Guns, Schools and Politics: An American After School (Not So) Special

Locks, lights, out of sight.

Former Denver conservative radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, used to demand of callers when they would call into his show that they tell him "where they sit before they tell him where they stand". So I will do just that. I am a registered Republican, always have been, although if you know me you also know that I feel I have been abandoned by my party. I am a conservative. I like and want small, limited government, however, I do understand the need for government to exist and have some presence in our lives in order to maintain order and prevent chaos from reigning as well as providing basic services for its citizens. I do support the 2nd Amendment and support the right of people to own guns. I myself own guns...plural, "guns". Although  I don't own and really don't have any desire to own one, I have had experience with an AR-15. I also believe the time has come to have a serious discussion about AR-15s, other assault rifles and guns in general in American society. My kids, my students, your kids are too important not to have this discussion.

The phrase I started this essay with is a phrase that is repeated in my classroom at least two times a year. In addition to the cursory fire drills, schools also practice active shooter in the building drills. When students hear "Locks, lights, out of sight" on the intercom they, unfortunately, know what that means; the door must be locked immediately, all lights must be shut off, shades must be drawn and they must get on the floor out of sight from any windows. Students are instructed they are to remain silent until told otherwise (this is an exceptionally hard thing for Freshmen as the boys can't seem to keep their hands off of each other and girls giggle about everything incessantly). We are not allowed to open the door for anybody, anything or any reason. Even if they are pounding on the door demanding, begging, pleading that we let them in. I have a Home Depot bucket in my room filled with kitty litter, a curtain and toilet paper in case the lockdown lasts a while and your bladder can't. I also have some snacks in there, just in case we get the urge to eat I guess. The sad part of this is that this is "normal" for schools. It shouldn't be, but it is. This is wrong and it should be. Schools should be about friends, recess, Prom, classes, cool teachers, mean teachers and grades, not drills for an active shooter. I can honestly say I can't remember any time I've heard about a school catching on fire during the school day and teachers or students saying that they were thankful they had done fire drills. But I have heard of school shootings and teachers, as well as students, talk about the drills they have done in preparation for one. This must stop. We must address the elephant in the room. We must actively find solutions to this now. It shouldn't be harder for people to get a drivers license than it is to get a gun. An 18-year kid can't buy beer, but that same kid can buy a gun. None of that makes sense. However, there are a plethora of reasons why people will say that any discussion on the availability to get guns is a non-starter. Allow me to address some of these reasons.

This Is A Mental Health Issue Not A Gun Issue
Arguing that this is a mental health issue is like arguing that water isn't wet. OF COURSE IT IS!!!!!! Anytime anyone for any reason kills another person, there is some sort of psych issue taking place. We should increase access and funding for mental health, we should also address the availability of weapons to people who have mental health issues. Normal, sane people don't just kill other people.

However, if this is your argument yet you supported the repeal of a law that made it very difficult for people with mental issues to get a hold of a weapon you are either a charlatan or a hypocrite. If you call for more access to health care to help "these people" but you also supported cutting funding for healthcare which would have granted access for "these people" to get mental health help, your credibility is at best questionable. Think before you act. Politicians are elected to represent all citizens, not just some. Do what is best for the people of this nation, rather than focus on your base.

Next!

We Could Prevent School Shootings By Placing Armed Veterans In Schools
A noble idea to be sure. I love veterans and support veterans 100%. But there are a few problems here. First, if we are really worried about becoming a police state, is the best way to prevent that by having armed people roaming the halls of our schools. Do we want our future decision makers to see having heavily armed people in their lives as normal? I've been in countries where it is very common to see heavily armed police and military personnel standing on street corners and along highways. It is very unnerving. Are things really that unsafe, that this is "normal"? That is not a society in which I would want to live.

Second, this takes money. How are these veterans going to be paid? Currently, there are about 140,000 schools in the country. Let's say that each school has an armed veteran in each school earning a salary of $45,000. This comes out to costing taxpayers over $6 Billion a year!!! And that's just salary. This doesn't include paying for equipment, benefits and other costs of employment. $6 billion a year!!!! I have to buy kleenex for my classroom out of my pocket because we don't have enough budget to buy kleenex! We have to worry about the number of copies we make because our copy budget is limited. But somehow we can come up with $6 billion a year to have heavily armed veterans walk the halls of our schools?

Next!

We Can Arm Our Teachers
You cannot be serious. I have known teachers my whole life. I am around teachers all the time. I do not want most of these people to have a gun, especially in a high-pressure situation as an active shooter. Many of these people are dangerous to be around when they have a marker in their hands and you want them to have a gun? C'mon! Seriously!

Also, many teachers, especially young teachers, don't make a lot of money. I personally know of teachers who have Masters Degrees but live in their parent's basement because their student loans are too high and they don't make enough money to live on their own. I just read an article that teachers in Oklahoma want four day weeks so they can go get a job at Wal-Mart just so they can make enough money to pay rent and eat. But you think they can afford to buy a gun? Seriously!

Next!

The 2nd Amendment

Do not lecture me about the 2nd Amendment. Trust me, I've spent my whole life studying and learning American history. It is not only my profession, it is my passion. One of my areas of emphasis is early American history (1700-1815), trust me I understand why the 2nd Amendment was added and all of the nuances far better than most. I also know that the last part of the 2nd Amendment states that people are to have guns in order to have a well-organized militia. If you can explain to me why that last statement was included in the 2nd Amendment, then we can continue to have a discussion. But if your understanding of the 2nd Amendment begins and ends with "It's my damn right to own guns! It's guaranteed by the Constitution!" Then you are not helping your cause any and only helping to perpetuate a stereotype. I don't think we should take away all guns. No president has ever advocated for that; no not even Obama. But I do think it is time that we discuss what is necessary and decent and what is not. Handguns, shotguns, rifles are fine. Most people would agree with this statement. You can use handguns for self-defense. Shotguns and rifles are used for hunting. I and most Americans would agree with and support these weapons. However, so-called assault rifles are not practical for either self-defense or hunting. They have one purpose; to kill or maim as many people in a short amount of time. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern American conservative thought and political icon for me once stated "I've been a member of the NRA, I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or semiautomatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anyone's arsenal. If any S.O.B. can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting." I am not sure if assault weapons fit under the heading of a "well-regulated militia". I just don't.

Next!

It's UnAmerican
I find this a very curious statement. Since when is it unAmerican to try and protect our people? We have a plethora of laws on the books designed to do exactly that. In the early 1900's laws were passed to ensure the meat and medicine that we ingested was safe and wouldn't kill us. There are laws and regulations in place to ensure that our working conditions were safe. Laws were passed mandating an 8-hour workday and forbidding the use of child labor. It is against the law to bring a weapon to a park, government building, or school. When these laws were passed there were people who fought vigorously against them and warned that this was the first step towards Bolshevism. Well over a hundred years have passed and we are not addressing one another as Comrade or standing in line for toilet paper. However, our society is for the better because of these laws. We are safer now than we were then.

Many people who balk at any notion of any type of gun laws look upon the Old West with nostalgia. They see it as an idyllic time when men were men and justice was swift. However, what many of these people who look favorably upon this time don't realize or choose to ignore is that most of the towns in the Old West forbid anyone in town from carrying a weapon. If someone happened to be visiting the town, they were required to drop off their firearm at the local sheriff's office lest they be paid a visit by the sheriff so he could collect their gun during their stay. Indeed, this was one of the reasons that the infamous Gun Fight at the OK Corral took place in Tombstone, AZ. There is hardly anyplace that embodies the spirit and ideas of America than the Old West and they saw the safety of their citizens as the most American of ideals.

When the NRA was founded it had nothing to do with allowing people to own guns or an almost irrational defense of the 2nd Amendment. No, when it began shortly after the Civil War, its purpose and goal were much more limited and modest. Look it up if you don't believe me. At one time the NRA supported and worked with the American government in limiting access to guns. During the 1920's, the NRA proposed laws that mandated 5 years of additional prison time if a gun was used in the commission of a crime, forbid people from carrying weapons on their person, a one day waiting period before the possession of a gun could take place and local police had to be notified of all gun sales. With the increased violence of the Prohibition Era, Franklin Roosevelt proposed a series of new, tougher gun laws; the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act. These laws forbid the purchase of the so-called "Tommy Gun" (Thompson submachine gun) favored by the gangsters of the day, outlawed sawed-off shotguns and silencers, required all gun purchases to be registered with the federal government and forbid felons from buying guns. These laws were supported and advocated for by the NRA. In fact, the president of the NRA at the time, Karl T. Fredrick, testified in a congressional hearing on these laws stating, "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

Furthermore, during the 1980's when gang violence seemed to rule the streets in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, laws were passed, with the support of Conservative icon and one of my political idols Ronald Reagan, that outlawed the sale of "armor piercing bullets" for handguns. The reason for this was because so many police officers were being shot and killed. A justifiable reason as any for such a law. We do not want those protecting us to be killed in the course of doing their job. The death of law enforcement officials spurs many into action to ensure it doesn't happen again, and rightly so. The same should be true for the senseless killing of our students and school employees. It should not be unAmerican to want to protect our future from dying before their future has begun.

A Proposal

What I would propose would be more requirements and restrictions on gun ownership.  This is for the safety and protection of not only others but also the gun owner themselves. At one time anyone at any age could drive a car so long as they could reach the pedals and steering wheel. We, as a society, quickly realized this probably was not a good idea. There were numerous serious and deadly crashes and we could see that the problem would only get worse as more and more cars appeared on the roads. So we instituted laws to maintain safety for all. A driving age was instituted, a procedure was created to ensure that only people who knew the rules and could demonstrate they could safely operate a car could get a license. Amazingly, on a per capita basis, the number of deadly and serious accidents began to precipitously drop once these regulations began to be put in place. I've never heard anyone argue that people should be allowed to drive without proving they are capable. Never. In fact, many of the same people who would chafe under increased requirements to get a gun are the exact same people who willingly sign up for concealed carry classes and then brag about it! I would propose that people who wish to own a gun must pass a mental competency and background check, take and pass a gun safety course, then demonstrate some degree of proficiency with that gun in front of an instructor before they could be licensed and allowed to take ownership of a gun. No rights are being violated, anyone who wanted a gun could still own one. No one has a problem with this process for the privilege of driving a car, why would it be a problem with owning a gun? You cannot possess a live hand grenade, there are rules and regulations on owning tanks, cannons and anti-aircraft guns and no one seems to question those rules or argue that their rights are being violated.

Have an assault rifle? Fine, you can keep them, but you cannot sell them. And you must notify law enforcement of your ownership. That way if the police have to respond to a disturbance in your home they are aware of the possible risks and if you are ever convicted of a violent crime or felony they can confiscate that weapon. But from this point forward, no more assault weapons can be sold to the general public. I like my guns, I love my freedom but I care for my kids, my students, and your kids more.

Conclusion
In 2012 after the New Town shooting, President Obama called for an increase in gun control laws as he wiped tears from his eyes. Donald Trump, yes THAT Donald Trump, tweeted his approval stating that "President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown, Connecticut"Trump Newtown Tweet And yet all our politicians seem to be able to do is offer "thoughts and prayers" and little else. They seem to believe that "thoughts and prayers" will solve the problem. It doesn't. Thoughts and prayers ring more and more hollow with every senseless shooting. Such inept words do little to soothe the anguish of parents whose child died in a pool of blood on the floor of a classroom. Words may never hurt you, but they will do little to heal you.

This past week I was reminded of a conversation I had with a student in 2012 after the New Town shooting. We were discussing the tragedy and the heroic actions of the teachers who were killed while trying to shield and hide their students. The student asked me 'If that happened here would you do the same trying to protect students?' I stopped for a second and replied, 'Yeah, I'd like to think I would. I think I would do the same.' The student thought for a moment and looked off at the wall, then looked at me and said, 'But you shouldn't have to, your job is to teach us history and stuff like that. It's not to protect us from a shooter.'

The student was right, it's not my job to protect students from a shooter, it's not.

But, unfortunately, it is. 

Black and White and Hate and Hope

Hate and Hope.

Right and Wrong and In Between

My oldest son, Ayden, is a passionate soul. He’s passionate about normal teenage stuff; his phone, sleeping, football, girls, video games, his phone, girls, and sleeping. He’s passionate about learning new and different things about the world around him. Turning in his schoolwork on time or at all? He’s not so passionate about that. He’s passionate about music, he plays the guitar (and he’s quite good) and he sings (and he’s really good). He is also passionate about human rights, he’s passionate about the underdog and underclass, he’s passionate about social justice, and he’s passionate about righteousness and good triumphing over evil and bad. His passion for social justice and righteousness is so strong that he only sees things as right or wrong, he loses rationality and objectivity. This is not uncommon for teenagers who often only tend to see things as white or black. His political beliefs and mine don’t match up at all. In any aspect. This has led to many, many intense debates between he and I. One of our most frequent debates is over the issue of race and racism.

Both of us are in agreement that any type of racism against any race is wrong and unacceptable. Both of us are in agreement that any type of bigotry against anyone, any religion, and lifestyle, or any gender is intolerable. Where we differ is in our understanding of redemption and rehabilitation. I believe it is possible. Ayden, for the most part, does not.

We were recently watching a TV show, and a story came on about Daryl Davis, a black man who just couldn’t understand or comprehend the concept of racism. He could not wrap his head around the notion that someone could hate him if that person did not know him. So, Davis actively seeks out members of the KKK and goes to talk with them to find out why they hold the beliefs they do. He does this not just out of curiousness but he also does it because he wants to make friends with them. And often times he does and very often Davis gets the KKK member to give him their hood and robe as they disavow the KKK. Davis’ philosophy is simple; you can’t hate an entire group of people just because, and you can’t automatically hate someone if you don’t know them. During the interview, Davis said that he believed if you sat down with someone and just talked for five minutes you would find something you have in common with each other. Then you could talk about that commonality for ten more minutes and that would lead to other things you have in common and soon you would realize that you have a lot more in common than you do not. Davis’ philosophy was simple: You don’t have to like everything about a person but there is almost always something about every person that you can like. You just need to talk and interact with people.

This story launched Ayden and me into another discussion about racism and bigotry. Ayden tends to believe that once a person is a racist or bigot, that’s a tough stain to come back from. I tend to believe that people can change. Just because you once were a “bad” person doesn’t condemn you to always being a bad person. I choose not to associate with racists and bigots on a personal level. I certainly don’t condone their beliefs or lifestyle but I also believe that people can have an honest change of heart and redeem themselves to become productive and positive forces in society. As always happens when Ayden and I discuss this topic the conversation quickly turns to Nazi’s. Ayden harbors a special hatred for Nazi’s. I certainly strongly dislike them as well. But Ayden, he despises them. And when our conversation turns to Nazi’s that’s when our conversation steps up to a whole new level of discourse.

Nazi’s, Rights, and Wrongs

Both Ayden and I have no use for Nazi’s and their abusive, destructive ideology. I don’t understand that level of hate. I don’t understand how you can believe you are better than another person simply because the color of your skin is different from another’s. I don’t understand how you can believe that someone is inferior to you simply because their religious beliefs are different than yours. None of that unfounded hatred makes any sense to me. On this point, Ayden and I agree. Beyond this, Ayden and I agree on very little when it comes to Nazi’s and unfettered hatred. Ayden believes that the way to defeat Nazi’s is through violence. Wherever Nazi’s are, they should be met with physical force. Attack and intimidation is the antidote to Nazism and those of their ilk according to my oldest. I disagree, violence only begets violence. When your entire philosophy is predicated upon violent confrontation, physical intimidation, and submission via force I believe you are only buttressing and validating their convictions by physically attacking them. Nazi’s and those of similar creeds relish physical confrontations. Iron sharpens iron. You cannot hope to defeat the ideologies that you detest if you engage in the same tactics that you abhor. When combating racism, bigotry, and hatred in all its forms and creations you will always win the intellectual and moral arguments. Hatred, racism, and bigotry hold no high ground in any principled discussion. Physically attacking those with whom you vehemently disagree only lowers you to their level. Nazi’s and Fascists did exactly this in Germany and Italy when they were coming to power by employing young men to assault on sight those who were opposed to their philosophies and intimidating their opponents into submission and the shadows of society. I do believe, however, if you are attacked or physically threatened by these troglodytes, then, by all means, fight with a violent will and be merciless, but do not attack with the only provocation being the mere sight of these people. On this point, Ayden and I go around and around with each other.

Another point of strong contention between Ayden and I is over the “rights” of these people and their freedom of speech. Ayden once asked me if I thought people had the right to be bigots, racists, or belong to the KKK or be a Nazi. This was an interesting question I thought. Not sure right is the correct term here. Usually, when I think of a “right” I think in terms of people believing in or subscribing to beliefs and ideologies that have some basis of rationalism and reality- you can understand why people would support those ideas even if you don’t. For instance, I don’t believe in any way, shape or form with Communism, but I can understand why it would be appealing to some people. I don’t subscribe to Atheism, but I can see why some people would. But when it comes to being a racist or bigot, I don’t understand how people can hold those views. To me people are people and that’s all. Some are good people and some are not but the color of their skin, their religion, their lifestyle or their gender does not determine if they are good or bad. So, with that understanding of a “right” I’m not sure that being a racist or bigot fits that description. Do people have the “right” to be a racist or bigot? I suppose they do although I really don’t understand how they can have those beliefs. Do people have the “right” to belong to the KKK or be a Nazi? Again, I suppose they do although I don’t understand how they can choose to belong to such groups. I believe those “rights” are protected by the First Amendment. Free Speech is tricky, often uncomfortable thing and often forces us to protect and defend things we find enormously offensive or repugnant. Where their rights end is when they seek to impose their will or thought on others in a violent fashion. Ayden vehemently disagrees with this argument. No one he argues has the “right” to be racist or a bigot. No one, he believes, has the right to belong to the KKK or the Nazi’s. When I ask him how he would prevent people from being like that, he really doesn’t have an answer which I guess circles back to my beliefs: You can’t prevent people from believing racist ideology or belonging to various groups. Nor would I really want to. As much as I abhor and detest people like that, I don’t want to begin passing laws against it. That is a slippery slope. How do you determine which groups or thoughts are okay and which are not? Who gets to determine that? What is the punishment for offenses? Why is that the punishment? Who gets to determine the punishment? Why do those people get to determine the punishment? And then once we feel satisfied that we have squashed out the groups we feel repugnant do we then begin to go after the Republicans or the Democrats because some of the people from the “subversive” groups migrated to those parties? Do we go after the Boy Scouts because they only allow boys and at one time would not allow homosexuals? Where does the cleansing end? Is this a society we want to live in? For me, it is not.

So, do people have the “right” to be racist, bigoted and belong to organizations that promote their ideas? For me, yeah, I suppose they do. Would I defend their “rights”? I would defend their rights to hold those beliefs, to write about their beliefs, to publish and promote their beliefs. But I could not and would not ever defend their beliefs or promote their beliefs. Defending their right to think and say what they do is very different from defending their beliefs. Ayden disagrees, in his mind defending their right to think things is the same as defending their beliefs. And that comes back to my understanding of “rights”. I understand how my son arrives at this belief. I can, when I look at it from his perspective, get where he is coming from. But I don’t agree with his perception, but I will defend his right to hold that belief.

Teenage Vision, Hate, and Hope

All of this brings me back to my earlier point at the beginning of this essay; Can people change their ideas and redeem themselves when they have previously held socially destructive, divisive and repugnant ideas or belonged to hateful groups and organizations? Ayden, for the most part, believes they can’t. He doesn’t believe he could ever like someone who at one time held hateful ideas or belonged to socially divisive organizations. Once a bigot, always a bigot. Once a racist you will always have racist thoughts in Ayden’s eyes. I believe the opposite. People have a change of heart all the time. People can see the error of their ways and rebuild their standing within their community and repair any relationships they may have damaged because of their beliefs. People can always become better, people can always become good. Even when they were the worst of the worst. People are just people.

I believe that over time Ayden’s views on humanity and the world will change. Probably not radically, he’ll always retain his core values. But, I do believe that he will begin to see the nuances of issues and people, he will begin to begin to see the grey and less black and white. It happens to all of us. When we were teenagers, we were sure we knew the world and how to fix it because we could see with such clarity the right and wrongs and we couldn’t understand how the older generations had such blurred vision when it came to the world. As we grew older, we’ve come to realize that it was us, as teenagers, who had the blurred vision because we saw things in such stark contrasts. We’ve come to realize the world is not black and white, it is not good and bad. In fact, there is more in the middle than there is anywhere else. Ayden will come to see that as well as he gets older I’m sure. As for me, I can’t hate people, certainly not people that I don’t know or have ever met. I can’t hate people because I disagree with their politics, their religion, their lifestyle, or their core beliefs. I have to meet people and get to know them before I can dislike them. And even then, hating them is hard. Hating takes too much time, effort and energy to sustain and the people who you would hate are not worth that type of effort. I can say that every time I meet someone, I can always find something about them that I like or admire. That is the point that I am trying to teach to Ayden. Before you hate a person, you have to know that person. Once you know that person, you will realize there is hope.

Hope always beats hate.

Tis The Season

‘Tis the season.

Since this is my December blog I thought I should do something a little holidayish. My blogs have been about my views on education issues or my far-flung opinions on politics but for this one, since it is that time of year I thought I would write about Christmas itself. Growing up Catholic with a mom who adored Christmas so much that it was HER that found it hard to sleep on Christmas night and was usually the one getting the family up on Christmas morning, I too, have a strong affinity for Christmas. My wife tells people that I have accumulated so many Christmas decorations over the past 45 years that our house looks like it “threw-up Christmas”. Well, it is true. I do love Christmas and everything that comes with it- even the hustle and bustle of the season. So, with my passion for Christmas plus my almost insatiable appetite for anything and all things history, it just made sense to me to write a post about how the Christmas we know today came to be. Hope you enjoy.

The Reason for The Season

We’ve heard it before, “Jesus is the Reason for The Season”. Indeed, the very word “CHRISTMAS” comes from the high mass of the Catholic Church celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. It was the Mass of Christ, hence the name Christmas. So, is December 25^th the day that Jesus Christ was born? Honestly, we don’t know. The Bible, while having several stories in it concerning the birth of Christ, never gives a date for his birth. Employing historical thinking skills (see history is useful) we can make an educated guess, assuming the Bible stories are fairly accurate in their description of the time, that he was born sometime in the spring. The Bible tells of shepherds sleeping under the stars tending their flock and caring for their newborn lambs. We know that the desert would be too cold for shepherds to sleep under the stars at night in the winter and that lambs are born in the spring, not in the winter. Furthermore, according to the Bible, Joseph and Mary were on their way to Bethlehem to take place in the Roman census, since Roman law required the man to return to the place of his birth when a census was being conducted. The Roman Empire conducted a census every five years and was done in either late summer/early Fall or in the Spring so as to not interfere with the harvest and the census was never conducted in the Winter because travel was often difficult during that time of year. Therefore, using the stories in the Bible about the birth of Christ, we can reasonably assume that he was born in the spring as opposed to December 25^th. So, the question begs; How did December 25^th come to celebrated as the birthday of Jesus Christ?

The Pagans and the Christians

As with many of the cherished traditions of the Christmas season that we now view as being unquestionable “Christmas”, most have been adopted from pagan traditions and incorporated into the Christian faith and holiday. The reason for this is very simple and pragmatic. As the Christians were trying to convert the European continent from their pagan religions to Christianity the Christian missionaries kept running into a very vexing problem. They found that in many cases the pagans were more than willing to adopt the new Christian religion but were unwilling to give up many of their pagan traditions and holidays. It seems that pagans found early Christianity a bit drab and boring. So, to overcome this obstacle, the Christian missionaries simply found a way to incorporate these pagan traditions and holidays into Christianity. December 25^th is one of the earliest and best examples of this.

The European pagan religions had always held some sort of Winter Solstice celebration full of drink and great feasts and gatherings. In the Roman Empire, they would celebrate the Roman God Saturn during a weeklong celebration known as “Saturnalia”. This week of festive reveling and feasting would begin on December 21^st  and featured elite Romans giving gifts of charity to the less fortunate as well as bestowing gifts and gratitude among each other. In ancient Persia, the pagans there celebrated the birth of their Sun God Mithra on the 25^th of December. They also called the day he was born as the “Day of The Sun” hence the day SUNDAY was born.

Being well aware of these celebrations and how important and enjoyable they were to pagans, but also finding that many were willing to convert to Christianity if only there were some incentive, Christian missionaries began to adopt these pagan traditions into Christianity.

For the European pagans and Romans, the Christians adopted the great gatherings and feasts that were so prominent and important to these people in late December during the Winter Solstice. However, instead of celebrating the Winter Solstice and Saturn, these feasts and gatherings would celebrate the birth of the Christian savior, Jesus Christ. Gift giving was still encouraged and welcome, however, this would be in remembrance of the gifts bestowed upon Christ by the Three Wise Men rather than in celebration of a pagan god. Charity towards the less fortunate was encouraged because this is a reflection of Christ’s life work rather than an offering to Saturn. To convert the Persian pagans, Christian missionaries chose December 25^th was the day of the birth of the Christian messiah, not the birthday of the Sun God Mithra. The Bible never gives a date for the birth of Jesus which means it is entirely possible that it could very well have been on the 25^th of December. You can continue to celebrate that day as you normally would do, the Persians were told, but now you would be celebrating the birth of Christ. All of these adoptions and incorporations worked exceedingly well as Christianity began to rapidly sweep across Europe and the Roman Empire as well as making significant inroads into the Persian world. Christianity began to flourish.

Greenery and Lights

As Christianity pushed further north into Europe it began to encounter new pagan groups who were, all at once, suspicious, interested and hostile towards this new religion. Again, as a way to overcome these obstacles, Christian missionaries began to adopt many of these pagan traditions into Christianity and one of its holiest days.

These Germanic tribes also observed the Winter Solstice and celebrated mightily in late December. However, these tribes would go into the forest and cut down an evergreen tree as well as other greenery and bring it into their lodges and homes as a reminder that spring would soon be here to chase away the darkness of winter. They would decorate the branches of the tree with various trinkets and offerings hoping to please the gods and thus bring about an early end to winter. These tribes would also frequently attach candles to the branches of the trees so as to chase away the demons that accompanied the darkness of winter. Often times a Yule Log would be a centerpiece at this time for these Germanic tribes. A Yule Log was a large log that had been blessed by a pagan priest to be placed into the fireplace and be burned continuously over the course of several days to illuminate the dark and chase away the evil spirits. All of these traditions were important to the pagan people in North-Central Europe and proved to be an obstacle to converting many of them to Christianity. Understanding how well it worked before to adopt traditions into Christianity rather than try to quash these traditions, Christians looked for ways to adopt these traditions as symbols of the faith.

Continue to bring the evergreens into your house during the Winter Solstice, these Germanic tribes were told, as it represents the eternal life of Jesus Christ. For just as these trees do not die in the depths and darkness of winter, neither does the life or teachings of Jesus Christ. Continue to decorate the trees with ornaments as it represents the gifts to mankind and the everlasting goodness of the Christian God. Continue to illuminate and warm your homes with the Yule Log and candles as it is a representation of the Light of God. And yes, of course, continue to feast, revel and drink as you have always done for it celebrate the goodness of Christianity and honor God who gave his only son to us. And Christianity continued to flourish.

Interestingly enough, the “Christmas Tree” remained very much a German tradition until the 1840’s. It was during this time that the husband of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, who was born and raised in Germany introduced the Christmas tree to England, putting one in the royal palace in London. A postcard was circulated showing the beloved royal family gathered around the tree and a tradition was born. The tradition reached the US in the 1850’s when the same postcard was circulated, but without any depiction of the royal family so that the concept would look “American”. Huh! Isn’t history fascinating?

Saint Nicholas

Of all the traditions and imagery of Christmas, this one may be the only one that is truly, uniquely and wholly Christian without any rooting in pagan traditions.

St. Nicholas was a Christian missionary from present-day Turkey during the 4^th century. His parents were very wealthy and died while he was fairly young. Nicholas was a very devout Christian and used his family’s enormous wealth to benefit those in need. One of our most cherished Christmas traditions is firmly rooted in the most famous tale of St. Nicholas’ kindness. It seems as though there was a very poor man with three daughters who wished to get married, however, this man being very poor, could not offer any dowry thus meaning that his daughters could not get married. One night St. Nicholas, being from a very wealthy family, dropped a bag of gold down this man’s chimney so that he could have a dowry to marry off one of his daughters. This bag of gold happened to land into the sock which had been hung by the fire to dry. No one knew for sure where the gold had come from but most suspected it was from St. Nicholas. Henceforth, during the early days of Christianity, it became very popular among Christians to leave food and small playthings beside the fireside for children to find on Christmas morning. The explanation for the gifts being that St. Nicholas must have visited during the night.

With the Reformation in the 16^th century, the stories of St. Nicholas fell out of favor, after all, no good God-fearing Protestant could ever honor any Catholic person or tradition, no matter how appealing they may be. However, the problem persisted, the children still needed gifts delivered on Christmas morning. So, the British created their own version of St. Nicholas; Father Christmas. The Germans created the child “Christkind” who apparently at some point and time grew up to become “Kris Kringle”. The Dutch created “Sinterklaas” Eventually the Dutch version of Sinterklaas became Americanized into our modern-day Santa Claus. And a legend was born.

Early on, this gift-bearer for children was depicted as a rather tall, skinny raggedy man, almost like a beggar, roaming the countryside distributing gifts. However, the 1823 poem “A Visit From St. Nick” re-imagined this bedraggled legendary man as a plump, jolly elf. The most prominent and influential political cartoonist of all time, Thomas Nast, gave us our first true definitive visual of our modern-day Santa Claus and in the early 1900’s Coca-Cola refined the image even more. And now this home invading, cookie eating behemoth visits every mall in the western world during the month of December and is to small children what Taylor Swift is to 12 and 13-year-old girls.

Puritans, The New World and Christmas
Christmas had a very rough beginning in what would become the United States. In the 1600's as the Puritans and Pilgrims (they are two very different groups and neither really appreciated the other) began to populate the New England area with various settlements. Both also had a very stern anti-Christmas view of this now well established European holiday. So much so, that they passed laws expressly forbidding the celebration of Christmas.

Puritans and Pilgrims sought to live very simply and live as closely to the tenets of the Bible as possible. Anything beyond what was contained in the Bible was sinful and against the word of God, in fact, it may very well be the work of Satan on Earth! Since the Bible never gave a date for the birth of Christ and it certainly never suggested that this date should be celebrated in any way, then Christmas obviously was ungodly and evil. Any recognition would not and could not be tolerated. It was obvious, in their eyes, that any revelry was the work of Satan as a way to draw you from the word of God towards evil, especially a "fake" celebration such as the fictitious birthdate of Jesus Christ. Merriment led to sin, sin led to eternal hell and damnation. Scary stuff.

So to avoid sin, damnation and the welcoming of the Devil into their lives and communities, early Puritans and Pilgrim settlements passed laws against the recognition or celebration of Christmas. The punishments for violating this holy law varied from being placed in the stocks for a period of time, to banishment from the community to hanging in severe cases (although there are no records of anyone receiving that sentence for celebrating Christmas). Puritans and Pilgrims were a rather morose bunch.

Over time, fewer and fewer young people wanted to be a Puritan or Pilgrim. Most young people found their beliefs too restrictive, too judgmental, too preachy, too boring and just not very appealing in general. Their numbers began to steadily drop as the 1700's approached, their laws and beliefs became less restrictive and judgmental. One of the first things to change was the recognition of Christmas. Young people have always enjoyed a good party and fun while children enjoy the prospect of receiving presents. Christmas was no longer taboo in the New World but was now in fact warmly and enthusiastically embraced. 

So, there you have it. A brief history of the Christmas that we all know and (for the most part) enjoy at this time of year. While it is ostensibly a Christian holiday, much of how Christmas looks have been cobbled together from many pagan traditions and repackaged into Christian representations. Many different traditions, cultures, and beliefs were combined into one holiday and perhaps that is what makes this the greatest holiday of them all. It can be all things to all people. For Christians, it is the celebration of the birth of the central figure in the Christian religion. For the non-Christian or simply the non-religious it is a day of good cheer and fellowship. For all, it is an opportunity to come together and celebrate our relationships as well as the opportunity to show our gratitude and love for one another. Yes, Christmas is a wondrous, wonderful day indeed.

God bless us all, everyone.

Merry Christmas.

Beyond Turkey, Stuffing and Cranberries

We are all thankful for something. 

For some, it is frivolous thankfulness such as “I’m thankful I don’t live in Cleveland”, or “I’m thankful for long weekends and Netflix”. For others, their thankfulness is more heartfelt; “I’m thankful for having a job”, “I’m thankful I was able to provide food for my family this entire year”. I’m thankful for many, many things including the items I’ve mentioned above. As I began thinking about writing this blog post and what I’m truly thankful for this Thanksgiving, I wanted to go beyond the usual boring, boilerplate things everyone is thankful for: ‘I’m thankful for my family’, ‘I’m thankful for my health’, ‘I’m thankful for my friends’ (said in the dopiest of dopey voices). Nor did I want to trivialize what I’m thankful for: ‘I’m thankful for socks’, ‘I’m thankful for toothpaste’, ‘I’m thankful that the best part of waking up is Folgers in my cup’ (again said in the dopiest of dopey voices). No, I wanted to have unique, but honest things that I was truly thankful for. So, after a lot of thought, here are some of the things for which I am truly thankful.

Pomona High School

On June 12, 2015, everything I knew about my teaching career changed forever. It was on this date that I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be returning to Arvada High School. A place I had spent literally half of my life as a student and a teacher. This move was the culmination of an idea that had been floating around for about 5 weeks prior to this. I had been asked would I consider leaving Arvada? If I had to leave, what would it take for me to agree to a move? Lots of questions like that. The reasons for the move revolved around the notion that myself and one of the other building union reps needed a “fresh start” as the school tried to reset itself. Finally, on the afternoon of June 12, 2015, I was told unequivocally I would not be coming back to the only school I had ever known. (sidenote: there are other elements involved in this story that many of you already know if you don’t and are curious just ask me. I’m very open about what happened and have nothing to hide or be ashamed of and I am more than willing to share the whole story if you are interested. I just didn’t think this forum or this post is the appropriate venue for the story) About a week later I was informed that I would be going to Pomona High School.

Honestly, I was really scared. That whole summer was nerve-wracking. I was very sad about leaving a school I cared deeply about and leaving so many great friends I had made, teachers I had immense respect and admiration for and students who meant the world to me. I was very nervous about going to a new school, with different students, different expectations, different culture, and different teachers. What scared me the most was how I would be accepted by Pomona. Or would I ever be accepted? After all, I was not chosen by them. In fact, they never had a choice about me. I was placed there. “Administrative Transfer” is the term used for this type of move. The district had to put me somewhere and this is where they sent me. I had been around long enough to know and understand how Administrative Transfers are viewed. These teachers tend to be viewed as outsiders or damaged goods, that there is something wrong with them. Either they are not very good teachers and this is just part of the ‘Dance of the Lemons’ or they are troublemakers who stir the pot and throw bombs everywhere they go. I didn’t believe that any of those applied to me, but I also knew that was how teachers in my situation are often viewed.

My first day at Pomona was...different. I arrived for the Back To School Staff meeting. For the first time, I didn’t know where to go for the meeting and had to wander around the school to find where the meeting was. I walked in and for the first time in 16 years, I didn’t know one single face in the meeting. For the first time, I didn’t have a "go-to table" at which to sit down and for the first time, I didn’t have a person to talk to before the meeting. It was just me. I sat down at the closest table- which I later found out was the table that administrators usually sit at for meetings. I looked around to find any familiar faces. Finally, I saw a few faces that I had worked with from Arvada and others that I had known from various district functions and meetings, but for the most part, they were all strangers to me. All of a sudden there was a very friendly looking guy who sat down next to me and asked me if I was Dale Munholland. I replied I was and he stuck out his hand and as I shook it he told me he was Brian Martin. He welcomed me to Pomona, he introduced himself as the department chair for Social Studies and he was glad to have me be part of the Social Studies team. Well, that was pretty cool, I thought. There was no hint of indifference or unfriendliness from Brian. That helped reduce my stress a little.

During the course of that first day, as I was setting up my room, there was a stream of Social Studies teachers as well as other teachers from the 2nd floor that came into my room to introduce themselves and to welcome me to Pomona. Some of them had heard something about my situation through the JeffCo grapevine and they asked about my journey to Pomona so I would share my story if they were curious. All of them seemed genuinely nice, gracious and welcoming. By the end of the first week, I felt very comfortable at Pomona. During the course of my first year at Pomona, I felt more and more comfortable as I got to know more and more teachers, I began to feel very much at home and welcomed. One of the best memories I’ve had since then happened last year when Brian and I happened to be walking up the stairs to our classrooms and Brian said to me ‘You know, it’s crazy. You’ve only been here for a  couple of years but it seems like you’ve always been here. It’s almost like I can’t remember you not being here.’ That was awesome. I felt like I was truly home.

I am so thankful for Pomona, not only because of how they accepted me and made me feel like they really appreciated me and wanted me, but also because of how stable it is. I don’t spend much of my planning time dealing with various issues around the building, as I did before. I have never had to battle with any member of the administration about anything. Things seem to make sense. I have never once thought to myself ‘What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here’. I don’t always agree with or like all of the decisions, but at least I can understand them. Pomona is truly a special place. Now, don't get me wrong, I still miss things about Arvada. In particular some of the people there. I had students there that I still today consider members of my family. The staff I worked with at Arvada was such a spectacularly talented staff who worked miracles with the students. I miss those people. I don’t miss the other stuff. I was recently asked if I could would I go back to Arvada. My answer was immediate and unequivocal; “No way. Arvada will always have a place in my heart but I bleed black now. I love Pomona. My department, the staff, the students, the culture, and everything in between.” I am truly thankful for Pomona, in many ways Pomona saved my teaching career.

Not Living In An Echo Chamber

There are people who have a very warped view of the world. They live in a Black and White world. They don’t understand nuances or grey areas. They don’t get how people view the exact same situation differently than do they. These people tend to believe that those who don’t share the same worldview as theirs are somehow misguided, uneducated, unaware, or downright dumb. Usually for these people, when they fear they could be in danger of losing the moral or intellectual high ground in a discussion, they will very often attempt to shut down the other person by unleashing some torrent of name calling. Things such as ‘redneck’, ‘racist’, ‘snowflake’, ‘communist/socialist’ and other even more unsavory epithets. I believe the main reason for this type of behavior is that these people live in an echo chamber. Everyone they associate with, every news site they frequent, everything they read all have the same worldview as theirs, so they come to believe that everyone must have the same views and that these are somehow the “correct” views and if there is anyone else who views things differently then those people are just plain wrong or at the very least misinformed.

I am truly proud to say that I have a very diverse friend base with very diverse views. My friends range from rock-ribbed conservatives to ultra bleeding heart liberals. From Trumpites who believe in Trump now and forever, to people who would leave the country this minute if they had the resources to escape the government of Trump and his sycophants. I know people who want an authoritarian government to those who are anarchists. Men, women, gay, straight, bi, somewhere-in-between. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, native-born and immigrants. Ultra-religious people to those who view religion as an opiate of the people, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, unaffiliated Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and agnostics all make up my friend base. It is from my interactions with all of these people and the others I know that are somewhere in between that shape my view of the world.

I am truly interested in how all of these people view the world. I love to engage people about their views and opinions and more importantly why they hold the views they do. I purposely seek out as many diverse news outlets as I can find just to see what their take on events and stories are. Most important is the fact that I can do this without getting angry, worked up or frustrated. I just want to know what people think and why then I use all of that information to create my own views. Sometimes I agree with people thoughts, sometimes I don’t but I always listen because I want to know and understand their reasoning. Sometimes I listen to people or read things that are so bizarre and out there that I can only shake my head and think to myself ‘Wow! That is really, really weird and waaaaaaaay out there.’ But I always listen, especially to those ideas that are really out there because I want to know where they come up with some of their ideas and how they think the world should work.

I definitely have opinions, just ask me sometime. I have an opinion on just about everything and I am willing to share my opinions if anyone is interested. My ideas and opinions are formed from the way I see things as well as taking into account the way others see things. By doing this, I believe I can formulate a much more rounded and balanced view. I can empathize with other views and opinions so that when others disagree with me I am able to have a civilized discussion (at least from my end) about why I believe what I do as well as express that I understand their point and then use their point to explain how I arrived at mine.  If I lived in an echo chamber I would only know what I hear and come in contact with and lose sight of the fact that my opinion is not the only valid one out there and be threatened and even angry when I encounter ideas, thoughts, and opinions that are counter to mine.

For the fact that I am able to come in contact with and even force myself to be exposed to as many diverse ideas and views as I can, I am truly thankful.

Closing

As I finish my Thanksgiving blog, I can honestly say that I am truly and honestly thankful to have been born in this country. It is not perfect. Not by any means. It hasn’t always done the right thing. In fact, our country has done some terrible things. But I do believe that this country and, more importantly, her people do generally strive to do the right thing and to make the world a better place and we never stop trying. We vote every year with the intention of making our world better and we always believe that tomorrow is always better than today. Not many places and not many people can say that. And for that unyielding sense of unbridled optimism, I am truly thankful.

And to all of the people in my life either at one time in the past or are now currently in my life. To those with whom I am very close to or those who are only people whose names and faces I recognize, I am thankful for all of you. Each and everyone one of you, whether you are aware of it or not, have made me a better person. And for that I am exceptionally and eternally thankful.

I wish you and yours a most happy and joyous Thanksgiving.

Protests, Free Speech, and America

Without Freedom Of Thought, There Can Be No Such Thing As Wisdom- And No Such Thing As Public Liberty Without Freedom Of Speech.~ Benjamin Franklin

Over the past several days, I've given a lot of thought to the recent words of President Trump, the protests currently gripping the NFL, and the subsequent wave of opinions from American citizens. Seemingly everyone has a take on this controversy. Indeed, the other day in my classroom we strayed into this topic during a class discussion on the Spanish-American War and American Imperialism at the turn of the century (trust me, it fit and it worked in the grand scheme of things). I was impressed and a little shocked at their knowledge of the subject and their reasons for their opinions. Like the rest of the nation, students were passionate about their views and felt compelled to express them. However, unlike Facebook Land, the students were able to express their opinions respectfully and calmly. Interesting observation, not sure what that means or says, just an interesting sidenote. I, like most of my students, have my own thoughts on the protest and what President Trump said. I also believe this whole controversy is a prelude to a larger issue that is slowly swelling within American society.

I Disprove Of What You Say, But I Will Defend To The Death Your Right To Say It.~ Voltaire

Sunday all across the NFL more than half of the players either took a knee during the national anthem or simply did not come out of the locker room during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. In Tennessee, the young lady who sang the national anthem took a knee immediately after singing. Taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem is not really anything new, but the sheer numbers that took part were. Personally, it does bother me when someone does not stand up for the national anthem or the Pledge of Alliegence. I am proud to be an American, I know I am so fortunate to have been born here rather than somewhere else. I have the utmost respect for the brave men and women who have and are currently serving our nation to protect the freedoms that we so cherish. I am fully aware that freedom is not, nor has it ever been free. Our freedoms have been paid for by the sacrifices, the blood, and lives of our soldiers. That is what the Star Spangled Banner and the Pledge of Alliegence means to me. That is why I stand at rapt attention with my hand firmly over my heart when these exercises in patriotism take place. In fact, when the Pledge takes place at Pomona, it is usually during my planning period so it is just me alone in my classroom, and I never fail to stand up, with my hand over my heart as I recite the Pledge along with the intercom.

I also understand that others have the right to freedom of speech and if others feel that kneeling for the national anthem is their right under the auspices of free speech then so be it. This is why 291, 557 Americans gave their lives during WWII, so that we would not be compelled by rule of law to stand with our arms extended straight out as we shout "Sieg Heil!" to an image of the Fuhrer. I do not like the protest, I wish they could find a different way to express their views because it is bothersome. However, their act has ignited a conversation and shone a light on their cause. They are not acting violently- creating a violent situation is one of the limits of free speech- they are quietly taking a knee, bowing their heads and are otherwise remaining respectful of others during the playing of our National Anthem. I don't like the act, but I respect their right to do so.

This solemn act of protest is in direct contrast to those who carried tiki torches chanting "Jews Will Not Erase Us!" and a German Nazi chant "Blood and Soil!" in Charlottesville, Virginia this past July. If the actions of the so-called Alt-Right was acceptable as an exercise of free speech, despite the provocative nature of their protest, and the fact that they were attempting to defend, or at the very least, support not one but two nations that the United States decisively beat in an 80-year time span, then surely the simple act of kneeling and bowing one's head during a three-minute protest is just as acceptable.

On some social media sites, I have seen the following indignant argument against the NFL protest: "Tim Tebow was ridiculed and driven from the NFL because he took a knee. Let That Sink In."  Allow me to respond. I truly don't remember Tebow being widely ridiculed because of his taking a knee in prayer. In fact, I do remember "Tebowing" being a fairly popular fad. President Obama famously did it on top of his desk in the Oval Office. School children held mass Tebowing demonstrations as the Broncos improbably played their way into the playoffs that year. Tebowing was done not out of condemnation, but just the opposite, a way of honoring Tim Tebow. Furthermore, he is no longer in NFL because he was a terrible NFL QB. His religious beliefs were not the obstacle, the obstacle was his inability to accurately deliver a downfield throw with any alacrity. Now think about this; The protest in Vicksburg, that many saw as an exercise of legitimate free speech, was to protect the "heritage" of the South and held by a group who had many wearing Swastikas and chanting Nazi slogans. Over 360,000 American soldiers were killed to defeat the South and 291,557 soldiers were killed to defeat Nazi Germany. 650,000+ American soldiers were killed to defeat the two nations that were being defended by those who claim were simply exercising their free speech rights in Charlottesville. 650,000+ Amercian soldiers killed in 80 years to beat these ideologies. Now, let that sink in.

Free Speech Carries With It Some Freedom To Listen.~ Supreme Court Justice Warren Earl Burger

Hopefully, you didn't believe that I was only going to hammer Right Conservatives, a group I am finding myself in agreement with less and less, and not condemn a group with whom I've rarely found myself in agreement with; Left Liberals.

On college campuses across the country, there have been protests and outcry from far-left liberals over conservative speakers being brought onto campus to present their ideas. At Cal-Berkley a scheduled speech by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was cancelled twice because of threatened violent protests by liberal student groups. Berkley was planning on setting up "Mental Health Assitance" tents on campus to help students who were feeling anxiety or otherwise having trouble dealing with the presence of conservative speakers such as Yiannopoulos. Seriously... I am not making that up. A few days ago, Yiannopoulos did show up on the Berkley campus in an attempt to deliver his message despite his invite being rescinded. The backlash was immediate and severe. Various liberal student groups showed up to shout down Yiannopoulos and his group. Predictably, the other side became just as vociferous. The real irony here? Yiannopoulos and his group were to be a part of "Free Speech Week" at Cal-Berkely. Free Speech Week at Berkley was cancelled...twice. That's right, Cal-Berkley had to cancel Free Speech Week.

Similar scenes and protests have played out at college campuses across the country. This is very troubling because colleges are precisely the arena where young people should be exposed to various ideas, philosophies, and thoughts. It is in institutions of higher learning that students should engage in open debate about the tenents of these ideas. However, increasingly this doesn't seem to be the case. More and more there seems to be a backlash, often violent, against ideas that seem to go against the "American liberal ideals". This is inexcusable. If you feel attacked or intimidated by the mere presence of opposing ideas, what does that say about the strength of your ideology? If the strength of your ideas cannot even entertain opposing ideas, then your ideas are inherently weak.

I am secure in my ideas about how society and government should work, secure enough that I am willing and able to calmly engage with ideas that are opposite of mine, even those ideas that I find abhorrent.  In fact, my views have been altered or outright changed from engaging with other ideologies. I still adhere to my core beliefs of keeping the government off my back and out of my pockets, but because of my interactions over the years with other people and ideas, I am not as steadfast as I once was. And that's okay. That's what should be the outcome by listening to and engaging with various ideas, views and theories. I certainly never felt so intimidated or frightened that I needed a so-called Safe Zone. That is simply preposterous. If you feel that scared by thoughts opposite of yours, then your ideas are inherently weak and you know it but are unwilling to admit it. Now, let that sink in.

Freedom Of Speech Is Often Inconvient. But That Is Beside The Point. Inconvenience Does Not Absolve The Government Of Its Obligation To Tolerate Speech.~ Justice Anthony Kennedy

To say that I am disheartened by the lack of tolerance for free speech by both sides of the political debate would be an understatement. We live in a time that it seems to be more important to prove that you are absolutely right in all debates. And if you are unable to do that, then you must prove that the other side is absolutely wrong. There can be no in between. I'm not sure, how or why we came to that point. Is it because of the advent of social media and our inability to interact with it in a mature manner because of its relative newness? Or is it because of the lack of decorum in our political leaders and their increasing unwillingness to compromise? I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is this; if we spend less time being offended by everything that we don't agree with and spent more time engaging with other people and ideas we would all be better off. No one side is absolutely correct and no one side is absolutely wrong. Republicans do not have all the right answers and Democrats do not just come up with wrong ideas. Conservatives are not the sole keeper of patriotism and Liberals do not have a monopoly on intellect. Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to quell partisanship upon assuming the presidency said: "We are all Federalists and we are all Republicans." FDR once stated that he was "that kind of conservative and that kind of liberal." If we all lived up to these words, our society would have a lot less discord.

We are all Americans, we should begin to act like it.

If I Were President

When my boys were younger, one of their favorite stories for me to read was "If I Ran The Zoo" by Dr. Seuss. It is a whimsical story about a boy who regales a zoo worker with how the zoo would look if he were in charge, the changes he would make and all the new, fanciful animals he would include. This story came to mind the other day when I was somewhat bemused by the continuing turmoil and turnover that sadly has become commonplace within the White House. It got me to thinking; what would the White House be like if I were in charge? Those who have known me from 6th grade up through college know that at one time my dream was to be the President of the United States, and this was not some braggadocios claim made in order to attract attention. No, I was dead serious. I wanted to be the President of the United States. Now however- not so much. I've found my passion and I know what I'm good at and that is being in the classroom teaching history. Besides, I am neither narcissistic nor arrogant enough to pursue the presidency. Nor am I wealthy enough...I'm a teacher after all. However, the goings-on in the White House have nonetheless got me to thinking how would I have done things differently?

For starters, not all of my cabinet would be conservative or even moderate Republicans. Chances are most of the cabinet would be Republicans of one ideology or another, but certainly not all of them. I firmly believe that there are some issues in government that Democrats are naturally (if you can be naturally predisposed in such a way) better at than are Republicans. For instance, I tend to believe that Democrats tend to have a better grasp at internal, domestic issues than do Republicans. Therefore, many of the cabinet positions would be filled by competent Democrats. I believe that Republicans tend to be naturally more adept at foreign policy, thus most of the cabinet positions which involve foreign policy would be filled by competent Republicans.  Economically, I would surround myself by conservative fiscal thinkers, however, they would not design policy that would only benefit the wealthy nor shift tax burden from those able to pay to those less able to pay. To many, this may sound incompatible with conservative theory, however, I assure you it is not. It just seems that way because of current crop of "leaders" who have usurped power in the Republican Party. I could go into more detail, however that is, I believe, a different blog post. I would not, however, surround myself with a bunch of "YES" people who would fawn over me and assure me that all I was doing was good and correct. I want people to disagree with me, I want conflict (peaceable and thoughtful- not vulgar and angry). Having different ideas and some conflict creates better outcomes. I wholly subscribe to the axiom that if everyone is thinking the same thing, then no one is thinking at all. Yes, this is one way things would be different if I were the president.

I would put people in charge who know and understand the role and function of their department and who actually support that departments mission. If I were President I would not put someone in charge of Housing whose only qualification was that, when they were a child, they were poor once as well. Hello Ben Carson.  Gosh, I've flown on airplanes several times, so obviously I'm qualified to head the FAA. If I were president I would not put someone in charge of a department that they want to shut down. Hello  Rick Perry, although to be fair, Rick couldn't remember the name of this department when he said he wanted to shut it down. Heck, I really dislike Wal-Mart and it would not break my heart to see them go under, therefore I should be the CEO of Wal-Mart. If I were president I would appoint people to positions in which they have some qualifications and experience to justify their position. Hello Betsy DeVos. Did you know that if the ONLY time you've ever stepped into a public school is for a craft fair on a muggy Saturday afternoon in 1997, you already have more public school experience than good ol' Betsy? (That is a fact by the way.) I have absolutely no experience in building cars, but I hear there is a lot of waste in the automobile industry so I am an obvious choice to head up General Motors. If I were president I would nominate people who not going to work against the very agency they would lead. Hello Scott Pruitt. I am against any baseball game that lasts longer than 2 1/2- 3 hours, so I'm a shoe-in for baseball commissioner. No, if I were president I would nominate people who I knew understood and would champion the cause of their agency. Even if- no- ESPECIALLY if I knew they and I would butt heads at times. That's what I would do, I were the President.

If I were the president, I would seek some common ground with our adversaries around the world and work towards agreement with them on those grounds  All the while being very wary of them in all other arenas. Detente` ala Richard Nixon. Yes, I'm speaking, of course, about the Russians. I know communism is dead and gone in Russia, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous or any more trustworthy. Vladimir Putin is an old school Cold War Warrior and would love to see a renewed Cold War, this time with Russia holding all the cards. I certainly would not be willing to get cozy with them or create any backdoor friendships with them. I definitely would not be meeting with them for any reason during a campaign. I mean, why would I anyways? If I'm running for office, I hold no official title or capacity, at that moment, I'm just a candidate who wants to be president. Furthermore, I would not encourage our historical adversary to hack into my opponents computers. Wasn't openly encouraging a foreign power to attack a fellow citizen at one time considered treason? I don't know, jus' askin'. Remember the good old days when even the slightest hint of contact or friendliness with Russia considered political suicide? Yes, If I were President, I would know who my allies were and more importantly know who my enemies were. That's what I would do, if I were President.

Now, don't get me wrong. There ARE some things that this current president has done that I do agree with. There are some things that I would have done if I were the President, it's true. Nikki Haley is a fine choice for U.S. Representative in the U.N. From all accounts she has done outstanding and is truly working on behalf of the country and its interests. If I were President, I'd like to think Nikki Haley would have been my choice as well. I do like the idea of repealing as many regulations as possible. I think sometimes we get seduced by the thought that government can cure all the ills that take place in the world. So, whenever an issue raises its ugly little head, no matter how small or insignificant it may well be, our inclination is to pass a rule or a law about it. There, we say to ourselves with righteous indignation, that'll solve that pesky little problem. But in reality, all that we've accomplished is strangling businesses and hamstringing the economy. Now, understand me, and hear me clearly; I am NOT  in favor of repealing regulations that actually protect things and people who are unable to protect themselves in the name of profit and the welfare of business. No, if the regulations actually protect and maintain the safety and well being of people and the community, then it is a well placed regulation. However, if it is a regulation that is pretty much senseless and only aids in and growing bureaucracy or the tender inclinations of the perpetually offended, then that, that my friend, is an unneeded regulation indeed. I applaud the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. He is conservative to be sure, but his conservationism seems to be rooted in Constitutional principles, not crazy, whimsical conservatism whose only justification for their opinions are "because I know how the Founding Fathers would have thought about this issue." However, my next Supreme Court nominee would be a more liberal justice. For, as in life, politics- and yes the Supreme Court- works better when there is a balance in all things. Ideally, my Supreme Court would consist of three liberal justices, three moderate justices and three conservative justices. That's what I would do if were the run the White House. Yes, these are some of the things that I would do the same, if I were President.

Alas, however, I am not President, nor will I ever be so. But it's nice to dream and it's good to think, what would I do if I were the one to do. But take heart, if you disagree with this President, know he won't be forever and we have been through worse. And if you agree with the President, be kind to those who are of a different mind, for remember you were on the short end at one time and will be again. Treat all as you would want to be treated yourself. Even if that is not what this President would do. Because, that's what I would do, if I were President.

Knowing Your Place- The Secrets Educators Keep

Knowing your place is key to a peaceful and fulfilling existence.

I recently read an article that studied Gen Xers (my generation) and younger workers about their attitudes towards working. The researcher concluded that mid career and younger workers no longer see themselves as 30+ year employees at a job. In fact, many young and middle age workers no longer see themselves in a "career", at least not in the traditional sense, they see themselves as having several "jobs" throughout their working lives, but not really any one "career". The article gave several reasons for this; 1) There is a sense among young and mid career workers that the grass is greener in a different field, 2) Workers get bored with their job so they look for new challenges, 3) The pursuit of better pay or benefits, 4) Some young workers want job satisfaction or self-worth to come from their jobs and if it is not readily apparent at one job they will leave in pursuit of it somewhere else. And finally the researcher claimed, sometimes people just have wanderlust and float from job to job because they either consciously or subconsciously enjoy the challenge and change that comes with acquiring a new job and new skills.

While I found the article to be enlightening and interesting, I also found it somewhat perplexing because, although one of the focus groups in the article was my generation, I couldn't really identify with the people in the study because I am wholly content and happy with my place in the world. I have found myself. I have found my mission in life, my calling if you will. My place is in the classroom, in front of teenagers sharing my passion and knowledge of our history. This is where I belong and this is where I intend to stay. Now finding my place, that has been a journey. My journey is not all that special either, because truth be told; my story parallels that of many, many teachers who have had similar stories.

As many people around me know, when I entered college I had two career paths I was interested in; being a high school history teacher, or being a lawyer. Both were very intriguing to me and I had had people in both fields tell me I would be good at both choices. As I explored both options I soon discovered how many years of college I would need to become a lawyer so a teacher it was! And I can honestly say I really don't regret my choice. I thoroughly enjoy being able to go to sleep at night and feel good about what I do as well as being able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning knowing that what I do truly is beneficial for all. The only time I kind of regret my career choice is at the end of the month when I get paid, then I think ' Ohhhhh, should have been a lawyer.'

I've also had opportunities in the last 19 years to leave the classroom and pursue other options. Some of them involving education, some of them involving history and some of them in completely different fields. The one option that was the most appealing was going into school administration. That held a lot of appeal. I would still be in a school setting, I would still be be dealing with students but I would be making more money. This option looked and sounded really nice. However, the more I thought about it, the less appealing it became. Although I would still be dealing with students, it would be in a different capacity because instead of dealing with them in a pleasant, fun and enjoyable manner, I would, for the most part, be dealing with them in an unpleasant manner. 90% of the time when a student is in an administrators office, it's because something went really bad. I did not want most of my interaction with students to be negative. It would also require me leaving the classroom, and that was too great a sacrifice for me. In addition to that, when I was really very serious and interested in this move things happened in the district and the conditions in the district were not favorable for me to make that kind of move. But, now there has been a lot of changes in leadership in the district and most of those who could have and would have blocked my transition are now gone. However, the pull of the classroom is still very powerful and attractive to leave.

There are still options available to me if I wanted to pursue something outside of the classroom. I could again renew my foray into administration. I could pursue pursue a path in strengthening and growing my profession either in education in general or in Social Studies/History education specifically. But, nah. Those aren't for me. Now I do have in mind a really great show idea for the History Channel or the Discovery Channel that would involve me traveling around to various historical sites and exploring the history of these sites (in particular the weird and unusual history- what I call "Jerry Springer History" in class) and do this with a healthy dose of deadpan as well as off-the wall goofy humor. That would draw me out of the classroom, but sadly I don't see that happening. Both networks are too interested in so-called "reality shows" and the History Channel seemingly is becoming less and less interested in History. So, in the classroom I'll remain. Which is fine because it makes me happy.

I often tell my students that one of the keys to life and happiness is to do something that you truly love and enjoy to do. If you can do that then you never have to go to work. I haven't worked in 19 years. If my families well being as well as mine didn't depend on it, I would teach for free and still enjoy it. That's the key to life. Enjoy what your doing and then continue to work to be better at it. I couldn't imagine waking up everyday and dreading going into work. I couldn't imagine working with my main goal being the weekend. To me that would be skull-drudgery. Now don't get me wrong, I love June, July and August but that is definitely not the reason I teach. I teach because I love it and every year I am striving to be better than I was the year before.

But here's the kicker, I'm not alone in my thoughts and ideas. Most of the teachers I know are the same way. They LOVE what they do and are constantly striving to be better. They usually can't think of anything they would rather do other than teach. Most would be willing to teach for free if they could survive in some other way. Teaching is a passion, not a job that you can do for a while until you get bored or something else comes along. Most teachers live for September to May and see June, July and August as a nice break so they can prepare for the next school year. When you have that kind of passion and drive, that's when you've found your calling. This is the drive most teachers have. My passion is not unique either, in every school and every classroom that has effective, memorable teachers they have the same passion. These teachers have found their place in the world and they want to help their students find theirs.