Thoughts On Trump (and the other candidates)

One of my last lectures/class discussions in my AP US History class last year was looking ahead to the 2016 election. I tried to fit pictures of all of the declared and likely Republican candidates on one PowerPoint slide, kind of pyramid style, with the "important" ones on top with bigger pictures and the less important ones at the bottom. As an afterthought I put a silly little picture of Donald Trump at the very bottom. My students and I had a quick laugh and we moved on to a more serious discussion. No Republican is laughing now. (By the way, I also had to explain who the hell Bernie Sanders was and the students had a laugh at his disheveled photo and then we discussed Hillary's democratic coronation. That conversation would go differently now as well).

For months now media types from all parts of the spectrum (MSNBC to right wing talk radio) have been predicting Trump's demise. This is a joke, right? People are supporting him because he's entertaining, but they wouldn't really vote for him, right? According to the media experts, every misstep is the end of Trump. Out of the gate with his illegal immigrants are rapists ("somebody's doing the raping, Don!") talk. John McCain isn't a hero because he got captured. Stupid statements like these should sink most candidates. Only his poll numbers actually go up after each of these supposed screw ups.

I believe a poll earlier in the week had Trump at 25% in a field of now 17 Republicans, the closest to him was Jeb, behind him by double digits.

Trump is not going away, and I'll tell you why. First, he has a limitless bankroll, and doesn't need to depend on begging for donations to keep his campaign afloat. It can all be self-financed, a la Ross Perot in '92. (In fact, I would not be surprised if Trump starts buying 30 minutes slots in prime time to present his case. Just wait. That is coming.) Secondly, he is a celebrity who knows media. He is the most media savvy candidate on either side. Third, he doesn't have to fight for headlines. He steps on the street and it is a CNN lead. The media is Trump-crazy (not fawning over him like they did Obama, but they can't get enough of him, and that is all he needs). And he is in command when dealing with the press. Did you see the interview he did with Anderson Cooper recently? He mandhandled Cooper. Totally controlled the interview, to the point to where Cooper was trying to point out to Trump where he (Cooper) had in fact been complimentary of Trump in the past. A leading newpaper in Iowa recently editorialized that he should drop from the race, he simply banished any journalist from the paper from any of his events. He doesn't need them like the other candidates do. It matters less that much of what Trump says makes no sense (a wall will be built on the border and Mexico will pay for it!) What matters is when he appears on television he is in command. He has sucked the air out of the Republican race. Rand Paul was reduced to taking a chainsaw to the tax code and Lindsey Graham had to make an SNL-like short getting rid of his cell phone just to get TV time.

Something a little less obvious. Even though I agree more with establishment Republicans, I know how the right wing thinks because I listen to a lot of talk radio. They despise the Boehner/McCain Republicans. They feel like the mainstream media is a Left Wing conspiracy. So the more the establishment Republican Party and the mainstream media tries to dismiss Trump or take him down, the more support he will garner from the right. His "straight talk" style is an aphrodisiac to the angry, politician hating Tea Party/right wing types. And they are loudest in the primaries. Something Trump and Sanders have in common, by the way, is that they have tapped into a Populist anger out there combined with a straight shooter persona when skepticism about politicians is high. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but the populist roots are close to the same. Trump has also mined that old nativist tradition in American politics that has popped up periodically, from the early 1800's, the 1920's, and other periods. The fear that new immigrants ain't like the older immigrants, they will ruin our great nation with their crime, strange beliefs and dangerous political ideologies.

But would Trump get support in the general election? He obviously would have trouble with the Hispanic vote. That is a real issue because it is a crucual demographic for the Republicans in the future. And as I have commented in the past, there are many segments of the Hispanic community that lines up very nicely with Republican values, both social and economic. It is an issue of messaging. Trump has done real damage in that crucual effort. But if Trump were to force his nomination on a cowering Republican establishment, what's their alternative? Vote for Hillary? The hatred for Hillary is so strong that it will bring out much of the Republican base, Tea Party and establishment. (Much like Reagan's 1980 victory was as much an anti-Carter vote as it was for Reagan). The real question is whether Trump could get independent votes, the ones that now determine general elections. His favorables are not strong with independents, but he has time and has exceeded expectations thus far.

This is a fascinating race even without Trump. There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable. I predict that in the end, Biden will jump in and give Hillary a real race on the Democratic side. People don't like Hillary. Polls indicate that over 50% of the American public sees her as untrustworthy. Benghazi and the email scandal are not going away and they shouldn't. She is a terrible campaigner. Her speeches are shrill and dripping with insincerity and poll tested lines. Are you willing to listen to four to eight years of that? Even most Democrats are just lukewarm on her. The alternative to Hillary, until Biden gets in? Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What about the other 16 Republicans? That is sort of the shame here. There are some very good candidates on the Republican side. There is a website with a questionnaire on issues, go here, and there are others out there as well. It matches you up by percentage with all of the candidates based on how your responses match up with their positions. Probably not an exact science, since candidates positions can slip all over the place, but it is fun. I had my students all do it. If you do it, make sure to adjust the priority meter, it makes a difference in the results. Anyway, my results were what I thought they would be. John Kasich was my highest match, followed by Chris Christie. Jeb was fairly high. Hillary was in the middle, by the way, and Ted Cruz was dead last. When I did it in the spring, Trump wasn't an option.

I don't see Kasich or Christie winning the nomination, though. Nor do I see Trump winning it, but the fact that he is in the serious conversation would have been laughable six months ago. Odds on favorites are still Jeb or Scott Walker in the end, and either one should pick Marco Rubio for VP candidate.

However things eventually turn out, the first Republican debate next week is now must see TV, with The Donald front and center.

And one other thing Trump has. He has the nuclear option of running as an independent if the Republican Party "doesn't treat him right". Like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, that guarantees a Democrat president for the next four years. And the Republicans know it.

Youth Politics

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." Attributed to Winston Churchill, but he probably never said it. Sounds good anyway. As a teacher of AP students in U.S. History, I naturally get into politically charged issues all of the time. If you teach history, you've got to get into the muck. One of the things that I do in the first week of class is give them an issues self-diagnostic survey that when scored they can place themselves along the right-left political continuum. I find that even at the end of the year, they still remember the activity and where they ended up.

Throughout the year, they often ask me what I think of various hot button political issues, or even generally where I fall along the spectrum. I pride myself in remaining as neutral as possible, giving fair treatment of all sides of the issues and allowing them to decide for themselves. I tell them I don't really care which side they pick on almost anything, as long as they can back it up with argument. I think I do a good job, because throughout the year they think they have me pegged, and they are all over the map: "you're a Republican," "you're a Democrat," "you're a commie," "you're a fascist." I usually get that last one after giving them a particularly difficult exam.

I do feel like I owe them an honest answer, since they are so open in class about their own beliefs throughout the year. So each year I always make them a deal. On the last day of class, I will answer almost any question they have about my own political ideology, such as it is. (I refuse to answer the abortion or gay marriage question, but I'm pretty open to discussing most anything else). I'm quite touched that that by the end of the year my political beliefs have become a parlor game of sorts for them. Touched because they actually are interested. This year I started the discussion by giving them my voting history in every presidential election since 1992. They can generally figure it out from that.

One of my favorite students is starting a Young Republicans group on campus and he asked me to be the faculty sponsor. I turned him down in order to maintain my veil of neutrality, but I did tell him I could be an unofficial, shadow advisor. I gave him a reading list of Charles Krauthammer, William F. Buckley Jr. (suggesting he make all members sign the Sharon Statement), Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, etc. That should give them a solid foundation.

One of the questions I give them on their final exam is for them to tell me which political party that we studied this year most aligns with their own personal beliefs, and why. As in, they have to recall and explain that political party's ideology accurately in order to get the question completely right. Polling about 130 AP students, here were the results:

Democrat: 42%
Republican: 28%
Libertarian: 2%
Communist: 1%
Socialist: 1%
Green: 1%
Independent: 6%
Undecided: 17%

There were some interesting choices from the past:

Whig: 2%
Democratic-Republican: 1%
Populist: 4%
Nazi: 1%

NOTE: The Nazi student explained that he liked the party, minus Hitler, genocide and the racism. Kind of hard to separate, but he explained that he admired the strong nationalism and top down government control of every aspect of life. I guess more accurately he should have said "fascist," as it could be a less racist version, a la Italian fascism or Spanish fascism.

I know that doesn't add up to exactly 100%, but I rounded the numbers.

If you throw the Libertarians in with the Republicans, you get a surprisingly strong 30% conservative. I find that interesting as it bucks some stereotypes and assumptions, since this is a group of teenagers (generally considered to be heavily liberal) and my students are overwhelmingly minority, mainly Hispanic. Hispanics are also assumed to lean overwhelmingly liberal (unless you are Cuban, but I only had one Cuban student).

Sometimes Airplanes Hit Buildings

“Daddy, sometimes…one time, airplanes hit buildings. Lots of people fell and got hurt. Boys and girls. The fire truck came and tried to save them. But lots of people fell out of the buildings and hit their heads and then the buildings fell down.” Apparently they were discussing 9/11 yesterday in my three year old’s pre-school class. She said it was the day’s lesson. I guess I’m OK with that, although I’m not sure what you can really explain to a three year old about all of that. All I added was that she shouldn’t really worry about it right now, because it doesn’t happen very often. (I mean, the planes flying into buildings bit). I’ll save the “al-Quada/historical U.S. intervention in the Middle East/Soviets in Afghanistan and Mujahadeen” talk for a few years down the road.

It has only been 12 years, but for her it is already just something in the history books. It will be like Vietnam is for me. Something that changed everything for my era, but yet an event of which I have no firsthand recollection. History experienced is so very different from history learned. I spend most of my waking hours talking to students about things that other people, but neither me nor my students, actually experienced.

I was covering Jamestown recently, and casually tossed out the statistic that one in eight settlers survived the first few winters (or, if you want to reverse that, 7 in 8 did not survive). Thinking about 9/11 is emotional for me when I get to that lesson at the end of the year (I’ve got three days on it, actually). But it is even more emotional I am sure for my friends who were in New York (I experienced 9/11, like most of the country, on television.) But I could talk about the hundreds who perished in Jamestown without any emotion, even make a few “starving time” jokes. Probably wasn’t all that funny to those in Jamestown, though (especially the woman whose husband murdered her and then ate her to sustain him through one of the winters…once he was discovered his fellow colonists burned him at the stake…happy times in Jamestown. from Capt. John Smith's writings: "Now whether she was better roasted, boiled, or [broiled], I know not"). Point of all of this is, I guess, that time and distance can numb almost anything. Scale can also matter, although not in the way that you might think. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes attributed to Stalin that I start one of my lessons with: “one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” That’s always a great class, the quote bothers some students and sparks good discussion.

But back to 9/11 and distance, it has been interesting that each year my students remember less and less about the day and are more detached from it. When I taught it even three years ago, the students had vivid memories of being in their little elementary classes and teachers crying and great confusion. The emotion of experiencing even that was fresh for them and they still felt some personal ownership in the event, if that is the right term. This crop of students I have were four or five years old on the day, and they remember very little. Next year or the year after, it will only be history to my students, just like it is for my daughters. Like Vietnam or The Great Depression for me. That is sort of sad, but it has been an interesting process to watch year after year.

Not sure where I’m going with all of this, I started out just wanting to comment on a lesson on 9/11 being given to a pre-school class.

Another teaching related thing that was cool, I had just finished teaching about John Winthrop, the Puritans and Massachusetts, and analyzing Winthrop's famous “city upon a hill” sermon as the birth of American exceptionalism. Then Obama gives his Syria speech the other night and closes saying that he does believe that America is “exceptional” (he used the actual word!) and has a special responsibility to the world. Then Putin writes his op-ed/open letter to America piece in the NY Times, and closes with telling us that we are not exceptional at all. Thank you Barack and Vlad for making my lesson relevant! And by the way, it shows just how inept the Obama administration has been on Syria when former KGB thug Vladimir Putin (Chechnya? Georgia, anyone?) can present himself as peacemaker and the U.S. as imperialist aggressor.

ABOVE: Putin is enjoying scoring easy points against Obama

My Thinking Has Evolved

On the eve of an important Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage, many people in this country have been forced to rethink or confront their own views on the subject. I have long been opposed to gay marriage but fine with civil unions. My feelings on the subject were neither religiously based, in particular, nor rooted in any sort of prejudice. I will now use the cliche of "I have many gay friends." I do. My feelings have been rooted more in a historical and psychological argument, in that the family unit has always been one of the most basic structures in civilized society, and I have always been very wary of redefining what has been accepted for most of human civilized history.

I see the consequences of the deterioration of the family structure first hand in my teaching. Some of my students have difficult situations at home, and that puts a substantial obstacle in front of them for success. Obviously those obstacles can be overcome, but the road is much harder. The family structure in this country has been deteriorating for some time, through the ridiculous divorce rate, the epidemic of absentee fathers, children being raised by grandparents, children being raised by other children. People put forth many reasons for why our schools are in such trouble. As a teacher, I can say that I try to do what I can. I see your child for less than an hour a day in a room with about 30 other kids. Aside from being surrogate parent in some cases, psychologist, therapist, friend, and support, I also try and fit a little history in there too. But parents, you have access to your kids much more than I do. Who do you think is more responsible for their success in school and in life? We don't like to say it sometimes, but the broken family structure is, in my view, the root cause of much of the problems in schools. If the kids don't have support or stability or mature role models at home, there is only so much I can do in the limited time I see them. To be honest, I am often shocked and flooded with admiration for many of my students that do as well as they do considering some of their situations at home. I am not speaking of all (or maybe even a majority) of my kids. Many of them do, in fact, have great home lives and wonderfully responsible parents. And that shows in their success. But so many of them don't. And that shows too.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? I guess the fact that I have been concerned about the family structure in this country for so long, I was holding on to some sort of traditional structure, some sort of traditional mooring that we could have left. But I have come to realize that ship has sailed. Just as many more reasonable types in the Republican Party have begun to realize, I see we need to evolve as a country and as a society. My personal beliefs on what is and what is not marriage are not that significant to this fundamental question. Nor are those of any religious groups. The fundamental questions before the Court deal with whether the laws they are considering (mainly Prop 8 in California) violate Constitutional rights. Gays are not a strictly protected class, but that will probably change too. And perhaps sexual orientation should be strictly protected. My idealized view of what a family should be has already passed. It is time to allow gays to marry, at least in a civil setting.

Just as religious beliefs should not be a factor for the Court in deciding a Constitutional question, protection of religious freedom should protect religious organizations from having to perform ceremonies for gay couples. If the Court eventually states that gay marriage is a right, then they will also have to deal with a host of issues dealing with religious organizations and their tax-exempt status, hiring practices, etc. when their doctrine does not condone homosexual behavior. That will be interesting. Gay marriage as a civil right vs. protection of religious freedom and practice.

Anyway, the Court will probably rule as narrowly as possible. They usually do. They will probably throw out Prop 8, but stop shy of declaring gay marriage a federally protected right. But personally, "my thinking has evolved," as Obama and Hillary both said theirs had recently. Honestly, I don't think Obama has really changed his personal opinion, nor do I think Hillary changed hers. They both changed their stances due to where they saw the political winds blowing. Obama probably still personally feels gay marriage is wrong (based on my understanding of his religious beliefs), and Hillary I think always thought it was OK in the first place, but now it is politically expedient for her to say how she really feels on the subject. But that is just the cynic in me. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. Yours?

Dez Reviews Yo Gabba Gabba Live!

In the old days, I’d be reviewing a Springsteen show, perhaps U2 or the Police reunion tour. Now, it is Yo Gabba Gabba Live! Not that I didn’t enjoy the Gabba show that I attended Saturday night with my wife and daughter. It was actually greatness. If you are unfamiliar with Yo Gabba Gabba, it is a trippy children’s show. Here’s a clip…



The show was at San Antonio’s Majestic Theater, and that wonderful venue can make almost any show at least bearable. At the Majestic I have seen Neil Young, Lyle Lovett, The Gypsy Kings, ‘Wicked’…but Yo Gabba Gabba rocked them all (to quote Bon Jovi).

They came out just like rock stars. Dramatic music, lights, smoke…and Brobee! (Screams). Muno! (Screams). Toodee! (Screams). Foofa! (Screams). Plex! (Screams). DJ Lance Rock! This is what Woodstock must have felt like. Or maybe Altamont? Anyway, they opened strong and hard with a thumping version of “Get the Sillies Out.” My daughter was screaming and dancing in delirium. The whole theater shook. The thing with Gabba, a disturbing number of adults really enjoy it too. It is sort of a hipster’s kids show. For instance, the art guy on each episode, who teaches the kids how to draw snow skiing squirrels or walking bowling balls, is “Mark,” as in Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo, BELOW:



The excitement became too much for me to take, so I retired to the lovely Majestic lobby for some M&M’s and Cheez-Its being sold at the concessions, just to cool down. Soon after returning to my seat, they brought it down with one of their best slowburners, “Don’t Be Afraid (Of the Dark)”. Yes! They didn’t play that the last time. (This is my second Gabba concert, we saw the previous tour too).

After intermission (so the audience can change diapers and get in some quick naps) they came out with guns blazing, pulling out the Gabba “Stairway To Heaven,” that being “There’s a Party In My Tummy.” Green Beans and Carrots came out for the song too. The show cresecendoed with a personal appearance by rapper Biz Markie, of "Just a Friend" fame. He brought some kids onstage to participate in the Biz’s Beat of the Day segment, a favorite segment of the show. Biz looks like a tough dude, not someone you would want to meet on the streets of Compton. And he is coming up to these intimidated four year olds, right in their face, and asks “what’s yo name?” Then he makes them beat box with him.


ABOVE: "gather round for Biz's Beat of the Day"

It was a well paced show, my daughter had a blast and therefore so did I. I am sure she will look back on Gabba Live in the same way I look back on seeing Dire Straits in ’85.

Quoting Stalin

"One death is a tragedy, a million [deaths] is a statistic." - Josef Stalin

To say that I have always loved that quote is not the right way to put, more like it has always intrigued me. I'm at the point in the school year where I am teaching World War II in my AP U.S. History class, which is one of the easiest topics to keep their attention. They are always interested in WWII, and it is one of the few topics that they come into it already knowing a great deal. I understand where my students are coming from, when I was their age (and younger) I couldn't get enough WWII. I read books, watched movies, ate it up. Is it the ultimate epic struggle? Is it because it is one of the few times in history where it seems the lines are so clear? Nothing in history is more obviously evil as Nazi Germany, right? At least on the surface, it does seem just like in the movies. Good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. The villains even conveniently wear bad guy-looking uniforms and call themselves "stormtroopers" and things like that. Of course I am simplifying, you can look at the Allied firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the Japanese-American internment camps in this country, etc. and it is not quite so easy to paint us with a broad brush as "the good guys," but still, the Nazis were obviously the baddest of the bad guys (even though Stalin's death count ended up being much higher than Hitler's, he at least had a "reason" for it besides pure hatred and eugenics theories, that being the largely successful rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union. And funny enough, Stalin is still held in high regard by many Russians).

But every year I run across an interesting and somewhat disturbing phenomenon. I get a decent number of students who seem to express admiration for Hitler and the Nazi war machine. It is predictable that I will hear the word "genius" attributed to him each year in many of my classes. I don't know why this is. Perhaps it is a fascination with villains and outlaws that we have always had in our society, and Hitler is the ultimate historical outlaw. Enough time has passed to where the Holocaust and related events have become historical abstractions, as distant for these kids as Roman legions or the Trojan War.

I have always struggled with how to handle that. On the one hand, I try to have a classroom open to many points of views, a place where students are safe to express opinions and ideas, or more accurately, struggle with them and form them. A place where even controversial topics and views can at least be discussed in a civilized manner. I feel that is one of the most basic characteristics of a good classroom, especially a History one. Yet, I cannot let such statements regarding Hitler go unchallenged. I just can't. But I've always struggled with finding a way to address it without simply lecturing them or berating them for ignorance (Barbarosa) and youthful callousness. As a historian, too, I also need to grapple with and explain to my students why a whole nation of seemingly reasonable people could also fall under the sway of something so evil as Nazism (answer: desperate times during a worldwide Depression and crushing debt from Versailles had brought Germany to a state of chaos and along came a strong and charismatic figure who promised to end the suffering and blame the suffering on outsiders, and he did deliver on those promises, initially).

It helps to go back to my own history with the subject. I recall reading and studying WWII as a youth, and there is a basic attraction to power and strength, especially for young males (although, I hear the "genius" tag attributed to Hitler more from female students than male ones, and I have absolutely no explanation for that.) The Nazi propaganda machine remains to this day one of the most effective the world has ever seen...the pageantry and the spectacle of the Nuremberg rallies, the demonstration of unity and purpose and sheer strength. Power still attracts, and everything about what Hitler and Goebbels and his minions displayed to the masses was the messaging of power, confidence and strength, something that attracts people today just as it appealed to a defeated German people in the 1930's. And on pure military grounds, the German military in WWII was indeed an awesome thing. I still do admire someone like Field Marshall Erwin Rommel for his brilliant and daring tactical mind (and a man who never did embrace Nazi ideology and who was forced to commit suicide by Hitler after his name got wrapped up in the failed assassination plot). I think teenagers can get wrapped up in the excitement and daring of war and forget the human toll.

Which brings me back to Stalin's quote. My teaching of WWII changed three years ago when I had my daughter. It was strange, because I could not explain it at first. But in her first year when I taught WWII and started discussing Nazism and the Holocaust, I got incredibly emotional. But now I understand it. I couldn't grasp the horror of the human cost until I had someone in my life so innocent, so trusting, so in need of and open to care and love...and then visualizing her, in my mind, in that place. World War II had always really been an abstract historical subject until my daughter could humanize it for me. That was it. That was the hook which I could use with my students to bring home the human toll without simply telling them "it was bad."

I started class last week with Stalin's quote on the board and just asked them what he meant by that, setting aside that Stalin was a sociopath and psychopath. It did please me that some students were a bit disturbed by the quote even before we started to discuss it. And the students got where I was going with it. If we know an individual and they meet a gruesome end, it really is a human tragedy, it hits us emotionally. But if we are dealing in millions, our minds cannot even grasp it. It does become just a number. I can roll off 12 million killed in the Holocaust, or 40-60 million killed in Stalin's USSR, in my lectures and it is an abstract historical fact for them. But I told the kids that they have to always humanize those numbers. I talk about my daughter a lot in class throughout the year, I've got two very cute pictures of her on my desk, so my students always ask about her and even bring little presents for me to give to her from time to time. I grabbed her sweet smiling photo from my desk and held it up, and I told them that whenever they think of Hitler's deeds dispassionately, imagine her in the ovens of Auschwitz or on the operating table of Dr. Mengele. (Or imagine anyone that they are close to, be it their own little brother or sister, best friend, mother). That is the real human element and madness of it all. It's not just Panzers and Blitzkrieg and battlefield daring. Anyway, for the first time in my many years of teaching WWII, I think that I finally got that across the way that I wanted to, you could just see it registering on their faces, especially after I gave them a little detail of Dr. Mengele's experiments on children. It was uncomfortable for them, and it should be. But I think that I had to really understand it and feel it first, before I could then make them grasp it too.


ABOVE: If you want to explore the depths of human depravity, study the experiments conducted by the "Angel of Death," the Auschwitz camp doctor Josef Mengele who conducted unspeakable experiments on the children of Auschwitz

Vinyl Manifesto

NOTE: I think I wrote a post like this at some point. But forget that one. This is better. Read this one. That’s what happens when you go on five years running a blog.

The invention of the compact disc will be seen as the turning point. That was when we crossed the great sonic chasm from warm, engaging, living mediums over to the cold and lonely digital world. The music industry was joyful at the time, and it did produce about a decade of high profits. Now, everyone had to go back and buy music they already owned! Reissue those back catalogues! The sound is clearer and distinct, they told us (as if being able to isolate instruments like a sonic surgeon from what was always intended to be an organic whole is a good thing). They provide us with a “lifetime of entertainment” (CD booklets usually had that phrase somewhere), because the sound quality did not deteriorate over repeated listenings, like tape or vinyl. (OK, that’s still pretty cool. But, we have discovered that unless cared for under very specific conditions, CDs also deteriorate).

Little did the music industry know that in the late 80’s when they started pushing the CD that they were sealing their own fate. Or, at least changing the industry from what it profitably and comfortably was for them. The industry controlled the medium with vinyl (and to a lesser degree, tape). But by selling music that could be reduced to the 1’s and 0’s of the digital language, they were giving up control of the medium. I have ranted obliquely and directly here on this topic at different times, but it is time that I set out my manifesto.

Digital sucks. I acknowledge the benefits. I can, and do, walk around with over 25,000 songs in my pocket all day long. The lack of sound deterioration over repeated use, as discussed above, is a plus. I do like that I can go on iTunes and pick and choose to download a song here or there, vs. buying an entire record like in the old days. I enjoy making and perfecting endlessly my “box set” playlists. All cool.

But the big question remains: do records really sound better than CDs, digital files, etc? The answer is yes. Scientifically, yes. Here’s why. Sound travels in sound waves, which by definition are analog in nature. A vinyl record has a groove carved in it that captures exactly the entire form of the wave. Nothing is lost. It captures the sound wave in analog, it is sent to your amplifier as analog and then to your speakers. There is no real conversion that must be done. CD’s, on the other hand, require snapshots and conversions. You are not listening to the entire sound wave. The CD takes snapshots of the sound wave (about 44,100 per second) and then approximates the holes. So you are getting an approximation of the sound, not the entire sound. Then these digital signals are converted to analog and amplified so you can hear them. More sound is lost in the conversion. With a record, you are looking at the Mona Lisa. With CD’s, you are looking at a picture taken of the Mona Lisa by a tourist with a disposable camera. When people talk about vinyl sound being “warmer” and “fuller,” that is why. It is the entire soundwave form, not snapshots and approximations of it. End of science lesson.

Records used to be a visual experience as well as audio. The artwork for album covers meant something, as well as the gatefolds, inserts, etc. Even the record label. Buying a record stimulates all of the senses, not just your ears. Your eyes take in all of the artwork and information that a large canvas of the cover and sleeves and gatefolds can provide. Entire essays used to be written within album gatefolds. The album cover was so important that often that alone would persuade someone to buy the record. The smell of opening new vinyl is also distinctive, taking the plastic off and taking a whiff of the newly printed cardboard and vinyl. Taking out a record to play was also a part of the process. Gingerly sliding the disc out and holding it from the label so as not to blemish the surface. And even if you did blemish the surface over time, there was something inviting even from the pops that came with many spins. (I’ve got nothing for the taste sense, sorry).

Most important, though, is connectedness. Being a music fan today is lonelier than it used to be. I’m not just talking about the more engaged and interactive experience of placing the record on your turntable, gently placing the needle where you want it (real fans personally place the needle, don’t use that auto crap), and then waiting for the first song to burst through your speakers. Not to mention flipping the disc over for the second side. (That’s another thing: records have distinct sides, with their own story to tell).

No, what I mean is a community that has been lost. Many of you have seen (or read) the loving ode to record store culture in ‘High Fidelity.’ The experience of walking into a record store, browsing for as long as you are able, listening to the music-snob customers and clerks extol the greatness of Springsteen’s second album or dismiss post-Roger Waters Pink Floyd…there was a distinct culture there. I spent many blissful hours of my life in the record store sanctuary, a place for fellow believers to share fellowship. (You have a similar loss with the disappearance of the video store for film buffs). Sure, I can blog and go in chat rooms to talk tunes, but in the end, you are alone in front of your computer screen, when you should be physically walking the aisles, listening to the music over the store system, trading suggestions with real breathing people. That is musical fellowship. It is a connectedness that is lost. I have fond childhood memories of riding my bike to and from Sound Warehouse, grabbing the latest LP’s that I wanted to explore, and then riding back home, with the wind banging the yellow bag against the bike. Later I got in the car…but it was always still a journey. I had to get up and go with purpose. Not just sit passively in front of my computer screen and click “purchase.”

I sound like some old-timer whining about how things ain’t what they used to be. But they ain’t. I know it isn’t the end of music, things are always evolving. But I do miss the era that has just passed. As someone who has experienced both the heyday and end of the old and the start of the new, I can definitely say which I prefer, for all of the conveniences today’s technology provides. I prefer warmth, connectedness, purpose, using all of the senses to experience music and fellowship. That was the old days.

Who Had the Best Decade?

Today in class, I engaged several of my students with this important question - who topped the 1970's, musically speaking? I gave them the following choices (a multiple choice quiz, of sorts): Elton John, Pink Floyd, Neil Young, David Bowie or Led Zeppelin? They could only consider the material released 1970-79. I considered The Who in there as well, but while their 70's was awesome, too many crucial records and singles were in the 60's. Several immediately went to Zeppelin (as I expected teenage boys would), but once I reminded them that both Led Zeppelin I and Led Zeppelin II could not be considered (both released in 1969), Zeppelin quickly fell out of the running. Although, one student held fast to IV and Houses of the Holy as evidence.

While Elton was initially scoffed at, I rattled off the following discography from the 70's:

Elton John (70)
Tumbleweed Connection (70)
17-11-70 (live) (71)
Madman Across the Water (71)
Honky Chateau (72)
Don't Shoot Me I'm the Piano Player (73)
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (73)
Caribou (74)
Capt. Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy (75)
Rock of the Westies (75)
Blue Moves (76)
Here and There (live) (76)
A Single Man (78)
Victim of Love (79)

First, how freakin' prolific. '70-'75 is unassailable (well, except Caribou). But Rock of the Westies forward really weakens the argument for Elton, so I think he's out.

I imagine my friend ANCIANT, had he been there, would have picked Bowie. But Pin-Ups, the two live throwaways and Lodger weaken Bowie for me. Plus, Young Americans is mediocre overall once you get beyond the title track.

So that left Neil and Floyd. My students went overwhelmingly with Pink Floyd, and that is tough to argue against. While it is not a long discography, just look at it:

Atom Heart Mother (70)
Meddle (71)
Obscured By Clouds (72)
Dark Side of the Moon (73)
Wish You Were Here (75)
Animals (77)
The Wall (79)

OK, Atom Heart Mother sucks, and Obscured By Clouds was a soundtrack toss-off, but the rest of that is all classic. I mean, rock and roll canon stuff.

Neil Young was about as prolific as Elton in the 70's:

After the Goldrush
Déjà vu (CSNY)
Harvest
Journey Through the Past (soundtrack)
Four Way Street (CSNY) (live)
Time Fades Away (live)
On the Beach
Tonight's the Night
Zuma
Long May You Run (Stills-Young Band)
American Stars 'n Bars
Comes a Time
Rust Never Sleeps (live)
Live Rust (live)

Journey Through the Past sucks, Long May You Run is terrible and American Stars 'n Bars is spotty. But the rest is great to brilliant.

My students were firmly with Floyd, but I can't decide between Floyd and Neil. Each time I want to lean towards Neil, I think Meddle/DSOTM/WYWH/Animals/The Wall. Can you really top that?

Day 27: We Got Him

I've been quite interested in all of the Osama Bin Laden coverage. First of all, that was a bad ass SEAL operation. Hats off to our military. Secondly, I know that our relationship with Pakistan has always been "complicated," but come on. Osama living in a huge house down the street from their West Point in an urban area about 50 miles from the capital? Not exactly caves in hard to reach mountainous regions, is it? There is a reason that we did not inform Pakistani officials until after the operation was already complete. If we had told them before, Osama would have been conveniently out at the movies at the time of the assault.

Also been interested in the reaction both abroad and here. I can't say that I was dancing in the street, but I did feel a deep sense of satisfaction. And I think that it was more than a merely symbolic act to finally get Bin Laden. I'm not the only one to say this today, but I liken it to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Yes, the Nazi movement existed before Hitler, and some remnants in some form existed on the fringes after his death. But the Nazi Party was so wrapped up in Hitler's own cult of personality, that it was Hitler who gave it so much strength and vitality. Bin Laden was similar. Al Quada will go on, and there are many other terrorist groups, but it will not be the same without Bin Laden in this world. He was one of those unique personalities who gave it life. And, though I don't often agree with Hillary, I like her message that this proves that it may take us some time, but we will eventually get you. No matter how long you run.

I'm also impressed with how we handled his remains. Dumping him in the ocean was smart. No place to make a shrine or pilgrimage site to galvanize his followers. It was also good that we prepared the body in the Muslim tradition.

As we discussed it in my classes today, one student asked a great question: "so what does this mean?" I think it means that in the short run we are more at risk due to angry reprisals. But in the long run, we are better off and have struck a blow to world terrorism. Like it or not, he was a galvanizing and unique individual. He cannot be replaced, and as long as he roamed this earth, he was a powerful symbol of evil and hatred. Glad we shot the bastard through the eye socket.

Someone got ahold of an MLK quote on Facebook and I've seen it about four times now. The gist is that I will not rejoice in another's death, even if it is an enemy. Hate begets hate, etc. Nice sentiment. But I think we can rejoice in the sense that justice long denied has finally been satisfied.

I recall when Gandhi (MLK's inspiration and philosophical forefather, along with Thoreau) was questioned about how we ought to react to Hitler. Still use nonviolence? He did not have an adequate response. Nonviolence worked in India against the British and worked here in the 1960's civil rights movement partly because it was used against rational people who were capable of being shamed. Osama Bin Laden and his followers are on an entirely different plane of thinking (as was Hitler). Shame does not work because you are not even working within the same set of definitions of words. We could have made Osama happy and have him stop his violence against us if we had done everything he wanted and withdrawn completely from the Middle East. Can't do that. Hitler would have not had a problem with other powers, if we had simply agreed to hand him all of continental Europe on a platter. Not going to happen. You cannot have a reasonable negotiation with Osama or Hitler. Not simply because they are evil. But because their mindset is not on the same level as the rest of the world. It would be like trying to talk in two languages but leaving the translators at home.

Day 21: Catching Up

I seem to keep getting one day behind. So, this is yesterday. I've got a good post in the pipeline, but something must happen first before I can post it for it to be timely. I am certain this thing will happen, perhaps tonight. Then I can post it and be caught up.

I watched Tron: Legacy this weekend. I have fond memories of the original, but mainly as a visual experience. The story was muddled and acting was cheesy. Guess what. The sequel looks beautiful (especially on Blu-Ray on a nice TV), but the story is muddled and acting cheesy. Although, I love the references to the original, to the 80's (Journey playing on the jukebox when Son of Flynn goes to his Dad's old arcade, perfectly preserved under a blanket of dust). Even better, in the flashback scenes when Son of Flynn is a kid and Jeff Bridges (said Flynn) is reading him a bedtime story, the kid has a Black Hole poster in the background on his wall. Nice, I had a chuckle there. Another Disney sci-fi flick that flopped in its time, but since has developed a cult following, albeit one smaller than Tron. By the way, I have always loved The Black Hole. Generally, I cannot stand this trend of remaking everything under the sun, but I have always thought The Black Hole, if done right, could be a killer remake/update. Rumour has it that it is in fact being done. We'll see.


ABOVE: Dez is intrigued by a possible remake of The Black Hole. It was one of the campiest sci-fi flicks ever, yet also had an interesting and dark story to it and featured arresting visuals. Plus the acid trip of an ending still astounds. "You're not planning on going into the black hole..." "In...through...and BEYOND!"

My students start their TAKs testing this week. (Recall, TAKS is Texas's standardized testing regime). I have bathroom duty. I have to sit in a desk facing the restrooms, and make sure only one person is in there at a time. They could discuss the test at the urinals if I let more than one in, you see. It is difficult work.

More later.

Day 15: Teach the Test

ANCIANT asked a very good question in response to Day 13's post regarding standardized testing in Texas (see two posts below). ANCIANT asked the following questions:

"What's your position on the efficacy of standardized testing? Do you think they're useful? Do you think they serve the function they're said to serve? And do you or your fellow teachers resent having to 'teach the test?'"

In the abstract I agree with standardized testing. The idea is that there is a set curriculum to be taught for any given course. In order for the students to earn their way out of the course, they should be able to demonstrate a minimum knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of that curriculum.

But then there are several reality checks. Some students simply do not test well. I used to think this was a sorry excuse, but in my experience teaching I have found this to be a legitimate area of concern. I have several students who, if you have a face to face discussion with them, they can show that they clearly understand the material. Yet they do not test very well. Sometimes it is test anxiety, where they just freeze up or get so stressed that they cannot think clearly when you put an exam in front of them. You could respond that we live in a society where you have to prove your competence in certain ways, and therefore you better learn how to deal with it. But still, in their case, the test is not really gauging their true understanding of the material. I do not see much alternative to the written test, unless you want to do oral exit interviews for graduation for some students. Interesting idea.

My problem with the TAKS test is that it is not particularly well written, and the coverage is not really fair. Much of the test consists of maps, charts, graphs and other visuals that the students must interpret. These are "social studies skills," but do not really test an understanding of history. Yes, there are history questions on there, but over the years these other skills-based questions have increased in frequency.

Also, in Texas, students take the first half of U.S. History (Age of Exploration through Reconstruction) in the 8th grade. Then it is Geography in 9th, World History in 10th and the second half of U.S. History in 11th (Post-Civil War to now) (12th grade is one semester of Government, one semester of Economics). So the students take the Exit Level Social Studies exam in the 11th grade which covers all of U.S. History (plus the skills). These students have not studied the first half of U.S. History since the 8th grade. It is stupid. They should either rewrite the test or change the order of courses where U.S. History is taken back to back in the two years leading up to the test. (If you are in AP, this is not a problem, became AP U.S. History covers all of U.S. history in one year, 11th grade).

This TAKS issue will not be around for too long, because the EOC's will be given at almost every year/level, and will focus only on that year's curriculum in that course. But with the EOC's, you have more than quadrupled the number of standardized tests a student will need to conquer before graduating. I don't like this scheme (described in detail in Day 13's post).

To more directly answer ANCIANT's questions: I do not object, in principle, to standardized testing. That being said, there are some students who may have mastered the material, but have difficulty expressing that in a standardized format. Perhaps some alternative methods of proving mastery? I don't really resent having to teach to the test. This is because the guidelines are so broad as far as what can be tested, it is really just teaching U.S. History, but making sure that you hit on the things they stress. I generally agree with what they stress, but occasionally you will come across something a little odd. For instance, of the eight dates that they want students to know, one of them is 1957 for the launch of Sputnik (initiating the Space Race). Important, yes. But if you were to choose the eight most important dates in American history, would one of them be Sputnik?

Day 13: Under the Wire

Almost didn't make today's post, but here it is. I was up late at the school tonight at a special TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tutoring night for History. TAKS is the latest standardized test that Texas school kids must pass in order to graduate. Currently, Texas students must pass an English, Social Studies, Math and Science exam. But that is all about to change.

We are transitioning to EOC's (End of Course exams). Instead of four exams, Texas students will soon have to pass a series of exams throughout each year of high school, totaling 16 exams. The way the scheme is currently proposed, they should not only have to pass each exam with a certain score, but they would also need a total composite score in each subject area. So it might be possible to pass each individual science exam, for example, yet not reach the science composite number needed to graduate. OR, perhaps you barely fail one of them, but perhaps you can score high enough on the others to reach the required composite score.

It is even more confusing for the next couple of years as they phase in the EOC's and phase out the TAKS. We will actually have both types of exams going on, with TAKS required for older students as the younger students come in under EOC's (next year's freshman class is the first who will be required to graduate under the EOC scheme). It has been calculated that with TAKS, EOC's, AP Exams and others, that for the next couple of years there will be over 40 days of standardized testing at the high school level in Texas.

I'll leave you with that. Talk to you tomorrow.

Day 10: Wasps, Socialists and Fries

I have the day off work today. In San Antonio it is Fiesta Week, and the schools are out today for the big Battle of Flowers Parade downtown. Fiesta is kind of like Mardi Gras, but with tortillas.

I started the day by mowing the lawn. In the winter we spread some winter seed and the grass looks beautiful, but requires mowing once a week because it is like grass on steroids. I got stung on my skull by a wasp. Or a hornet. Or some nasty, angry flying creature. I had a hat on, so the bastard had to land on my head, and get its stinger through the hat, my hair, and into my skull and through my brain. It still hurts.

I spent the rest of the day touring and interviewing Day Care facilities. My daughter attends a fantastic Day Care at one of these mega-churches nearby (I can de-program her later, not to worry). But they are closing their program at the beginning of the summer, so we need to find a new place for her to start in August. At one place I visited today they have a lunch menu and don't want you bringing your own food. I looked over the menu, searching for the fruits and veggies, and noticed that on several days there were no veggies. When I asked about that, the lady pointed to the french fries and said "there are some potatoes." Reminds me of the Reagan Administration, when they were responding to complaints about food served to students at public schools, and some official claimed that using ketchup on burgers constituted a vegetable portion. Anyway, she won't be attending that one.

Over the past few months I've gone to about 15 Day Cares. I've gotten it down to two of them that I like. They are the ones with the strongest curriculums.

I am reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is a controversial but popular "alternate" history of the United States, told from the perspective of the Indians, slaves, factory workers, women and minorities. Obviously the guy is a socialist, and he does try to debunk history told from the perspective of the victors. But he is also honest about his perspective, and explains it thoroughly in the first chapter. I am on some listserve, e-mail group of AP History teachers around the country, and the debate rages over the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Zinn's history. It would be interesting to give the students a chapter of the book about something that we cover more conventionally, and then get into a discussion of ideology in the writing of history.

Day 8: Promises, Promises

Today/tonight's post will be a bit short. Just got back from school giving my National Honors Society speech. Very tired. It went well, I got the laughs where I had hoped and got a warm reception. It was a fun ceremony.

Since tonight is the last night of the regular NBA season, tomorrow I hope to have my NBA Playoff predictions. It has been an uncommonly interesting regular season, so I have high hopes for the playoffs. Analysis to come. I also owe a belated recap of this year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony. I know you are all waiting breathlessly for that.

I will leave you with cuteness...



And here is a crawfish...

Day 7: Honors

I have been chosen by the students at the school where I work to give the key note address at this year’s induction ceremony for the National Honors Society. I was quite honored. What do you say to these kids? “Congratulations for being smarter than everybody else”? I think I’ve got a good speech written that I will deliver tomorrow night. It is full of sage advice, humorous asides and lots of Thomas Jefferson. I structured the speech around their core principles of scholarship, leadership, community service and character, and then discussed how Jefferson embodied each of those qualities through different actions taken during his presidency, and then how they can apply those lessons to their own lives. I don’t even like Jefferson that much, but he seems to work since he is so malleable a historical figure. As I say in my speech, Jefferson is claimed as a hero to both the Right and the Left, and they are both correct.

Many of my AP students will be inducted, so that will be cool. Which reminds me of my own experiences as an AP U.S. History student at my old high school. Where I teach now, you can get into an AP class if you request it. But back in my day, you had to be recommended by your previous year’s teacher. My 10th grade history teacher refused to recommend me for AP, which really pissed me off. I had to figure out a way to circumvent her. I had to figure out a way to impress the venerable, Nixonesque (in a good way) AP U.S. teacher, J.G. I noticed that he often sat at lunch at a table with another teacher whom I would chat with from time to time, but who I knew wasn’t that bright. That was my opening. I joined them for lunch one day and struck up some debate regarding Vietnam with not-so-bright teacher. J.G. was impressed and asked me if I was signed up for his AP class. The plan worked like clockwork. “No, but I am very interested.” He informed the school office that I would be joining his AP class the next year, regardless of what my 10th grade history teacher thought.

I’m not sure whether I like the old way of needing a recommendation or allowing students in based on their professed interest. I can say that I do have some students in my current AP classes who should probably be in the regular level classes (mostly due to work ethic.) Perhaps if there had been a filter to determine whether they could (or would) really do the work they would have been in a better spot for them. But at the same time, when you have a situation like mine, where a student is self-motivated to push themselves and for whatever reason the person making the decision does not see it, then perhaps they should be given the chance.

Day 1: I Only Read What Is Real

Hello? Is this thing still on? tap tap tap. Sorry for the lack of posts recently, my excuses are rather pedestrian, but they are real. I have been inspired and challenged by my good friend ANCIANT over at his blog here, where he promised and delivered on 30 posts in 30 days. I now vow to do the same. Some may be long, some may be short. So, here goes.

Today I realized that it has been over a decade since I have read a book of fiction. I read quite a bit, but everything is nonfiction. I don't dislike fiction, but I guess I get my fiction fix through movies. I would like to read more fiction, but that whole time factor gets in the way. I bought a book called The 100 Most Important Books In the World, where it summarizes each book in about 4-5 pages. Maybe I can get caught up that way. I want to be well read, I just can't sit down and read all of these books. Dammit.

I just finished a project that I started last summer. I have been summarizing/outlining the rather huge AP U.S. History textbook from which I teach. Today I completed the last chapter. Now I have a huge binder with awesome lecture summaries from this book. But the binder appears to be about as thick as the textbook. Hmm. It is that time of year when AP students realize that the AP Exams are coming up in about three weeks and that they better start paying attention. I have been enjoying their panic. At least they will really know about the Nixon administration. If only they had been this focused from the Colonial days through Vietnam.

Crap. The baby just woke up from her nap. I need to take her for a walk now in her stroller. She LOVES that stroller. There is a huge hill in our neighborhood, and I run full speed pushing her down the hill in her stroller, and she throws both arms in the air like she is on a roller coaster and squeals with delight. It is absurdly cute.

More tomorrow.

And Now Children, a Message From Your Leader

I've been somewhat amused by the strong feelings on both sides of this issue of Obama's planned broadcast to America's children next week. In case you haven't heard, Obama wants to speak to the kids of the country and has asked schools to broadcast the message during the school day. The White House has even provided some lessons and activities to go along with the speech.

Fears from the Right are that he will slip in subtle or not so subtle policy or political messages into the speech ("tell Mommy and Daddy to support universal health care!") The White House assures us that the contents of the speech are all about staying in school, working hard, etc. We won't really know until we hear it.

In the school district where I teach, we were told earlier this week that we needed to broadcast the speech to our students. I didn't like that. I'm not sure what it would accomplish to have all of the kids in the district stop what they were doing for a broadcast from The Leader. Seemed a little, I don't know, kinda Stalinish. But, for protection and as a counter measure, I do have a Ronald Reagan poster up in the back of my classroom.

Then today we get a flurry of e-mails instructing us that we are NOT to broadcast the The Leader's Address to the students after all. Apparently enough parents complained to cause the district to change its mind. As a listener of talk radio to and from work, I know where the impetus came from. Talk show hosts from Rush Limbaugh to Mike Gallagher have all been encouraging their listeners to complain to the schools and even keep their children home on that day if necessary. So we have another Right Wing talk radio-inspired uprising where the drones do Rush's bidding. This also bothered me. Yesterday I was bothered that I was being forced to broadcast The Leader's Address, and today I am bothered by the fact that the district caved within a day and now will not allow us to broadcast it. Again, it really depends on the contents of the speech. If he slips in something to the effect of "tell Mommy and Daddy that they need to behave at town hall meetings..." then it is objectionable. But if it really is a "stay in school" deal, then it can't hurt and the protest is just more knee jerk reaction in a polarized body politic.

I doubt it would inspire any potential drop-outs to change their mind, though. So either way the speech is a waste of time. But I get uncomfortable being told that I have to broadcast His speech. I am equally uncomfortable being told that I am not allowed to.

The Youth of Today Are Going To Be Alright

Today was my first day back teaching. I had all of my AP U.S. History classes today, so these students are a cut above the average. But still, I was proud. Almost cried, in fact. In my introductory powerpoint, on the title page, I had this picture...


I asked the class, "who is this?" "Jimi Hendrix" came the glorious chorus. "Where was the picture taken?" At least a handful in each class said "Woodstock." "How long ago was Woodstock?" At least half of each class answered "40 years ago." God bless the children.

P.S.: At least one student in each class could tell me about Altamont.