Golden era for some in America

Every so often I am reminded of how lucky I am to have been born in 1950, despite my increasingly decrepit state physically (and mentally?).

Today that reminder came from a Washington Post story on how much better older Americans are faring (and will in the future fare) if they have pensions. Kathleen and I occasionally marvel at how well we are doing financially after retirement, benefiting from both of us working for the public educational institutions that mandated a certain percentage of our paychecks going into a retirement fund.

We gave up earning more income during our prime working years but we are enjoying this "delayed" payoff, and hope to see it continue for many years to come.

A couple of our "pensions" are actually 403(b) accounts, with required minimum distributions, but we each receive Colorado PERA payments plus social security. I suppose anything could happen, in the event of societal disaster, but the odds are on our side here.

Our children are invested in much less stable retirement plans, requiring them to invest some portion of their paychecks in 401K plans, and those depend a lot on the state of the stock market. 

The government appears to have no interest in developing better methods for average Americans to save more for retirement. Heck, nothing has happened for years to shore up social security, which is slated to pay only 75 percent of "expected" benefits to retirees after 2035. That is just 13 years away and it doesn't take an economics expert to know that the earlier the fund is strengthened, the less pain there will be when the inevitable pain of either lower payments or higher social security taxes kicks in.

But our congressional disfunction leaves us paralyzed.

I see stories every week about how many Americans only have social security to depend upon after retirement; right now it's 40 percent of seniors, and that number rises when those under age 55 are included. 

We are a rather cruel nation, and that has little to do with politics. Our foundational national myth is of the self-sufficient individual or family that takes care of itself, no matter what. Don't tell us what to do. Don't mandate, well, anything. 

The nation wants more college grads but insists on their suffering financial hardship to earn those diplomas -- clearly, the wealthy are not going to do any of this suffering. We want more young workers but don't ask the government at any level to support young children and young families with better childcare or even basic education.

We claim to be peace-loving but don't you dare take away a single AR-15 or suggest that our military spending is a bit bloated. We are patriotic about the Statue of Liberty and its symbolism, until people who are not white Europeans embrace the promise of America.

There was a time when being a senior citizen meant near-poverty for most Americans, but politicians respond to those who vote, and no population votes more regularly than seniors. Now, the elderly poverty level is quite low, and we eagerly embrace a form of socialism for seniors: Medicare and Social Security. 

A tragedy of messaging and education is that many Americans don't think of their "earned" benefits as socialism. "Keep the government's hands off my social security" is the protest sign that makes me shake my head.

Logic and common sense be damned. 

'...but no one does anything about it.'

The weather often is the source for news coverage, though there is very little anyone can do to "fix" excessive heat or cold or rain or snow or wind... "Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it."

We are obsessed with "record heat," for instance, even if the new record is simply one degree warmer than the previous high on a particular day. It doesn't really matter if the location of the temperature measurement is far from a location, as with Denver, where the official recordings of temperature and precipitation come from DIA, which is nearly 20 miles from downtown (and all that cement).

The good news about weather is that it is one of the last safe conversation topics in America. "Hot enough for ya?"

There's an article in today's Washington Post that focuses on the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and how temperatures were even higher than our climate change heat during that extreme weather event. One reason many states in the Plains have NOT recorded a new record high in over 80 years is that poor farming techniques and water management produced very low humidity... leading to temperatures quickly rising and falling. 

Humans are comfortable in a rather small range of temperatures -- we are heading to San Diego later this week and the forecast is for highs in the low 70s and lows in the mid-60s. For many of us, those are ideal temperatures, which accounts for so many people eagerly moving to southern California if they can afford it. 

Some decent rain arrived in Highlands Ranch yesterday afternoon and the temperatures plunged from 90 to the mid-60s very quickly. I was sitting on the covered patio during this little storm and had to force myself to not retreat inside after a few minutes. I was just so "cold," all of a sudden.

I know. What a wimp. 

Most comparisons are relative in nature, from temps to finances to parenting to world affairs. 

Even K-12 education feels this urge to compare and contrast, and thus we get stories from the past that have little factual support. You know, like how moms sent Billy and Susie off to school without a single worry that anything would happen to them along that mile-long walk. Or how kids back then were so much more respectful, or how we found joy in just four TV channels.

Ah, for the good ol' days.

But please, let's set a cut-off for just how "old" those days can be. I vote for sometime AFTER the Dust Bowl.

Speaking of needing to step off the stage

We have watched every minute of the Congressional hearings into Jan. 6, and they make for riveting TV. It's too bad more Americans can't say the same, but I get it. Watching even recorded versions of the hearings requires investing nearly 20 total hours, and there are new shows on our hundreds of streaming services each day. Who has time?

Fox News, of course, was too afraid to even show most of the hearings to its tender viewing audience of sheep.

The teaching point from the hearings is about the importance of sharing clear narratives and including a wide range of sources in our reporting. There have been a few "star" witnesses, of course, but mostly a viewing of all the hearings in order reveals the fact that most of our complex stories require a range of input, and a range of angles, to be anywhere near complete. Minor characters can make important points and advance the plot.

For an online reporter, one nice insight is in how the committee wove multimedia into the narrative, not relying on merely writing a report or even narrating aloud. Yes, there were various narrators, each with distinct voices, but it's tough to beat "you are there" video for strongly supporting your arguments.

That is why a "great" web post needs to include visuals (and video is the most powerful) but also features strong reporting and writing, structured in a way that draws the reader along the narrative's path.

The hearings even featured "cliff hangers," of sorts, usually from Rep. Liz Cheney, the vice chair. Just as this works in episodic TV, the point is to whet viewers' appetites for the next chapter.

I have no idea if any significant legal action will result from all this, but the hearings are damning on the most important level: the former president is a selfish, childish, and pompous jerk who shouldn't be trusted with any authority over anything. He is a horrible excuse for a human being, much less a nation's leader. 

The law is always nuanced and rooted in technicalities, but our gut reactions should be trusted on some things. This is one of those times. The man is appalling.

Not only is he a traitor to the idea of the American Constitution, but he is sloppy, vengeful, and manipulative. I want to pile criticism on his clueless cult followers, but at some point we need to get over the whole "how could you have supported this sorry human?" question and focus on the individual who cast the spells over millions.

Yes, I am disappointed that so many (maybe?) normal, hard-working Americans, often claiming deep religious belief, can still support, rather blindly, a man who redefines downward the term "flawed."

But I suspect that the former prez is a unicorn and that whatever his attraction may be for some people, it ends with him. Remove him from the political stage and much of America's angst diminishes, at least enough to allow more civilized conversations.

It won't solve our problems and won't lead to a resurgence of, well, anything. But there is a reason we lock away murderers and psychopaths and incorrigible criminals. Some people must be separated, even if just for a short time, from the rest of society. 

It would be nice to see the former prez tossed in a minimum security facility for a year or so, but better would be to simply establish that he can never run for office again. 

Jailed, he is a martyr and there is always the chance for him to return with even more fanatical supporters.

It's not morally or emotionally satisfying, but it would be better for the country to simply remove him from any future candidacy. 

It's hard to imagine too many non-cultists disagreeing.

Recent great writing examples for class discussions

From this week's Frank Bruni blog and his "For the love of sentences" recurring feature:

From Mark Gongloff in Bloomberg: “He Borexited with all the quiet dignity for which he has become famous, declaring, ‘Them’s the breaks,’ a quote from Winston Churchill, or possibly Benny Hill.”

For students to appreciate the rhetoric here, they need a quick refresher on "Brexit" as a term and a policy in order to enjoy the mash up of Boris and Brexit and making it a past tense verb. They are unlikely to be familiar with Benny Hill, but perhaps a comparison to other "low brow," physical comedians would help. Jim Carrey or the Three Stooges are a start.

A famous person intentionally breaking a basic grammar rule is also worth discussion. We might also discuss the satirical tone here. Boris Johnson has never exhibited "quiet dignity." 

It occurs to me that however much we like the sentence, when we find ourselves needing to explain four or five essential pieces of information just to allow students in on the joke... maybe we should find something more accessible.

On the other hand, that sentence made me laugh out loud... so if you are teaching senior citizens or news junkies...

The article that received the most nominations from readers, according to Bruni, was from a guest essay in the New York Times by Tim Kreider, who wrote: “American conservatism, which is demographically terminal and knows it, is acting like a moribund billionaire adding sadistic codicils to his will.”

First, this is from a persuasive essay and sharing it in class might force us to find something much more supportive of our right wing radical friends and students (and their parents), just to show that good writing is good writing, whoever produces it. 

Second, it would be fun to discuss whether conservatism really IS terminal (will it really die out as old timers die off?), but "moribund" and "codicils" are useful vocabulary words to learn. 

One last sample. In The Santa Barbara Independent, Nick Welsh commented on proposals to make gun owners take out insurance policies: “Like Santa Claus, the industry knows if you’ve been bad or good and what risk you pose to become a mass shooter. They have the actuarial tables; they’ve run the odds. And maybe if you’re a 21-year-old male incel stewing in all your unrequited juices, they’ll simply deny coverage.”

First, the term "incel" might need some discussion, but what struck me was the clever way Mr. Welsh connects a mythical law requiring insurance for your guns (like cars) might effect some changes in the more dangerous of our neighbors buying weapons due to insurance companies doing what they do. They figure the odds. They place financial weight on various outcomes. They don't like to pay claims.

The deep-frozen federal government might never be able to pass effective fun safety laws, but legislators love to tell people what to do, and mandating that all guns be insured makes everybody money while staying away from messy arguments about the Constitution.

How cool would it be to challenge students to consider ways problems can be approached from unexpected angles, using unexpected or unappreciated rules and regulations?

Looking for commonalities and strategies to break out of our stagnation

It's difficult to not be skeptical about the Supreme Court and its radically right wing turn in the past year or two. But every once in a while we are reminded that the Congress still retains the power to create laws that can guarantee everything from rights to long-standing traditions.

The latest evidence is the U.S. House passing a bipartisan bill that guarantees same-sex marriage, which now heads to the Senate. This should be a no-brainer as reality has eclipsed tortured legal theories about whether such a right can be traced to the Constitution. Clarence Thomas can question same-sex marriage for similar reasons to why he voted to overturn Roe, but the chaos of upending marriages for thousands and thousands of Americans makes even senators like Ted Cruz oppose that sort of change.

It's actually stunning that only 47 Republicans voted with the Dems on this one. Such a "no" vote seems so homophobic considering today's culture that I wonder if much of those negative votes were simply kneejerk reactions to anything favored by Democrats. 

I am guessing that interracial marriages can gather even more bipartisan support (though Thomas, being IN an interracial marriage, did not question that particular decision). 

Perhaps finding areas where even our divisive politics can produce some sort of agreement is just "low hanging fruit," but there is something to be said for creating some momentum for change, some energy behind finding commonalities, etc.

Analysts of the Supreme Court often point out that most of the court's decisions are not 6-3 splits... in fact, most are unanimous. Those cases are often technical and more legalistic interpretations of existing statutes, but all those decisions with everyone agreeing must explain part of why the justices seem to get along personally, though they may argue passionately against one another in dissents and decisions.

The Supreme Court desperately needs term limits, with 18 years being the favored number. This eventually would mean a president would expect to nominate two new judges in a four-year term. It's a bit diabolical that Republicans have pushed in judges in their 40s and early 50s... thus extending their influence for decades, without any connection to new political or cultural realities.

We need term limits for Senators, as well. What makes 88-year-old Chuck Grassley indispensable to Iowans? Why are we fine limiting presidents to two terms while we allow a senator from a small, overwhelmingly white state stay in power for decade after decade? Are senators more important to our system? 

I suppose my enthusiasm over term limits connects with my realization that, at some point, it's time to step off the stage and let someone else "play the part." 

I have read several commentaries lately that indicate that it is OLD people who are most likely to agree that term limits are important. That may not seem logical; after all, what about all that accumulated experience and wisdom? 

Meanwhile, a coal and gas baron from West Virginia continues to hold up hopes for any strong American actions to fight climate change, and he has no plans to leave the stage. His successor might be even worse, but I would find some comfort in knowing that his hold on power has a clear end.

Hey, knowing he can't run for reelection might make him more likely to vote for programs that can make his grandchildren safer and more prosperous. That final six-year term for senators could become the sweet spot for legislation.

We might be able to shore up democracy by widening the number of voices at the top, if we dare.

It's TikTok's time, and I was not invited to the party

Here's a random comment from Professor Chris Snider, shared during a presentation at the MediaNow workshop a couple weeks ago at Drake University: "If you want to spot early tech trends, watch what middle school girls are doing with tech and software and platforms."

He used TikTok as an example, and how that social media platform was a mere curiosity just three years ago and now is the most used platform by high school students (soon to be college students).

I have no idea how much evidence backs this assertion up, but am prepared to accept that general claim. My own granddaughters confirm the popularly of this platform. But here's the thing: I'm not sure I am comfortable with assigning 14-year-olds the task of choosing future tech trends.

It's not that I don't trust in middle school girls' intelligence and energy and idealism, and I don't honestly know if there is a clearly superior age group to make such decisions. I dimly remember when young people eagerly embraced Facebook, and how it took years for their elders to jump on board. Predictably, as soon as parents and grandparents started showing up on that platform, kids quickly abandoned it in search of something more "them." 

I also dimly remember not being all that wise when in junior high, though I certainly thought I knew a lot. My taste of being semi-adjacent to setting trends must have been loving the Beach Boys and Beatles in 1964, and so many other great bands from the 70s and 80s. Now you can't turn on a commercial or listen to a movie soundtrack without hearing music from over 30 years ago.

I wonder if Facebook will some day be thought of with nostalgia, with top posts being replayed and golden memories flooding back... Ha!

Instagram is owned by Meta/Facebook, and still seems quite popular with teens, but TikTok currently reigns supreme mostly because grandpa isn't on it... and doesn't even understand it.

But grandpa CAN understand new technology if motivated enough. If Trump jumped on TikTok, you might be surprised by how many folks who rarely spend time pushing the tech envelope would find the time and energy to become regular users.

But most of us would find a Trump or Biden TikTok account to be shamelessly pandering and (probably) awkward and strained. They would need to hire some 8th graders to help them out.

That takes me to Mr. Biden's infamous photo "fist-bumping" Saudi Arabian prince Mohammed bid Salman as they met for talks last week. Some people objected to the mere fact that the two national leaders met at all. MBS is, after all, responsible for all manner of human rights violations and numerous outright murders. 

Some people objected, however, to the choice of a fist bump over a hand shake. Hand shakes are so normal and accepted, even in a pandemic, that they are like saying "Hi, how are you?" to strangers as you pass them on a walk. 

We are so focused on finding the negative, on bringing down the powerful (or anyone we disagree with), that a 79-year-old's use of what is considered a younger, hipper greeting can cause a minor disturbance in the media jungle.

At this point, Biden can do nothing right. The momentum is building against him. I'm sure that fist bump has made TikTok, causing laughter and derision from hip 7th graders. AT least they aren't "lost votes."

I guess he should go back to hugging and kissing tops of heads. 

At least it's HIS brand.

We may not need a 'good news channel,' but we need some good news

The news comes at us like water bursting from a firehose, in overwhelming amounts and with 'bad news" making up most of the torrent.

We need to be informed citizens and so avoiding the news all together seems to lead to... well, nothing. 

But some surveys lately indicate that at least 40 percent of Americans are actively avoiding engaging with news regularly (women are the majority, for some reason). Other advanced countries have much lower levels of "disengagement." A Washington Post columnist, Amanda Ripley, got to thinking about what this all means last week, and suggested that it's possible the product -- the actual journalism -- may be the real problem.

Maybe we just aren't doing it right.

Her conclusion was that people can get so overwhelmed, so depressed, and so hopeless that they choose not engaging with news as a logical way to live a less "angsty" life.

Climate change coverage is a fine example of news that almost always features dire warnings and predictions of "it's now too late to avoid disaster," and emphasizes how little governments are actually doing about this coming nightmare.

But what if journalists did not settle for the doom sharing and tried to add some coverage of what individual and small groups and even specific companies are doing to battle the apocalypse?

For student media, this might mean that we don't leave our coverage at "school is damaged and we struggle with issues that no one seems to care about." Yes, that claim is true, but there are people who are trying to make a difference in their own way. 

Women who feel embattled by society and the law are being told to come out and vote. I read that President Biden has basically thrown up his hands and is saying to potential voters that the midterm election is key in providing enough legislators. He claims he can't do much about Roe or climate or anything else.

He may be right, from a global perspective. But progress and justice rarely comes in some dramatic law or decision... it comes in bits and pieces and small movements and individual choices that eventually add up. (We hope.)

Yes, the midterms are important, but millions of individual acts and conversations and investments are ultimately more important.

I would love to see a news coverage philosophy that honors the idea of working to find something people can actually DO... ARE actually doing, to balance the dreadful long-term trends, the dramatic weather and fires and war stories, with examples that remind everyone that we are not helpless passengers on the trip.

School media are the perfect place to practice this intentionally positive sort of reporting. 

When only one percent support you...

Just to wrap up the week and finish off some thoughts about "stepping off the stage" and acknowledging the needs and desires of younger Americans, I will share a startling result from a recent poll that asked various age groups some political questions.

Among Americans ages 18-30, ONE PERCENT!!! said they strongly supported President Biden running for another term. OK. I am fine with youth finding its own path and rejecting the restrictions and traditions of the past, but ONE percent? That's, well, emphatic.

Almost 40 percent of those same 18-30 year olds said if the next election were Biden vs Trump they would not vote at all. That is more a rejection of the gerontocracy than a political point of view. They are deeply skeptical of grandparents (sometimes great-grandparents) making key governmental decisions and constantly repeating stories that formed those old-timers 30, 40 and 50 years ago.

Conversely, I assume old-timers are more comfortable with leaders who don't have to get explanations of everything from Polaroid cameras to rotary phones and phone booths. With leaders who know "I'm A Believer" from the Monkees as opposed to the finale to "Shrek the Musical." To leaders who paid under a grand per semester for graduate school.

For whatever reasons, government at the highest levels is all about being quite old and being quite wealthy. If you are Gen Z, you are neither.

When I was just out of high school, The Who sang, "Hope I die before I get old." and that sounded rational and more like a celebration of youthful energy and new ideas than a specific condemnation of grandpa. Roger Daltrey is now 78, just a year younger than Mr. Biden, and now if he chose to belt out that anthem it would be with a keen sense of irony.

Changing for change sake, without a plan and driven by exhaustion or fear or boredom, is often a poor choice. But sometimes simply making a change, with faith that we can adjust to whatever results, and feeling confident that good things can come out of taking a chance is exactly what people and governments and companies and entertainers should do.

I'm not sure of the campaign strategy that will guarantee electoral success in our weird and pugnacious country, but creating pessimism among our youngest voters means politicians are writing them off. If we turn off enough groups of voters who have not seen much change in their daily lives, no matter who runs government, soon we have rule by the elite. 

Maybe we are most of the way there now, but I am willing to bet on the energy, passion, and intelligence of young people (for me, people under age 50) to move us forward.

America is not some dystopian nightmare when viewed holistically. It has been and continues to be hostile to minorities and to women and to the young (unless they are still in the womb), but the nation retains a lot of positives and inspirational people and ideas. 

We're a mess, but we aren't hopeless. 

And what group has more hope, more untapped idealism, and more energy than the young? My age group has had a long time on stage and some progress was made.

Time for a new cast to step up.

What students want: freedom, safety, and sincere conversations

I brought back a few observations concerning the state of the high school student mind, not to sound overly pompous. I spent something like 24 total hours working with 8 girls and 3 guys during the workshop and that time together means opinions were shared and questions asked.

To a person (11 of 11), the Roe reversal was upsetting and puzzling. When it came time to write a personal commentary draft, many chose to vent a bit about how they resented the loss of a freedom while steaming about six judges in far-off D.C., evidently blasé about upending lives.

None of them may have had to confront unintended pregnancies -- I honestly don't know -- but everyone understands having a right suddenly taken away. Radical Republicans should not count on their votes any time soon.

Another observation: kids have shifted their thinking from "if" there is school shooting in their building to "when," and that was startling. Again, they were an equal mix of angry, confused, and fearful when the topic of gun violence came up.

America is pretty good at simply shrugging and getting on with it after even the most horrific shootings, and that means nothing will be done anytime soon. Same with the virus and its many variants. We are all fatalistic at this point, which means vaccination rates will remain where they are and unnecessary suffering will continue. Voices of reason need some leaders to change the momentum here.

A third observation: each student valued having someone they could trust (or at least tolerate) talk with them about their writing. I was disturbed by how many of these bright students volunteered that no one ever really discussed their writing with them, offering suggestions and support and asking questions. 

We could all agree that something is wrong with education and that no one was satisfied with how school works or how learning is supported. Everyone desires more time to simply talk with a teacher about their work, and everyone agrees that school is not structured to provide more time for such activities. 

I began our day on opinion writing by showing the famous clip from the 1976 film "Network," and the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" scene. We had some fun chanting it, over and over. It was cathartic, though, just as in the movie, what we should do with our anger is not entirely clear.

I encouraged them to make a list of what makes them "mad as hell," and to then start thinking about how to chip away at the injustices or poor design or ill-considered policies and rules. Simple anger provides us with a short rush of adrenaline but we need to morph that adrenaline into action of some sort.

To be a student journalist requires energy and motivation, and anger can get those started. The key for those students this coming year is to create strategies and techniques that they can use to make a difference in the world, even if that difference is quite small.

For the radical right, the Roe reversal has provided new energy. If you can impose your will on an entire country in one case, why not try some more restrictions? Authoritarians and fanatics will never be satisfied. No abortion in my state? Hoorah! But now, let's talk about the neighboring state." 

If life is a game, the radical CINOs are in the midst of a good stretch for them. But fortunes can change, and I could sense a lot of energy coming from more progressive directions and thinking. 

The kids are all right. Or can be.

Progressives support 'circular firing squad' far too often

Today's "much ado about nothing" news story that demonstrates the lengths people will go to attack opponents involves a speech from Jill Biden, where the first lady praised the diversity of the community, saying it was “as distinct as the bodegas of the Bronx, as beautiful as the blossoms of Miami, and as unique as the breakfast tacos here in San Antonio.”

According to one of the 1,500 Latinos attending her speech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, most in the room applauded and laughed at her series of three similes. But some people just have to find something to attack and to get a bit of attention, so a few complained on social media about being compared to tacos... and thus demonstrating that their grasp of how figurative language works is a bit weak.

Of course we know that actual Hispanic people, no matter their backgrounds and origins, are not actually bodegas, blossoms, or tacos. The series of three examples are meant to demonstrate range and comprehensiveness. Torturing the language to make this an insult is a stretch. 

We might try our own series of three similes, this time describing the diversity of Irish immigrants:

"The community of Irish immigrants is as distinct as the cozy pubs of Brooklyn, as beautiful as the view of the Atlantic from the Ring of Kerry, and as unique as U2 compared to The Wolfe Tones."

I suppose some overly sensitive souls might object to being "cozy pubs, a view, and a band," but they would simply be missing the point. It's a series, and uses the "magic" of three examples, and implies that Irish culture is both well-known and diverse. Perhaps not diverse enough, but how exactly do we measure "enough" diversity?

While the Christians in Name Only rally to impose their will about abortion and about the secondary status of women on the nation as a whole, more progressive voices seem more interested in performative virtue and showing themselves to be purer than you and me.

Sure, Mrs. Biden mispronounced "bodega," and YouTube rejoiced. There is nothing more human than enjoying celebrities being embarrassed or slipping up. If you do any public speaking, there will be stumbles and mumbles, tripping over phrases and even skipping a key word. Want to avoid all speaking errors? Don't talk. Someone like Mrs. Biden might be credited with showing up and trying to connect. The fact that she doesn't connect with everyone is just reality.

There are many important issues for Democrats (or perhaps Dems in Name Only?) to discuss and analyze and argue about. 

It's not that those criticizing Mrs. Biden's simile choices are wrong from their point of view... and their insights into why they resist easy stereotypes are valuable.

But every time this sort of silly dispute becomes a headline, the CINOs rejoice, the bigots give thanks, and the greedy radical right politicians rake in more cash.

Those same critics will be shocked when progressive candidates are defeated at the polls -- should that occur -- all while disavowing any responsibility. They mostly want to be "right."

After all, who would have guessed that the Republican radicals were not keen on diversity? Both parties are equally bad, you say? See last month's Supreme Court decisions for the results of not caring who is in power.

Where are the strong and sustained attacks on the excesses and ugliness of Republican politics? Why must Democratic politicians attempt to build consensus despite all evidence that their opponents could care less?

Dems need to focus.

Beware of old people arguing about 'the golden age' and outdated policies

President Biden was born Nov. 20, 1942, making him seven and a half years my senior, and the voices calling for someone else to run for president in 2024 are rising. There's not an opinion site or page in the country that doesn't have something on how he is already our oldest president and that he would be in his eighties should he win a second term.

The smart money is on Mr. Biden continuing to claim that he will run for re-election until past the midterms this fall... when he will finally change his mind. That would be my preference.

Everybody likes Joe Biden personally, but they are not so sure about his performance in office. He promised to bring "normalcy" back to politics, but that clearly has not happened. Sure, it's better by far than the chaos his predecessor created every day. 

But the pandemic hasn't really gone away, though we have basically decided that we are over it. Ukraine is being tortured by a rival nation we can't afford to go to war with (mostly because of the possibility of the end of civilization as we know it). Gas prices are slowly decreasing but inflation remains high, mostly due to a combination of pent up demand for goods and travel along with effects of the Russian invasion.

No one thinks the nation is on the right track, and no one honestly has any idea of how to get America and the world back on track. Most people don't know what the "right track" even would look like. 

It's a confusing time, but one thing I am less and less confused about is aging. There comes a time when we all need to think hard about putting most of our government's decision making power in the hands of people over 70 (and often well over 80).

Our "gerontocracy" (government by the elderly) is mostly my age and older. I'm not sure the country has fully come to grips with what having so many older leaders means, but the occasion of turning 72 has gotten me thinking more deeply about it all.

Sitting at a bar near the Drake campus last Friday, I found myself, somehow, sharing the story of how much child care cost us back in the 1970s as we were starting our family, after returning to Iowa City. The university still had vestiges of a lab school sponsored by the College of Education in the old University High School. 

By sheer luck and good timing, we got Lesley into the Early Childhood Education Center (ECEC), part of the College of Ed., on the last day for enrollment, sometime in 1974. There were numerous students working as well as Masters and PhD students in early childhood education to take care of the kids. There was even a full-time nurse on duty. The monthly cost was $75.

ECEC guaranteed that younger siblings would be admitted and both Sara and Phil became "students" at about age two months. The school eventually closed down -- the 1980s began the squeezing of university budgets -- and we soon had to find Phil more traditional arrangements, but by then we were on a bit stronger financial footing.

Kathleen and I often wonder what we would have done without ECEC. Parents today need not wonder.

To them it must sound like a mythical time, and those 30- or 40-something parents listening to my story must have considered the entire tale science fiction without exploding planets or space battles.

The danger is in thinking that experiences I had in my 20s and 30s (or 50s, for that matter) will be coming back at all, much less becoming common once again. ECEC is not coming back. Government is too stingy and costs have risen astronomically.

Should every state provide something like ECEC at an affordable price to all parents? Of course! 

Will that happen? Not a chance.

We need leadership that is more closely tied to life NOW as opposed to decades ago. People my age have stuff to contribute and wisdom to share and money to spend.

We just don't have to be the nation's leaders.

The hard reality of knowing when to back away

I was off in Iowa last week, teaching at MediaNow, a high school journalism workshop on the campus of Drake University, and didn't find the time to blog. That is just in case anyone noticed my absence from the blogosphere.

BTW, the workshop is called MediaNow because it focuses on cutting edge technology and how it can make student media more accessible and exciting. It doesn't neglect more foundational journalism skills, including writing and reporting, which is what I taught, or photojournalism, though the technology has certainly changed over time.

On the other hand, I couldn't help thinking that this almost 72-year-old was a bit more "MediaThen." One speaker presented ten trends or software or hardware that should be really exploding in the next year or so. One of them was about "selfie drones," which evidently are a thing if you want to spend $250 for the device and which (I guess?) will upgrade our selfie game and make us all go viral.

I did realize that I was taking notes on the presentation in a reporter's notebook with a pen. Most of the students at the workshop did not know what a reporter's notebook was and many appeared unfamiliar with taking notes, period. They rely so much on their phones and recording interviews, etc., that there would be real issues if their devices were to be confiscated and they were forced to use traditional notetaking.

That observation about my being so NOT part of Generation Z, not to mention not being Generation X or Millennial, plus some other weirdness last week reinforced my decision that MediaNow would be my "last hurrah," so to speak. 

Everything was handled well. They put instructors in a nice hotel right across the street from the Drake admissions building. The organization was sharp and efficient. The kids were smart and engaged and open to new ideas. The organizers are long-time friends and talented advisers and media people, so it was fun to hang out at lunch or in a local bar and solve world problems.

But I was the oldest person involved by about 20 years and the whole "travel hundreds of miles, leave my wife to fend for herself, never quite be comfortable" thing just didn't feel quite right. I got paid, of course, but the money is not enough to offset the negatives.

I can still teach, and writing still lies at the heart of everything in media, so what I was focused on was important. I had several students tell me that they appreciated me just talking with them about their drafts. It was clear that back in their home schools, they were solid writers and that their advisers were fine with whatever they wrote.

But when they saw how much more focused and effective their writing could be with a second draft, at least, after a conversation with a coach, they realized that what they really wanted was what we all want: real interactions and real conversations about their ideas and their rhetorical choices.

It comes down to "I COULD keep doing this sort of summer workshop," helping a few kids become better thinkers and writers, as opposed to "time to take a further step back" from that almost frenetic teaching, trying to cram years of learning into three days. The latter choice is stronger.

It's a bit sad to realize that I just don't have the fire anymore to travel the country challenging young minds, but there does come a time...

Never say never, I guess, but if that was my final summer out-of-state workshop, I can "retire" knowing I did my best and left it all on the field, so to speak.

Time for some younger, more energetic advisers to pick up the baton.

Hear that, Mr. Biden?

 

We all need to examine the myths that motivate us

Last week hundreds of thousands of Avs fans flocked to downtown Denver to celebrate the team's NHL championship. 

Kathleen said that she was worried about the possibility of a mass shooting during the event, with that many people all crowded together. The chaos and the horror/terror that could be created was almost unimaginable. Nothing happened, but the idea that a shooting COULDN'T happen would have been beyond naïve.

Granddaughter Grace joined a throng of women of all ages downtown last week at a rally to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which made us proud but also prompted her mother to instruct her to run as fast she could the other way should anything happen... away from possible violence, likely involving guns. Nothing happened, but the idea that a shooting COULDN'T happen would have been beyond naïve.

If I were a school official, I would be spending the bulk of my time trying to figure out how to keep children and teachers in schools as safe as possible... and we are only a month away in Colorado from most teachers reporting back to work. So much for that whole "you get three months off... lucky you" argument that the ignorant make about teachers.

Schools are in crisis, and that's without the constant threat of random and mortal violence looming over every building. Little time is left to really think hard about how to improve education itself, how to support kids who are confronting an increasingly angry and divided world, or how to retain and support so many teachers who feel stressed and frustrated and unappreciated.

A school official might think that the school has never had a shooting or any sort of mass violence, and the odds are still quite good that nothing will happen like that this coming school year. Nothing happened yet, after all, but the idea that a shooting COULDN'T happen is beyond naïve.

Even the most extreme gun nuts must be thinking that there is something horrible eating away at the country and that our out-of-control gun culture won't be the cure. The person carrying a concealed weapon, just in case, is irrational and living in some myth where the "good guy" will be able to quickly and accurately assess the situation, be in the right position, and then do what we have all seen too many times in movies and TV shows... defeat the bad guy.

Highland Park, Illinois, is a wealthy suburb, but a 4th of July parade became a killing ground for one nutcase. Boulder, Colorado, is a liberal enclave, but a nutcase could show up at a King Soopers and murder anyone not fast enough to run away. Both of those mass shooting sites featured victims who assumed they would not be targeted. After all, what would be the point? 

We can't be paralyzed by fear, of course, though it's a strong urge. One way to deal with that urge is to repeat to ourselves that the odds are very much in our favor that nothing horrible will happen to us, or our loved ones or our neighbors, today. 

Those Avalanche fans who jammed downtown are living in a myth, as well, connecting the achievements of well-paid athletes who aren't from their neighborhood or even their state with their own lives that are lived far from national championships and far from often unimaginable riches. Most of those fans have never played a moment of hockey.

The myths we tell ourselves are powerful and motivating. They are not always bad. They are called "myths," however, because they are not real.. they are not factual. They get the sentiment right, perhaps. They can help us understand themes and connect us.

I am flying to Des Moines to teach writing as a journalism workshop today, mostly motivated by the myth that I can truly help some students become better writers in the span of about three days. We will likely have some fun and perhaps a few students will leave with some ideas to build on in the coming school year.

But the reality is that I am just a "consultant," brought in for some "dog and pony show" stuff -- hey, kids don't spend several days at a journalism workshop because they are completely focused on the intricacies of great narrative writing or argumentative writing. They want some fun. They want to meet some new friends. They want to get away from their home for a few days. And, yes, they vaguely want to be better thinkers and writers, but that's the task of years of education.

The teachers who work with them in the coming year... they are the educators that have a solid chance of helping kids become better citizens, better journalists, better people.

The reality is that change in students comes from years of slogging it out, stumbling into and out of strategies and tactics, and becoming more and more confident in what they do and who they are. 

Another reality is that, at age 72 (next Tuesday) I am so far removed from these high schools students that I will be more a unicorn in their lives than someone they can connect with. The reality of the education game is that there are only the tiniest number of educators working in schools who are my age. 

There's a good reason for that, but I will keep alive the myth of my being able to quickly make some difference in some kids for a few more days.

A good day to reset some national expectations

It's Independence Day today, the 246th year of America being, well, America, at least in some form.

It hasn't been a smooth 246 years, and right now we are a long way from a "more perfect union," as Lincoln said. Our national angst has hobbled the presidency, paralyzed Congress, and politicized the Supreme Court. 

I was reminded today that Prohibition, a Constitutional Amendment driven mistake in trying to regulate basic human instincts, ended after 13 years, with yet another Amendment. The nation managed to "right the ship," so to speak, replacing one national referendum with another. 

Unfortunately, there is no specific law to respond to, since many of the "rights" of the past 50 years basically grow out of court interpretations of statutes and the spirit of the Constitution. Right now, it appears the six radical right wingers on the Supreme Court are feeling full of themselves and eager to repay the investment radical Republicans made in them.

The deluge of 6-3 decisions, many in open opposition to popular opinion and preferences, has just begun.

The Court is supremely independent and I hope the Sick Six are enjoying their BBQ today, protected by power and location and police from the majority of their fellow citizens. 

My hope is that Democrats can shed their doomed devotion to bipartisan solutions and embrace the struggle between being a democratic republic and being an autocracy/theocracy. Yes, it will be nice to see inflation drop a bit before midterms and yes, it would be great to see the former president indicted for clear crimes.

But the majority needs to step up and battle complacency and power imbalances. 

Perhaps California governor Gavin Newsom is the guy to galvanize the majority. He is already taking on wacky Florida politicians with campaign ads that stress real freedom. Check this video. 

Time to stop crossing our fingers and chanting, "This is not who we are. This is not who we are."

Time to recognize that "we" -- a solid 40 percent of the nation -- really are exactly as we seem to be.

That needs to change, and July 4 seems like a good day to commit to that.

We can't enjoy a life without a bit of humor

I have been trying to put together a quick "how to advise student humor writing" lesson, and therefore was drawn to this week's Frank Bruni blog featuring some light-hearted sentence examples, though several of his samples seemed more "dark humor" than we might wish. That's consistent with the mood of the world, I guess.

The first example is an example of a writer using hyperbole and personal opinion to comment on a famous couple, with no clear intention of harming the couple's reputation or creating true conflict. I was thinking this might be a nice example of the sort of humor writing that would not cause too much upset in a school community.

Dan Kois wrote in Slate about a soda machine in Ben Affleck’s home that apparently dispenses both Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. “Why would you create this unholy monstrosity, this horrific hybrid, this affront to nature?” Kois wrote. “Look, I am not naïve. I know that some tragically misguided individuals prefer Diet Pepsi, the devil’s beverage, to Diet Coke, the elixir of life. But who drinks both?”

Of the possibility that Affleck prefers one while his fiancée, Jennifer Lopez, likes the other, Kois observed: “Scientists tell us that, unfortunately, there are no documented cases of successful cross-cola marriages in human history. Happy, buoyant, cosmically satisfied Diet Coke people cannot coexist with miserable, unhealthy Diet Pepsi people.” 

A teaching point here would have to be that this "commentary" is much more about the writer than the celebrities. The vociferous ranting is so clearly over the top that readers quickly realize the purpose of the passage is simply to make them smile.

In The New Yorker, Andrew Marantz wrote: 

“Even Trump’s putative allies will admit, in private, that he was a lazy, feckless leader. They wanted an Augustus; they got a Caligula.” 

This is a sentence that relies on the reader knowing a tiny bit, at least, about two Roman emperors and a high school adviser might want to discuss such references with a student writer. Will such references connect with their main audience -- students -- and is it OK if they don't? Maybe the point will be to get readers to fire up their search engines and learn a little history.

Commenting in The Guardian about the nervousness and cowardliness of Boris Johnson’s aides, Andrew Rawnsley wrote: 

“A shiver is going around members of the cabinet looking for a spine to run down.” 

The sentence above is a form of satire along with clear exaggeration, using the "spine" as a metaphor for courage, but there is also a nice use of "shiver" and "spine" that sounds just right.

Also in The Guardian, Arwa Mahdawi noted that the Supreme Court, in the same week, 

“ruled that states don’t have the right to pass their own gun-control laws but do have the right to pass their own women-control laws. Time to get uteruses reclassified as assault rifles, I guess.” 

This is also satire, based on reaching for an absurd effect to illustrate the writer's observations on some seemingly contradictory rulings by the now radical court. 

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Kevin Fisher-Paulson wrote: 

“Parenting really is a heartache business. At the end of the day, there is no end of the day.”

I was thinking this clever syntax might inspire a student writer to explore subbing in another noun for "parenting," like "high school" or "teaching" or "coaching." The "heartache business" might not always work, but could in some cases. 

A writer might rewrite to something like, "Teaching is tough. At the end of the day, there is no end of the day."  

That is a great example of a provocative claim that just begs for support examples, and I would imagine some writers might opt for taking observations and anecdotes heard in class to illogical, exaggerated conclusion. 

A classroom "trick" is to come up with some common starting point and then help individual students explore wherever they want to move in their reactions to that starting point. 

I plan to use some form of this final "no end of the day" starter with my first in-person summer writing workshop group next week in Des Moines. I'll let you know how it goes.