

ADHD also effected my social upbringing. I was a very socially awkward child and had trouble making friends as a kids. There could be a number of other explanations for this, and I won't delve into most of those here (I don't want to use this blog as a personal therapy session more than I already am). But one reason for my social awkwardness was certainly my ADHD.  My impulsivity would cause me to instantly blurt things out whenever they came to my head.  What I said would often come out at inappropriate times, and the content of what I said could range from completely off-topic, to incredibly embarrassing statements and revelations.

As I said above, I don't remember when I took medication, but I know it was at a very young age (I am guessing around 6 years old or so).  I realize that all kids have a low attention span at that age, but mine was unusually poor for my age.  So much so, that it cause all of the problems I described in the preceding paragraphs.  And I know that growing up, medication did not stop all of my problems with ADHD.  It was not panacea for treating my ADHD.  I did received plenty of help and support from my parents, my special education teachers, and the few friends I had who were willing to look past my socially awkward behavior.  As I got into my teenage years, my parents and I wondered if it weren't perhaps time to go off of the medication.  We consulted with a physician, and I tried life without it.  I gave myself enough time to see if it could work, and it was a mess without the medication.  I soon went back on medication, and my problems immediately subsided

At this point in my life, I have full confidence that ADHD medication has been a positive factor in treating my ADHD, and I am better off because of it.  As I just metioned, it was not a panacea, and I also benefited greatly from lots of help and support from others.  However, I believe that my ADHD was so severe in my childhood that I would have been lost.  Not only would I have done more poorly in schools, but I believe my social skills, and capacity to do everyday life skills would have greatly suffered without the aid of medication.  I would rather not think about how my life could have turned out.

Now that I have gotten my story out the way, let me clarify some positions that I have on this subject.  Let me be clear: not every child that ADHD should be treated with medication.  Indeed, oftentimes, there aren't differences (in either behavior or academics) between ADHD children who take medicine and those who don't.  In fact, there are even times that children who take medication cannot handle the side effects of said medicine, and are better off without it.

I also worry greatly about the over-diagnosis of ADHD by physicians and psychologists, and the influence that pharmaceutical companies have had in promoting these drugs.  There is no doubt that for all of the good these companies can do with their medicine, they also benefit from profiteering and corruption.  This has lead to a major increase in the pushing of pill prescriptions that are either unnecessary, dangerous, or both. 

Finally, American schools are boring, and do not suit well for students with low-attention spans.  In fact, they don't even suit that well for students who don't fit into the traditional setting and methods of public schooling (pencil/paper/lecture/book/etc).  I am guilty of sometimes teaching in such a manner in my classroom, and I wish that we had more of a teaching culture that would look beyond such traditional methods.  It not as if we don't have good places to start.

When it comes to treating ADHD, I just don't believe that medication should be off the table.  It all comes down to having options.  The use of medication should be made by parents and their children if they are old enough to make reasonable decisions (with the advice and input of doctors).  I have benefited from the use of childhood medication as a treatment, and I know others who have as well.

A Video for Sunday

A hilarious spin on a song I used to sing at church growing up.

Evolution Made Us All from Ben Hillman on Vimeo.

The White Stripes: 1997-2011

RIP.  Rock music in the 2000s might have really sucked if it weren't for you.  A couple of songs to remember them by:

Global Warming Contributes to Snow Storms. No, Really.

 

Photo by David Eulitt/Kansas City Star

Right now, many parts of the country has either been hit, or is being hit with major winter snowstorms and blizzards.  This includes the Kansas City area where I live.  There are people who think that because of these massive winter storms, global warming is a myth.  Some of you might think Bill O'Reilly.  Actually O'Reilly does believe global warming is real, but did jokingly say recently that he he needs to call Al Gore to explain all of this snow.  Well, Al Gore responded in a piece to Huffington Post by quoting Clarence Paige in the Chicago Tribune:

"In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow."

"A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species."

History in Egypt, Part II

Photo from Huffington Post

It is now a matter of not if, but when Hosni Mubarak will step down as President of Egypt.  Everyone knows it, including the United States.  This is what he get's for three decades of economic neglect, torture (NSFW Video), suppressing democracy, and corruption.  Frankly, this says it all:

Photo from The Daily Dish

With this fact essentially established, the next obvious question is "What's next?"  We know there are numerous possibilities.  Some, including myself, worry that Muslim Brotherhood or another Islamic fundamentalist organization will try and establish a theocratic regime like in Iran.  

Others wonder if Mubarak's new, Vice President Omar Suleiman, will take the reign and essentially rule as Mubarak: Part II.  But given his well-known allegiance to Mubarak, this seems highly unlikely at this time:  

"Mubarak and Suleiman are the same person," said Emile Nakhleh, a former top Middle East analyst for the CIA. "They are not two different people in terms of ideology and reform." 

And for the sake of human rights, let's hope Suleiman is not a serious option.  As head of Egypt's intelligence agency, he helped oversee the torture of suspected Al Qaeda to help the Bush Administration justify the invasion of Iraq.  He also assisted with the the CIA's international "interrogation" policy known as rendition.

Another option that has been mentioned is a surprising leader of the opposition movement: Mohamed ElBaradei.  He is certainly a capable and distinguished enough of an individual, and may end up being the best option there is.  But the fact that he has spent most of his career outside of Egypt may not settle well with some of his countrymen who consider this a nationalist Egyptian uprising. 

Whatever happens, there is a lot at steak in who takes over in Egypt.  Not just for Egypt itself, but for the Middle East as a whole.  The one major upside to the Mubarak regime has been the continued peace between Egypt and Israel.  At this time, Israel is very nervous about what is going to happen, and rightly so:

If Hosni Mubarak’s regime is replaced by a new anti-Israel, anti-western government, the Jewish state’s only remaining strategic allies in the Middle East will be the Palestinian Authority and Jordan.

That’s enough to give any Israeli government nightmares.

Many progressives in America, including myself, have always felt the United States should do a better job of putting pressure on Israel to treat the Palestinians in a more humane manner.  At the same time, the United States should continue to look out for the interests and security of Israel so they are not an open target for hostile enemies in the region.  Finally, the United States needs to take a a proactive and positive relationship with the Egyptian opposition for the sake of peace and stability in the region.  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has it spot on in a New York Times Op-Ed piece:

Given the events of the past week, some are criticizing America’s past tolerance of the Egyptian regime. It is true that our public rhetoric did not always match our private concerns. But there also was a pragmatic understanding that our relationship benefited American foreign policy and promoted peace in the region. And make no mistake, a productive relationship with Egypt remains crucial for both us and the Middle East. 

To that end, the United States must accompany our rhetoric with real assistance to the Egyptian people. For too long, financing Egypt’s military has dominated our alliance. The proof was seen over the weekend: tear gas canisters marked “Made in America” fired at protesters, United States-supplied F-16 jet fighters streaking over central Cairo. Congress and the Obama administration need to consider providing civilian assistance that would generate jobs and improve social conditions in Egypt, as well as guarantee that American military assistance is accomplishing its goals — just as we are trying to do with Pakistan through a five-year nonmilitary assistance package.

Allow me to recommend three other good sources of information on the situation in Egypt:

• In his newest column in Slate, Christopher Hitchens gives his take.  As only Hitch can do, he writes eloquently about the plight of the people's desire for change in Egypt.
• Sharif Abdel Kouddous continues his outstanding coverage of Egypt on yesterday's Democracy Now.  As I said before, follow him on Twitter if you are on there and care at all about this situation (especially if you are interested in hearing an Egyptian perspective).
• Finally, I would like to show the video I showed to my Social Studies class yesterday to inform them on the situation in Egypt.  While my students generally have little or no interest in international affairs, they were stunned  and intrigued at this footage.  After the video, I heard one of my students refer to Mubarak with not so nice language.  While I had to jump on him for use of profanity in my classroom, I enjoyed the passion with which he felt (that is partially why I became a teacher).  If you teach a Social Studies class, and have the technology in your room, I highly recommend playing this for your students, and having a classroom discussion afterwords:

UPDATE NOTE: As I was completing this post, Mubarak has announced he will not run for election. But we already knew this would happen. Let's see what happens next.