Lloyd Garver: No More Senior Moments?

Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 06:15 Written by Daisy Harley Tuesday, 23 February 2010 06:15

Remember your Senior Year in high school? Was it a great year? Was it the highpoint of your athletic career? Did you win the science fair? Did you have a memorable time at the prom? Did you learn more as you prepared for college? Did you go to some great basketball and football games? How about all those graduation parties? Or was Senior Year a painful time filled with awkwardness, acne, and adolescent angst? Well, a Utah State Senator, Chris Buttars suggests that for many students, 12th grade is a waste of time that costs the state millions of dollars. At first, he suggested that the state cut out 12th grade altogether. Since then, he dialed it back to propose that Senior Year be optional. He just doesn’t think 12th grade is necessary for many students, because so many “kids are just goofing off.” Of course, many of us feel that state senators aren’t necessary, because so many of them are just goofing off.

If kids are goofing around and wasting time in school, I don’t know that this behavior should be rewarded by telling them they don’t have to go to school anymore. Maybe making sure that 12th grade isn’t a waste of time would be a better way to go. If the results of Drivers’ Ed aren’t so good, you don’t stop teaching kids to drive safely. You teach them better.

Similarly, William Sederburg, Utah’s Commissioner of Higher Education, said the bill was a move in the wrong direction. He pointed out that half of the students who graduate now are unprepared for college math and about a third do not have the writing skills for college.

Anybody who feels that kids need less rather than more education today hasn’t talked to too many teenagers lately. If the Senator would just go to the nearest mall, he’d hear things like, “So, uh, like, I thought it was so random when he asked me if this is a new sweater since me and him were shopping when I bought it.” Or, “So she went all Lindsay Lohan with me and I was totally, like, duh.” Or “I gave him a ten dollar bill for the burger and Coke. Is this the right change? I think I took a mental health day from school when they did subtraction.” Do you think the Senator would still say they don’t need more education?

And of course, let’s not forget all those once-in-a-lifetime Senior Year moments. Do we want to deny kids the Prom, the Big Game, or that magical moment when they find out that there’s no such thing as a “permanent record?”

When kids go off to college or work, they are going to have to answer “yes” or “no” to questions about sex, drinking, and drugs. Do you really want them to be out in the real world dealing with things like that earlier rather than later? A year to grow and mature isn’t a luxury. How can we expect 17-year olds to handle the real world when many adults can’t?

J.D. Williams, the student body president of Utah’s West Jordan High School doesn’t think 12th grade is a waste of time. He says, “If you’re the type of kid who will slack off, you’d find a way to do that in sophomore or junior year anyway.” That’s a good point, but if Buttars and those who agree with him hear that statement, they might want to cut out the sophomore and junior years, too.

One thing that happens when children aren’t educated properly is that they become adults who haven’t been educated properly. We hear adults using bad grammar every day. How often do we see someone making a speech on television, and hear her say, “We all have to think more positive about this issue” — instead of “more positively?” Over and over again, sportscasters talk about how teams “have to play more aggressive” — instead of “more aggressively.” And these are people whose high schools had a 12th grade.

In case you haven’t guessed, I’m not in favor of cutting out the Senior Year. I’m hoping that you’ll be convinced by something William Sederburg, Utah’s Higher Education Commissioner, said on CNN: “We would like the high school system to take the 12th year serious.”

That’s right. He said “serious,” not “seriously.” And he’s Utah’s head of Higher Education.

I don’t make these up. I couldn’t.

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from “Sesame Street” to “Family Ties” to “Home Improvement” to “Frasier.” He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at lloydgarver@gmail.com. Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and his podcasts on iTunes.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-garver/no-more-senior-moments_b_473946.html

Rahim Kanani: A Conversation With Valerie Jarrett, Senior White House Advisor

Last Updated on Monday, 22 February 2010 04:00 Written by Daisy Harley Monday, 22 February 2010 04:00

“The higher you rise, the harder it is for people to give you bad news, and the harder it is to find friends you can trust,” explained senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett. “And thus your circle shrinks.” As that circle shrank for one individual, who rose from being a community organizer on the streets of Chicago to occupying the most coveted office in the country, Jarrett became evermore important in counseling the now-President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Conversing with a Harvard Kennedy School audience last Friday, and introduced as the Nation’s First Friend by Professor of Public Service David Gergen, Jarrett was humble in her words, brilliant in her insights and passionate in her pursuits. Taking the young couple of Michelle then-Robinson and Barack Obama under her wing nearly two decades ago, Jarrett put a face, demeanor and thought process behind the inner circle of this nation’s President. She spoke on issues ranging from the character of Mr. Obama; to understanding the process of real change; to the media’s complicity in fragmenting American society; to how the administration can maintain a push for gender equality amongst an already-packed White House agenda; along with other issues. She personified the reassurance that supporters of Mr. Obama craved as outsiders looking in to a deeply polarized Washington Cirque du Soleil, where scoring short-term political points seemed to trump furthering the public good, and where doubts surrounding the President’s ability to manage, lead and govern continually made headlines. In response to such criticism, Jarrett had no hesitation in putting those claims to rest.

“President Obama hasn’t changed since I’ve known him. He hasn’t. He’s always been disciplined, empathetic, temperate, intellectual, inquisitive, compassionate, self-critical, and an excellent listener.” Jarrett continued to note that the President’s capacity to multitask effectively was incredible. “Going from one meeting on terrorism, to another on mortgage foreclosures, to another, and another … his focus and ability to pay attention, coupled with the energy to see conversations through without rushing to a decision, but rather bringing a discussion to its logical conclusion is remarkable.”

Turning to a dysfunctional Washington and the first anniversary of the Obama Administration, Jarrett reminded the audience that Rome wasn’t built in a year. She went on to say that real change requires constant individual and collective action, patience and civility from both sides; the common good of the American people must always be the driving force, rather than short-term politicking. Referring back to the inaugural address, she stated that the President’s tone reflected a sombre understanding of the long road ahead, where he focused on collective engagement, long-term patience and the sheer toughness of implementing change either alone or quickly. It was against this backdrop, Jarrett continued, that some astute politicians then decided that the best way to create a crisis for the Obama presidency was to not engage at all, which was ironically the exact sentiment captured during the campaign that allowed Mr. Obama to win the election. In a unique request to all those listening, Jarrett implored the younger generation to encourage the older generation to exercise more civility in national discourse. She went on to say that this incivility is only exacerbated by the media’s complicity in polarizing the American people.

“While I always watch Morning Joe when I wake up to get a sense of what’s being said out there,” confessed Jarrett, “today, it seems as though the media picks someone from the extreme left and someone from the extreme right, pits them against one another and compels the American people to pick a side. Extremes are not good for the country. We are a nation of moderates and reasonable discourse, and thus the media has furthered the polarization of important debates.” In discussing communication strategy regarding healthcare, Jarrett stated that they lacked a counter-term to ‘death-panels’, citing that it’s much easier to scare people than to inform people, and reducing a complex issue such as healthcare into a sound byte is neither useful nor productive. With President Obama planning to release his own version of the healthcare bill this week, Jarrett cautioned that while the bill won’t be perfect, “we must never let perfection be the enemy of the good.” Indeed, with countless crises facing this administration, both keeping an issue on the radar and pushing it forward are equally important.

With this in mind, concern was raised regarding the challenges of gender equality and its potential to swiftly drop to the waist side as other key issues consumed the President’s agenda. “He has me and he has Michelle, his secret weapon,” laughed Jarrett, chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls. “He has two daughters and was raised by a single mother … he doesn’t need the reminder nor the encouragement to keep gender issues a priority.” In another concern, posed by mid-career master’s candidate Ashley Judd, the President’s character and aversion to conflict was called into question, to which Jarrett professed, “He lacks a mean spirit, and instead channels his anger in constructive ways … though the birthers tick him off.” Civil engagement, constructive dialogue, putting the American people first above petty politics, and testifying to the still-intact character and prowess of the President were all running threads throughout the evening.

In the final moments of the discussion, Jarrett was encouraged to share her learned wisdom with the eager young minds that overflowed onto makeshift seating. As an individual who has experienced the non-profit sector, the corporate world and public service, Jarrett had no shortage of advice to bestow. “To thine own self be true,” she lectured. “You must find your passion and never be afraid to venture outside your comfort zone … opportunities never knock at opportune moments, right?”

More on Barack Obama

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rahim-kanani/a-conversation-with-valer_b_470731.html

Mullen Testimony On DADT Puts Senior Republican In A Bind

Last Updated on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 01:45 Written by Daisy Harley Wednesday, 3 February 2010 01:45

Testimony on Tuesday by Adm. Mike Mullen that the time has come for the military to repeal its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has forced the hand of many prominent Republican figures who stalled for time on the issue by saying the matter was up to the military itself.

GOP lawmakers have avoided taking a stand on the 15-year-old policy — which bans gay service members from serving openly — by deferring to the opinions of the military brass. This week, it became crystal clear where the brass stands, with Mullen, the current chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declaring that it is his “personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do” and Colin Powell — the former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who was instrumental in writing DADT into law — echoing those sentiments.

The spotlight, naturally, now turns to those who have used the military command as a crutch to defend their own skepticism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a “buy-in by the military.”

“They should be included in this,” said Graham. “I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I’m not going to make policy based on a campaign rally.”

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to “a day when gays can serve openly in the military?”

“I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say,” he replied.

In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.

“I probably would let the military make that decision,” he said, when pressed. “One thing I don’t think you need is a president who’s trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to — to those who run the military.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would “defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness.”

In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not “sensed that the military is calling for a change.”

It is now.

The conundrum facing all of these Republican leaders is simple: coming out against the repeal of the DADT policy now would represent a de facto admission that the opinions of the military brass never really mattered in the first place.

But that doesn’t mean they’ll suddenly support the repeal. In fact, in a widely observed reversal yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that he was “disappointed” in Mullen’s testimony, and expressed concerns that overturning DADT at a time of “immense hardship for our armed services” would be problematic.

This despite the fact that he once declared that: “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/mullen-testimony-on-dadt_n_447583.html