'...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.