Race Relations: Even a scholar can have a shoulder chip

Syndicated columnist Bill Maxwell is a writer for the Tampa Bay Times and a darn good one. His Op-Ed column appears everywhere. Although the Times choice in political cartoons conveys a subtle, hidden agenda, Maxwell’s editorials are always contemporary, thoughtful and analytical.

Not this time. His recent article on race relations smacks of a lingering resentment that ties innocent language to the race card. I have long thought highly of Bill Maxwell, and I still do. But I hope that he reconsiders the opinion espoused here: At a Restaurant, call me ‘Sir’.

Bill notes that when approached by an unfamiliar, white waiter, he is sometimes addressed as ‘Boss’, ‘Buddy’, ‘Chief’ or ‘Ace’. He interprets these salutations as signs of false respect and racially motivated spite. He also feels that the term ‘Chief’ suggests that the white person serving him wises the same fate that was meted to Native Americans, presumably because the word has it’s roots in the title of a tribal leaders.

Nonsense, Bill! While these greetings are certainly imprecise and pedestrian, they are not racist. Please revisit your logic and perhaps your overall mindset. Let me help… _{[Continue below photo...]}

In the Heat of the Night: Sidney Poitier & Rod Steiger, 1968

I caught your Op-Ed, while eating at my local diner. Coincidentally, I was just starting to read as an unfamiliar waiter approached with coffee. He said, “How ’bout a cup of Joe, Boss?” These were his exact words.

I enjoyed the coffee while reading of your frustration with angry white servers who call you “Boss”.

My initial and instinctive reaction was to immediately support your position. Simply understand that you took offense at a salutation (“What can I get you, Boss?”), I felt strongly that a server should be guided by his employer to show respect. After all, in a tolerant and respectful society, we should avoid discourtesy and slights—whether intentional or unconscious—and should certainly avoid alienating or offending any group based on religion, culture, race, national origin, or sexual orientation.

But after dwelling on your frustration and contempt for a few days, I reread the opinion and reflected on the particulars…

First, I am a middle age, white guy. I am often called “Boss”, “Chief” or “Buddy” by those serving me. To be sure, they are typically a stranger, younger then me, and probably less academic/professional/white collar (take your pick), but we are the same race.

While I agree that “Sir” is the gold standard (an indisputable observation!) and that these other terms convey a slight hint of disrespect, I honestly don’t think it has to do with serving an African American customer. After discussing the issue with 4 colleagues and 3 waiters, I am convinced that it has more to do with culture (the server), class (the customer) , and ignorance (the establishment). In any case, I suspect that the umbrage you feel when being addressed “Boss” is more directly related to your personal baggage and perhaps a small chip on your shoulder (the “race card”)–than anything racially motivated.

It might be an interesting exercise to determine if you encounter these salutations from white servers more frequently than me, or if you would be more likely to encounter them while sitting at the same restaurant. But since this experiment would be difficult to arrange, I respectfully request that you revisit your assumptions and conclusions—based simply on the fact that I am the object of the same imprecise greetings.

On a related note, I submit that the word ‘Chief’ has been integrated into the English language as a non-biased and non-culturally sensitive term. It is in the job title of every CEO and even our president. I have a Native American colleague who is offended by the name ‘Red Skins’ (a sports team) but when asked about the word “chief”, he takes no offense. Although he concedes that the word probably came from American tribes, he sees it only as lexicon that has migrated .

Bill, when you enter a restaurant, you are effectively a temporary ‘Boss’ of the entire staff. If not for you, they would not be in business. Isn’t it just possible that the less educated person serving you simply wants you to know that he is grateful for your patronage? If you take personal exception with the term (and I assure you that it is a personal quirk), then I suggest that you politely explain that you would prefer ‘Sir’.

I realize that this isn’t the hot political issue of the day. But, a remarkable fraction of society’s ills can be traced to unintended inferences. Wild Ducks already know my feelings on this issue, and so I ask readers of this Blog: What do you think, Boss?

Expand Public Charter Schools?

Exclusive to AWildDuck . . .

This week, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education awarded 3000 new charter school seats across the Commonwealth. It increases the number of students that can be educated at new or existing charter schools in the Commonwealth.

While this is exciting news for students and families, Massachusetts has again reached a legal cap in Boston and is close to a cap in Holyoke and Lawrence, such that no new charters can be awarded in these communities until the Legislature votes to lift the cap.

It’s not just Massachusetts, of course. Across the United States, a debate is raging over the legality and wisdom of the publicly-funded charter school model. Many, are puzzled over the debate. Why are there statutory caps? Who stifles what works?! But it’s not that simple...

Publicly subsidized charter schools draw from the same tax dollars that fund incumbent districts. Charters often hire from industry instead of teaching colleges and they often ignore the pay scales that were negotiated in good faith with collective bargaining units in the communities served. In fact, their very existence breaks covenants entered into with unions. For these reasons, the public-charter school model is fighting against some who feel strongly that it is not in the best interests of students or their communities.

If today’s post were like the many that appear under my name, the title of this post would end with an emphatic “Hell Yes!”. After all, I am biased. This Blog is all about bias—and as chief editor, I often use it as my personal bully pulpit.

I support the public charter school model. But I have tended to avoid the public debate, because my chief reasons are anecdotal or the product of an outside bias:

• I live next to a fantastic charter school, serving pupils from 70 communities


• Our local school district is constantly in danger of losing state accreditation


• My daughter transferred from the local public school to the charter school. She thrives in her new environment, just like pupils at both ends of the spectrum


• I generally dislike and distrust unions *


• Our charter school principal is talented, engaged, motivated and has a pas-
  sion that demonstrates an unfettered interest in the success of every student

* I generally avoid debating the merits of charter schools (from the perspective of student and the perspective of taxpayer). That’s because my general anti-union bias was baked in by a father who directed operations at a manufacturing plant during my formative years. It’s difficult to see unions as anything other than money grubbing, self-serving organizations unto themselves (not their constituents) when you have seen negotiations between management and the Teamsters or any local machinist or electrical workers union.

The high school in my public school district is constantly in danger of losing state accreditation. Standardized test scores are near the bottom of the heap. And yet, our community also hosts the top middle/high charter school in the state. My daughter has transferred to this fantastic charter school in my own backyard. Using the same tax dollars but with a keen financial disadvantage (despite popular conception), the difference is like night and day. Our charter school consistently tops state scores and – more importantly – real world metrics. In fact, with freedom from onerous union contracts and a principal whose incentives are fully aligned with pupils, your charter school can excel too.

A few months ago when discussing our pre-election analysis of Barak Obama, I pointed to his failure to strongly support a public charter school model. I was wrong. Shortly before that post, Obama was interviewed by NBC News correspondent, Savannah Guthrie. The US president not only demonstrated strong support for charter schools, he also put the teachers’ unions on notice by supporting pay for performance.

But enough armchair analysis! A reader responding to our Barack Obama piece is an analyst with more experience than me in politics, market economics, law and education. He strongly disagrees with my position on charter schools. He not only feels that they have an unfair advantage, he believes they undermine a public school system that deserves more public attention and support.

Today, he represents one side in our counterpoint editorial for and against expansion of the public charter school model. During preparation for today’s column, I have given both sides access to each others’ drafts. Nothing has been withheld.

Arguing for expansion of the public charter school model, Marc Kenen, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. Making a case against expanding public support for charter schools is James Tenser, an analyst, journalist and author from a family of public school teachers.

An Argument For and Against
Expansion of the Public Charter School Model

Read the arguments side-by-side

_________________________________________________________________________

High Performing Charter Schools Should Be Allowed to Expand
By Marc Kenen – February 2013

America was founded on what was then the radical idea that a society could be a meritocracy in which ideas that succeed can flourish. The creation of charter public schools has spurred the kind of educational innovation that should be allowed to thrive not only through the expansion of charters, but also the extension of charter-like reforms to district schools.

President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative provided incentives for states to enact various public school reforms, including removing restrictions on the growth of charters. Nearly 20 states responded by eliminating all caps on charter growth. But many states across the country still impose arbitrary caps. And many urban school districts bound by unyielding teachers’ union contracts have not been able to enact meaningful reforms.

Massachusetts enacted a limited cap lift in 2010 – allowing charters to double the number of seats they offer in low performing districts and reserving new charters for operators that had a proven track record of success.

Recently filed legislation in Massachusetts would allow charters to expand without limits in the state’s lowest performing school districts. This would provide parents in those districts with more public school choices and their children with high quality educational opportunities.

Throughout their history, charters have attacked head-on the persistent achievement gap between rich and poor kids, particularly in urban areas. Their primary mission is to provide high quality educational options for disadvantaged families and they have historically concentrated in urban areas to attract children who are poor, minority and far behind where they should be academically.

Charters generally provide hundreds of additional hours in the classroom, through longer school days and longer years. They establish a culture of excellence setting high standards for their teachers and students and providing the additional supports they need to succeed.

Academic Performance

While charter performance from state-to-state varies, there is no doubt they have been a success in Massachusetts, which provides a good model of how strict oversight and high levels of accountability can breed success. Independent national organizations have rated Massachusetts charter system among the best in the nation and it shows in the academic results.

Charter public schools in Massachusetts are proving that children from these urban communities can achieve at the same high level as children from affluent suburbs.

The vast majority of charter public schools dramatically outperform their host district schools, and have lower dropout and truancy rates.  Last year, 24 charters ranked first in the Commonwealth on various MCAS tests and academic improvement rankings. Many urban charter public schools with mostly low-income and minority students outscore even affluent suburban schools on MCAS.

Charter schools also rank high in the state’s new academic accountability system, which ranks how well schools close race-and-income-based achievement gaps.



Lift the Cap

Given their performance, it’s not surprising that demand for charter public schools across the country is through the roof.  In Massachusetts, just over 29,000 students are enrolled in charters, but another 45,000 are on waitlists. Most of the waitlisted children – 35,000 – live in one of the state’s lowest performing districts.

Given the track record of performance and the incredible demand for new seats, states should not place restrictions on charter growth.

In Massachusetts, the recently filed legislation would eliminate charter caps in districts ranked in the bottom 10 percent statewide, which educate nearly one-third of all public school children. Seven-out-of-ten students in these districts are low-income, 60 percent are African-American and 63 percent come from families in which English isn’t the first language.

The bill would also allow charters to open on an expedited basis in districts that have been placed into receivership, and require municipalities to make space in unused public buildings available to charters.

Financial Impact Exaggerated

Misinformation is the best tool charter opponents use against expansion.

Money has long been at the core of opposition to charter public schools, but the financial impact on districts is grossly exaggerated. First of all, charter schools are public schools, so there is no loss of public education funding in those communities. It’s simply allocated to a different type of public school.

States have different ways to fund charters, but the Massachusetts model seems fairest. It provides charters with the same amount of money the districts would have spent if the children had stayed in their classrooms. Since districts no longer educate these students, they no longer keep the funding.

Massachusetts is unique in that it also provides some financial assistance to districts that lose students to charters – recognizing that not every penny that “follows the student” can be saved in district budgets. The state reimburses districts for funds lost to charters – districts get more than double their money back (225%) over the six-year period. Districts receive every penny back the first year, and then 25% in each of the next five years. It is the most generous reimbursement policy in the country.

Enrollment

Opponents try and dismiss this academic success by claiming charters “select” only the best students. But, charters are open to all students, and enrollment is determined by random lotteries. On a statewide basis, charters serve a far higher percentage of minority and poor children, and a similar percentage of special needs children. And while district schools serve more children who either cannot speak English or struggle with it, recent efforts to attract immigrant families are changing that. Three new charter schools in Massachusetts focus on teaching English-language learners and others have opened in neighborhoods with high immigrant populations.

Private? No. Independent? Yes

Recently, teachers unions and other charter opponents have accused charters of “privatizing” public education. But, charters are public schools; they are founded by local citizens and are overseen by local public boards. They operate independent of local school districts, report directly to the state department of education, and are not required to collectively bargain with teachers unions. They are not “private” in any way. The unions are confusing “private” with “non-union.”

Opponents also claim that charters are “not accountable to anyone,” simply because they do not report to local districts or local school boards. But that’s the point. Charters are designed to be independent of the local bureaucracy.

No aspect of education reform has been more successful than charters.  In a meritocracy, they have earned the right to expand and meet more of the overwhelming demand for schools that provide a world-class education to the neediest children.

Marc Kenen is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association.

________________________________________________________________________


Confessions of a Charter School Skeptic
By James Tenser – February 2013

Questioning the charter school movement in America feels like a touchy business. There are powerful forces in play within our governments and communities. There are powerful people channeling impressive sums of private money to fund their progress. There are powerful emotions in the hearts of parents who sincerely and appropriately want what is best for their children.

I think there are two main areas of discussion regarding charter schools. The first is the relatively straightforward matter of education consumption that parents confront every school year in every community in the nation: “Where shall I send little Amanda so that she receives the best possible education in a safe environment that nurtures her talent and self image and enables the best possible future?”

It’s natural for any parent to want their kids to receive an ideal education. We may define “ideal” in any number of ways, according to our beliefs, preferences, prejudices, desires and fears. If a nearby charter school represents that ideal option (or at least the best available one), we will move heaven and earth to get Adam or Amanda enrolled. We feel it’s our responsibility and our right to do so.

If freedom of choice were there only issue raised by charter schools, this critique might end here and now. Charter schools would simply thrive or fail based on their ability to provide an attractive option. But the second area of discussion is far less straightforward. For me it raises darker concerns about how we model the future of our society and even the motivations of some of the individuals who advocate most strongly in favor of the Charter option.

“Old School” Nostalgia

Public education has for generations been a foundation of the American way of life. It’s been our way of preparing young people for the workforce, for military service, for participation in the political and cultural affairs of our nation. In a nation of immigrants, public schools have been a primary engine for acculturation and assimilation of new arrivals. They have been the places where our traditions of meritocracy, fair play and social equality have been inculcated and reinforced. They have been the places where the ambitions and intellectual contributions our young people have been identified, honed and brought to the surface.

The old public schools were far from flawless. In too many corners of the country they were manipulated to help institutionalize unfair social practices and outright discrimination. They have too frequently perpetuated inertia and apathy that lowered educational quality standards in some communities and harmed America’s academic competitiveness on the world stage.

No wonder the charter school concept had immediate appeal when the idea was first floated by Prof.  Ray Budde of U. Mass. Amherst in 1988. The idea was to operate autonomous, publicly funded schools, which were freed of certain procedural burdens and oriented toward student performance outcomes. For concerned, motivated parents in underperforming districts, this option was a godsend, an affordable chance for their children to escape mediocrity and even danger at some public schools.

I write this from Arizona, a state that has since been a leader in charter school creation. According to the Arizona Charter Schools Association, our state “is home to 535 charter schools that enroll 142,368 students in the 2012-13 school year. Fully at least 25 percent of the state's public schools are charter schools, and 13.5 percent of all public-school students are enrolled in charter schools — the highest percentage for any state, and second only to Washington D.C.”

Full disclosure: I am also married to a middle school math teacher in the Tucson public schools (Tucson Unified School District), who is dedicated beyond reason and who delivers top student test performance year after year. She and I and a number of her colleagues have had thoughtful discussions about how the rapidly expanding charter school movement may be creating both intended and unintended consequences.

Bright Flight

One troubling unintended consequence is micro-economic in nature. When a large, diverse, urban school district loses student population to competing charter schools, the district budgets can become distorted, to the detriment of remaining students. As noted above, motivated parents make individual decisions to move students to charter schools for generally sound reasons. When this happens in large proportion, it amounts to what I call “bright flight” – the departure of the most educationally motivated families first.

A consequence of bright flight is that the school buildings and administrative infrastructure remain, along with their many fixed costs. Payrolls must inevitably be cut. Students who stay behind experience cutbacks in services, including elimination of non-core subjects such as arts, music, shop, phys. ed., sports teams and extra-curricular activities.

I wrote an essay about this issue in 2010, in which I compared the over-schooling of some communities to the over-storing of America. Too much capacity chasing too few consumers is a formula for collapse – which may be healthy, but certainly painful too.

Districts are eventually forced to close and consolidate school buildings – as in Tucson Unified, where 11 schools were designated for closure by the board last December. In a large district, fewer buildings means more remaining  students travel greater distances by bus, further diverting funds out of the classrooms.

The shifts can be demoralizing for teachers and students left behind, who can sense that structural financial issues are overwhelming the mission to educate.

Changing the structure of our public educational system through the widespread implementation of charter schools brings other potential consequences that may amount in some respects to social engineering.  This could be a good thing if we agree on the objectives and have confidence in the means.

But strangely our national debate has not confronted the vision or motives of education reform advocates very vigorously. One might infer that there is a power play afoot, driven by ideology. Philanthropies run by Gates, Waltons, Broads and others have poured billions of dollars into support of the education reform movement over the past several years, including many charter school operations, and the Race To The Top competition. So it’s not unfair to press them on why and what they hope to accomplish. Even where hearts are pure, methods may be suspect.

Charter America?

I harbor another, theoretical, concern – that charter schools might be somewhat self-segregating, by class, ethnicity, or belief. Students who attend them may miss a chance to be exposed to people with differing backgrounds. Already we see charter schools that advertise their points of difference on television. One is focused on sports excellence; another on music and theater; a third on science and math; a fourth promises Christian values; one other promises “no bullying”! I worry this may be culturally regressive – not by design, but in practice. Is the demise of the community school socially, culturally, politically desirable? Is it good for businesses that hope to hire graduates one day? We have yet to confront this as a reasoned public debate.

Of course, some critics have suggested that charter schools are disruptive to unions – threatening disintegration of their power base. Many will shed no tears over this, but once again, we need to ask ourselves if how this change best serves our public school students. Unions are sometimes justly accused of obstructionism, but some union leaders have also been staunch advocates of charter schools.

Education reform in general – and charter schools in particular – bring consequences for our fundamental conception of America. What kind of society are we striving to be? How do we want to prepare our young people to participate in it? What is the proper role for power and influence in our educational system? How can we best define merit for students, teachers, schools, and our nation’s competitiveness?

I would stipulate that these addressing these questions may be fundamentally different from the very personal debate we individually face for and against sending ones’ own child to a charter school. I leave this discussion with food for thought: If we truly had a handle on our institutions of public education, would the charter choice even be necessary?

In addition to being the product, son, brother and husband of talented public school teachers, James Tenser is a retail industry analyst. A former journalist and author, Mr. Tenser pens his own Blog, tenserstirades.com. He is a frequent commentator at RetailWire.com and Chief Analyst at The Center for Advancing Retail Technology.

• Related Editorial: Lift Massachusetts’ Cap on Charter Schools
  Taunton Daily Gazette

Sequestration Standoff Solution

Regular readers know that we here at AWildDuck have a love-hate relationship with the US president. We endorsed him in the November election, but we had some blunt and critical reservations. Of course, bluntness is our trademark style, but in this case, we explained a schism in ethos that reduces the effectiveness of the American president.

Mr. Obama rivals Bill Clinton in his command of foreign policy. He has an innate understanding of democracy, law and homeland security. He is an ethical man with good ideas about helping to elevate those who cannot help themselves. But he lacks a fundamental belief in free market economics. He is suspicious of wealth—and for some reason, he thinks that someone earning 100 times as much as another individual should pay far more than 100 times as much in taxes after you deduct basic living costs for both individuals. Although supporters refute the “socialist” label that is tossed from the right, it is not completely unjustified. Recall how Obama railed against corporate ‘fat cats’ who fly on corporate jets. Obama feels that it is not sufficient to build a safety net for the poor, he has a mission of doing it by soaking the rich.

[caption id="attachment_2184" align="aligncenter" width="724"] No compromise: Obama wants higher taxes on high earners[/caption]

Of course, the problem is that there is not enough wealth in the 1% to address the hole that we have dug. More importantly, he fails to accept the basic premise of capital in-centives. Did he miss a principle taught in every first-year economics class in the free world? Time for a refresher. If you slept through that class, here is the Cliff Notes version: If we punish individuals who build business, employ the middle class and already pay the lion’s share of taxes, then these individuals will build empires elsewhere.

So, since we really do like Mr. Obama, what is a Wild Duck to do?

In the build up to possible Sequestration (America’s newest fiscal cliff), we believe the solution is for Republicans to let the budget ax fall where it may. Don’t compromise on letting the White House legislate ever higher disproportionate tax tiers. That plan is not only divisive, it is a path of economic suicide. It can only lead to capital flight.

Today, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, John Boehner explains that the idea for automatic and across the board budget cuts originated with the White House, but we dispute that looming cuts were designed solely to force bipartisanship and scare legislators into crafting a more palatable plan. Nonsense! Sudden and drastic cuts are necessary to demonstrate to our creditors that we understand our obligations. We cannot continue to renege on debts and fleece our own grandchildren, by continuing to spend beyond our means.

As we go to press, sequestration is 10 days away. In a speech tonight (Feb 19, 2013), Mr. Obama stood before a gaggle of first responders, insisting that the indiscriminate cuts mandated by sequestration would result in layoff of thousands of safety personnel, teachers, airport security and flight controllers, and result in the cancellation of the Head Start program and urgently needed upgrades to an aircraft carrier.

Analysts say that Obama has the high ground. They say that if economic malaise ensues, Republican legislators will be held accountable. We agree. That’s because he is not only an ethical man, he is poised and articulate. And of course, as Republicans often complain, he is extending his campaign mode instead of offering to compromise with legislators.

So, with apologies to Jonathan Swift, we wish to proffer our own modest proposal. An idea on how Republicans can seize the high ground without giving in: We humbly suggest that Republicans announce a press conference immediately. “Hello, America...We understand that indiscriminate cuts would cripple the economy and penalize the needy. We will compromise. We cannot stand by and watch senseless cuts, and so we offer to work with the president on sensible cuts.” Since we cannot seem to agree on taxes, we will work hand-in-hand with the president to reduce the deficit by prioritizing the cuts that are mandated.

[caption id="attachment_2192" align="alignright" width="272"] Indiscriminate cuts disastrous?  So, discriminate, Mr. Obama.[/caption]

Of course, we are in the midst of a crisis, so we won’t limit our cuts to obvious waste. We will make the tough choices and target all those programs that the president never mentions in his popular stump speeches. Hmm-m-m. Where to start? How about you, Mr. President? Any ideas?

This position, will remind Americans that while the president points to the calamity that accompanies cuts to teachers, firefighters, air traffic controllers and battleships, he never cites the other end of his list. What programs can be eliminated or cut way back?. It’s easy to denounce pork and graft, but where will the real belt-tightening begin? Since the wealth of the 1% doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, this is a discussion that really needs to be vetted. And very soon.

Let’s be clear: We support President Obama. In most of his pursuits and methods, he has our admiration and endorsement. But it’s time that this Harvard Law student gain macro-economic perspective. We think that an offer to let the president take the lead in slashing the budget will turn the conversation and take the wind out of his argument that the deficit can be addressed by soaking the wealthy.

Try as he might, nothing the president can do will soak the wealthy. It is not realistic. It will only move the wealth out of the United States, along with the jobs, the technology, the Nobel Prizes and the economic gains that follow it.

As we go to press, it’s reassuring to see The Wall Street Journal agrees that mandated cuts driven by a firm deadline may not be a bad thing. But this is not exactly our point. In our opinion, they needn’t be across-the-board.

— Ellery Davies is editor of AWildDuck. Once in awhile,
he returns to his roots and becomes a political pundit.

What do Donald Trump & Marco Rubio have in common?

Did you ever wonder if interesting and newsworthy events around the world are winding down? I mean, let’s face it. The world is pretty boring. Not much is happening anymore.

Of course, that’s a bald faced lie. There is no dearth of newsworthy events. Not with more wars than ever before, breakthroughs in science at a blinding pace, global warming, a murderous shooting spree every other week, and political brinksmanship in Asia, the mid-east and even in our own Congress. Even the market battle between iPhone and Android is news.

So what passes for news today? How about this: Business mogul, Donald Trump is suing comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, because — according to Mr. Trump — he is not the product of his mother having sex with an orangutan, and he can prove it.

Just how newsworthy is proving that your father is not an orangutan? According to the Washington Times, it is the Fight of the Century. That’s pretty important, right? After all, the century is only 12% complete. It must be more important than a nation’s ballooning debt, a near earth collision with an asteroid, or crazed ex-cop who has published a hit list and killed 4 people before he was burned in a cabin east of Los Angeles

Of course, we understand that Mr. Trump is incensed by Bill Maher’s joke on late night TV. Perhaps his frustration and anger constitutes a brief statement on the news (just a parenthetical one at that). But wait...The Don is really, really, Really incensed. After all, Maher has slandered his parents! Well, not really. Bill Maher is a comedian. Even a child recognizes the difference between character defamation and parody (very good parody, in my opinion). So, if Donald Trump truly believes that the courts are the proper place to assuage his frustration, then – at best – he has a weak case for slander. Not quite the five million to which he claims to a contractual entitlement.

[caption id="attachment_2173" align="alignright" width="265"] Donald Trump: Not the offspring of an
orangutan...But frequently acts like one[/caption]

Why don’t we just set the record straight on Donald Trump once and for all. Donald Trump is a Buffoon with a capital “B”. By comparison, he makes Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians look like Ivy League scholars.

WildDucks may never know how or why Donald Trump is seen as a noteworthy scion of business. It can’t just be his wealth or eccentricities. There are many wealthy and weird business owners who covet publicity. Yet they fly under the radar. Perhaps Trump attracts media coverage, because networks see him as a source of entertainment. But even this theory falls short. As a consumer of news and entertainment, I can categorically state that his TV shows and news clips leave viewers ill at ease and not very pleased with the network. And if the entertainment angle is a viable, why fill up the world news.

Trump has no common sense, a gruff and insulting attitude, is very self-centered and has garish grooming (especially that ridiculous hair piece!). To the Don, I say: “You’re Fired!”

But wait. The trump-orangutan is so “last week”! What’s on the telly this week? Oh, my! Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, reached for a sip of water while delivering a Republican response to the president’s State of the Union address. I find it terribly depressing that this is considered news. He seemed a bit awkward as he ducked below the camera during a close up. Newsworthy? No. Briefly awkward? Sure. Funny? Only to a 2 year old who might also laugh at potty humor.

I can understand that this minor event rippled through Twitter. These are just regular Joe’s sharing an unusual moment with their friends and followers. Perfectly normal.

But, I am really disappointed with CNN for replaying that moment—and making it into a news segment. (I give the anchor a bit of credit. Assuming that he was not responsible for choosing the story, at least he cut off the follow-up discussion and suggested that it is not newsworthy). Just how does grabbing a sip of water during a speech spark a national scandal? The only slightly unusual thing is that the water was out of reach and required that Rubio almost stoop below the camera during a close up. O.K. We saw the result of poor planning. A dry throat should have been anticipated by Mr. Rubio and certainly by the television producer or set coordinator. In my opinion, it not only lacks merit as a news event. it is not funny or entertaining either. I think less of the media for abandoning real news in favor of this quip. My problem is not that it is “fluff”. That would be O.K. But this is invasive and unfriendly fluff without any point at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXOtu6PuSik

To be completely fair, I rather liked David Letterman’s send up of the event. But that doesn’t mean that the original event was news or even funny. It means that David Letterman and his writers have the talent to turn it into something funny.

Returning to the title question: “What do Donald Trump & Marco Rubio have in common?” They are both the absurd subjects of low-brow humor posing as news–or at least as legitimate filler for news broadcasts. They are neither of these things. Although they are newsworthy in other ways (Well, at least Rubio is newsworthy), they are just ordinary people going about their business.

Bitcasa: Unlimited storage, version history & sync

Bitcasa has just emerged from “skunkworks” mode. The cloud storage startup made waves in 2011 as finalist at TechCrunch Disrupt and runner up at Startup Battlefield. They were Kickstarter financed and then went silent. Throughout 2012, there were no public bulletins, but some analysts noted that they filed for 20 patents--a few are really slick! Now, during Feb 2013, they have unveiled a cloud service with an edge over all others (SkyDrive, iDrive, Dropbox, Sugarsync, etc). In my opinion, only Symform and SpaceMonkey come close to the model that I described 3 years ago (search for ‘Ellery’ and ‘RDDC’).

Bitcasa gives every user folder sync, a timeline for version recovery, and cloud storage without limits. And, I really mean limitless! By the end of next month, I may be using petabytes, as in millions of gigabytes! The space available to me shows exabytes are still available.  That’s more than all the grains of sand on the world’s beaches and all the stars in the heavens. How much does this cost? Just $99 a year, or $49 if you sign up early this month. (Promo Code: BETATHANKS). WildDucks can help this Blog by using our referral link. It tacks a free month onto your editor’s subscription.

I can’t guarantee that Bitcasa will be around next year. After all, most startups fail. But in this case, I crafted a substantially identical network architecture years ago. I understand the business model. Even with a high fraction of data hogs, the venture can profitably service users for the long haul. If an understanding of the secret sauce isn’t sufficient to assuage hesitation, this interview with CEO Tony Gauda will floor you. He combines the technical and marketing genius of Steve Jobs with the showmanship of Siegfried and Roy, and the smile of Barak Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImZWVxAQ_Q

Damon Michaels, a WildDuck contributor wrote:

Seems like a virtual drive. I need automatic backup of
my important data. I use Carbonite for this right now.

The folder-sync defaults to all drives in their entirety—even external drives and network attached storage! If you accept the default, it always backs up everything. But more importantly, Bitcasa reverses the model. As connectivity becomes more ubiquitous and speedy, they want you to use the cloud as your primary active storage. Eventually, it will even host your live EXE files (your apps) and your “bootable” OS. The synchronized copy on your PC will be the backup – as well as the one that is used when you cannot connect.

I proposed the fundamental principles used in Bitcasa architecture in this Blog, and 3 years ago in other articles. I called it a “Reverse Distributed Data Cloud” (RDDC). My spec adds distributed, P2P storage to the model. This reduces cost, creates redundancy, and makes a far more robust system. Not only does it get rid of the data center completely. With my model, it is unnecessary for the service provider to perform any backups. In effect, the live cloud is a RAID 10,000 constellation.

One architectural trade-off is the desire for massive de-duplication –vs– the compelling need for end-to-end encryption, in which only the individual users have the keys. These two features are incompatible. DropBox and Bitcasa claim that files are encrypted at the sender and that private keys are never given to the service. While technically true, that claim covers up a nasty little detail. They use a method called Convergent Encryption in which encryption keys are derived from a character string within the encrypted file. Although the service cannot decrypt a unique file (for example, your income taxes), they could compare a hash of your file to one provided by a government or alleged rights owner, thus proving that you have stored a copy of contested media. They could block access to movies and music that you have stored or even block your original upload. The good news is that with a full RDDC implementation, the need for de-duplication is greatly reduced or even eliminated. Therefore, a properly implemented RDDC can truly empower its uses with strong, end-to-end encryption.

I'll report more about Bitcasa after a few months of use. For now, I feel ratified to see my dream taking shape at several American ventures. If you find this field as fascinating as me, check out Symform, SpaceMonkey and Digital Lifeboat. That last venture is floundering, and may be bankrupt by the time you read this. But they have some very compelling technology for p2p, distributed storage.

Colossal PR Failure: Taliban effort to silence Malala

If you have picked up a newspaper or turned on the TV news in the past 11 months, then you probably know of Malala Yousafzai, a courageous Pakistani girl who stared down the Taliban and took 2 bullets to the head. Today, as Malala’s influence spreads across the Muslim world, the Taliban is realizing that attacking a 14 year old girl was a terrible move. Even among religious zealots, their cause was dealt a blow.

Malala was targeted by Taliban militants who sought to suppress her appeal for an education. They stormed her minivan school bus and shot her twice in the face. But she survived. After surgery to replace parts of her cranium, implant a cochlea into her inner ear and reattach nerves to facial muscles, she is making an astounding recovery thanks to triage surgeons in Pakistan and a team of specialists at Queen’s Hospital in Birmingham England.

Mala didn’t want a free education, or one that was mandatory for girls who accept the radical Islam enforced by Taliban militants. She simply advocated for halting their intimidating ban on the education of all girls, including the destruction of 250 schools, and the murder of families who object to their twisted religious doctrine.

But many Wild Ducks have yet to learn of Malala’s back story. For many in the West, it began when the New York Times created a 32 minute video about the life and efforts of Malala’s father, Ziauddin Yousafzai. In the picturesque Swat Valley, just north of the Islamabad, he operated a private high school and college for girls. Ziauddin recruited and paid a professional staff and maintained surprisingly high academic standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F5yeW6XFZk
^{The New York Times profiled Malala’s life 2 years before she was shot}

Although the Times video ends with Malala meeting President Obama’s attaché, she was not yet the object of international attention. Filmed just before and after her twelfth birthday, it captures the profound regional change. It begins with interior scenes of Malala’s home and her father’s school. The family lives with unbearable stress, because of a Taliban decree that schools admitting girls must close within the week. Their radio broadcasts warn that school staffs and parents will be held accountable for any girl who receives an education. The meaning of ‘accountable’ isn’t lost on parents or schools. Gunman shoot, burn, amputate or bomb anyone violating the Fatwa. Half of the pupils stop coming (and stop paying tuition). Across the region, the few schools that weren’t already destroyed are shut off to girls.

[caption id="attachment_2145" align="alignleft" width="200"] Ziauddin Yousafzai[/caption]

Then, The New York Times video covers siege and exile. It follows the father’s flight from Swat, including his 4 month separation from family. Eventually, he returns to a home and school that was occupied by the local army in an apparently successful effort to expel the Taliban. But the narrator explains that Taliban militants are hiding among the refugees, taking food from western charities and slipping back into the region along with returning citizens.

But what about Malala? In addition to exhibiting extreme chutzpah, she is a living testament to her father’s educational methods. Even at 11, she is poised, articulate, multilingual and startlingly proficient in math and science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4ZVvaSVnYOg
^{Malala talks about her remarkable recovery after being shot in the face by Taliban militants}

What does AWildDuck think about Malala and the events that forged courage amongst depravity? There is an astounding array of ignorance, hate and extremism in this world. Extremism inevitably leads to trauma, like that which this girl has endured. Yet, here, we are witness to the emergence of an intelligent and astonishing young adult! Her strength has risen with each ignorant and evil act of tormentors. In short order, she has become a beacon of truth and human dignity. What an amazing triumph of compassion, medical skill and sheer will power over the forces of intolerance.

Malala Yousafzai will go on to do great things. She has demonstrated that she cannot be silenced—certainly not by a bullet. She is an incredible force for good and an inspiration for us all.

Cold War: If Not For Me, We’d All Be Communist

From time to time, at AWildDuck, we offer an observation or op-ed on a topic of human interest. This one is not about current events, the price of gold, law or politics. Nah. It’s just Ellery’s spin with a nod toward levity. This one is fluff…

For most Americans, the cold war ended when the Berlin Wall came down. In just a few months, the USSR dissolved as former republics reasserted independence and the politburo acquiesced peaceably. But for Americans raised in the 1960s, the cold war had effectively ended when an American landed on the moon in 1969. By then, America not only felt that the space race had replaced the arms race, but more importantly, a cold war mentality was no longer baked into their weekly routine.

I attended kindergarten and 1^st grade in the early 60s. Schools held air raid drills and homes with cellars rotated canned food from the pantry and discussed radiation safety protocol. Nearly every child in North America practiced weekly safety drills orchestrated by the US Army or the Department of War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

My most vivid memory of a cold war mentality was the annual screening of the army film, Duck and Cover (LINK) and weekly air raid drills at school. Very high poles next to our baseball diamond were topped with 4-way, square-flared horns. Each Tuesday at 10:30, they blared a slowly rising siren. It was distinct from fire and police sirens, because it was a 2 tone, a full octave lower, and it took a full 30 seconds to rise and fall. That siren was a staple of my early childhood. For me, the sound had a very clear meaning: An air raid drill was about to begin. We were to seek cover. And because of its military precision, you could adjust your clocks. At the tone, the time will be 10:30 am, exactly!

In the army film, pupils ducked under wooden school desks. Presumably, this would protect them from nuclear annihilation, a force that sends mushroom clouds into the stratosphere, turns skyscrapers into smoldering ash and levels cities. Somehow, a wooden desk seems like a weak defense, but no one ever addressed the contradiction. But desks aren’t as strong as cinder block walls, and so we would file into the hallway and crouch down by our boots and winter coats. I sure felt a lot more secure about that bomb, knowing that I was protected by a wall — at least if the bomb fell behind me.

All this safety protocol begs the question…Who are we hiding from? Who is flying those planes and why do they want to kill us? For an elementary school pupil of the 1960s, this would be a profoundly naïve question. It’s the Russians and the Chinese, of course! They are communist. They hate our freedoms. They want to put us all into work camps and then steal the gold bricks that line our streets.

I sensed that information was missing from this simple explanation, but with a first grade perspective of geopolitical tension, it sufficed. Note to self: Ask older brother if he was told something more believable. After all, he was in Junior High and he knew about everything that could be known.

But even a first grader has a concept of military strategy. After practicing the drill each Tuesday one year after another, I began to become very frightened about something. Yet, I couldn’t tell anyone. Not the teacher and not even another student. After all, my secret could help the Russians to win a real war and enslave all of us.

It seemed to me that air raid drills were practiced everywhere. And at least in the communities around me, those drills were always on Tuesday at 10:30 am. The more I thought about this regular practice, the more I feared the communists. Eventually, I had trouble focusing on school work or the red-haired girl with pig tails who sat in front of me.

I realized that if the Commies want to bomb the United States, it would be pretty easy to catch the entire country off guard. All they have to do is send their planes on a Tuesday at 10:30 am. Like lambs to the slaughter, the children would practice their drill while the regional Air Force base was at low alert. Of course, the air raid sirens would blare, but no one would take it as a warning. At least, not at Devonshire school in District 68. We would be blithely practicing our weekly drill. The enemy would face no defenses and all of the children would be sitting ducks. Literally. We would all be in the hallways waiting to be led off to work camps — every one of us.

For all these years, I wondered if the Russians or Chinese ever realized this weak spot in our national defense. Now, 50 years later, I am married to a Chinese American who was raised during the Cultural Revolution. While I was ducking and covering, she was filing into bomb shelters a world apart. (quite a bit safer than a wooden desk or cinder block hallway). She was told that westerners wanted to destroy her way of life.

In the end, history books claim that the west won the cold war (at least our history books see it that way). The Soviet Union has been dismantled and China is better at capitalism than USA, at least at the national level. The years are numbered for the last few communist governments and their leaders know it. China and Venezuela are trade partners, while North Korea and Cuba are isolated. Gradually, the citizens will force a changing of the guard. But what many readers never knew until today, is that I kept my mouth closed about the danger in practicing precisely timed drills. I never told the enemy, nor even my classmates. I saved America from enslavement at work camps. I am the unsung hero.

In addition to saving the world, Ellery Davies is editor of AWildDuck.com
He pontificates about politics, economics, privacy and social phenomena.
He is especially interested in the intersection of technology and law.

French air strikes in Mali: Noble effort to stem a cancer

[caption id="attachment_2072" align="alignright" width="300"] Summer vacation? Scratch Mali and Timbuktu[/caption]

When I was young, my parents occasionally invited Aunt Millie to stay at our home and babysit, while they traipsed off to exotic places like Tahiti, Bora Bora, Bali and Fiji. That was back in the 60s and 70s. With an arctic blast sweeping across North America this week, some of you may be planning your own summer getaways to warmer climates. If you are fortunate to be part of the economic recovery, then you might be thinking about a tropical paradise like your folks visited back in the day.

Mali and Timbuktu were never a match for Bali or Fiji. But for many Europeans of my generation, they attracted independent travelers seeking adventure. They were safe, fun and the locals were very friendly. These sunny places are no longer hospitable to anyone–at least not anyone who fails to cover up women and face Mecca every few hours. Lately, they look more like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Eight months ago,a region of Mali that is larger than all of France or Texas was overrun by Qaeda rebels. In an effort to ratchet up fear and control, they force Sharia Law by amputating limbs from anyone who fails to live by their twisted principles. By any reasonable measure, these are Barbarians... positively sick bastards.

[caption id="attachment_2075" align="alignleft" width="304"] Lift it in praise or lose it[/caption]

For the past 3 months, citizens have been rounded up for public amputations (either as witness or participant). The crime? Nothing terrible. Gaze at an unrelated girl, fail to praise Allah after a sneeze, or dare to suggest that woman should be allowed an education, and you will lose both a hand and a foot—Instantly.

Justice is swift under Sharia law. Don’t expect a trial, a defense, an appeal or a delay. Reprieves don’t exist, praise Allah! Want to sneak a kiss with your honey? You had best not have a honey. Young brides are bought from parents. Just the act of holding hands is a risk you dare not attempt. For this and anything else that strikes the Mujahidin as unholy, you will pay with your limbs and perhaps you nose too!

The Mali government represents the majority of its citizens, but they are helpless against the hordes of Qaeda allied Muslims sweeping across their territory. They outnumber and out gun the army and are driven by visions of 18 willing virgins in the hereafter. I don’t know about you, but virgins in a swimming pool next to Allah’s throne probably trumps civility, cash or fear of justice in this life.

[caption id="attachment_2076" align="alignleft" width="264"] Bibi Aisha's father sold her to a Taliban fighter who hacked off her nose and ears.[/caption]

The zealots’ latest scheme is to compile a mandatory registry of unwed mothers. You can imagine what comes next. Don’t bother to justify a woman without a husband (many husbands were killed by the very same thugs). ‘Islamic justice’ is an oxymoron.  In their view, any woman with a child should be the property of a man, and so every woman in the catalog is guilty of a crime. Sister, if you are on this list, be very scared.

Should the west become isolationists in order to avoid the financial burden of war? We certainly don’t want more nation building (including cash for rebuilding), propping up governments, arbitrating another Middle East dispute. But what to do when we learn about brutality like the pirates in Somalia or the sick, brutal behavior in Mali. Can humanity opt for isolationism when presented with such abominations?

Last week, upon receiving an urgent appeal for military intervention, France came to the aid of her former colony. They launched blistering and superbly targeted air strikes against the holy rollers in Mali. This is no small task. It will be terribly expensive to sustain. It could turn into another Afghanistan or even a new Viet Nam.

The French seek to liberate northern Mali with air strikes targeted at operational bases, religious enforcement offices, training camps, and centers of  logistics and supply.

[caption id="attachment_2073" align="aligncenter" width="584"] En route to strike fundamentalist rebels in Mali, a French Mirage fighter gets mid-air refueling[/caption]

What is truly amazing is that the targets are spread across a region larger than France itself! According to reports from liberated citizens, the strikes from bombers & missile-firing helicopters target foreign extremists with remarkable precision and avoid civilians for the most part. But the precision cannot be perfect. Ten children jumped into a pond and drowned, in an effort to escape from bombs that they thought would hit them.

As terrorists and extremists regroup, I suspect that they will be more difficult to target without civilian casualties. Now that they are facing a powerful outside enemy, they will begin to distribute their activities throughout the population. Their movement of supplies and communications will become very difficult to distinguish from peaceful economic activities.

Regarding French intervention, they are getting US help, including advisors, logistics, mid-air refueling, and probably access to satellite images and US air bases. But so far, the US has not placed any troops into the operational theater. At least for now, the Yanks are not at risk. Despite this help (which I support, because the adversary is so evil and malignant), Let’s hope this doesn’t turn into another western war or even a long term sink for money or manpower. At least, we hope that evil can be contained—and if possible, killed off—without creating martyrs, righteous murderers and elevated dogma.

Simple Law – Unintended consequence!

James Madison was U.S. president from March 1809 until early 1817. But in 1789—twenty years before he became president—he proposed an amendment to a republic that was barely 13 years old.

He never saw his proposal pass. In fact, it was 203 years before it was ratified by the 38th state of a larger 50-state union. That was 1992. The proposal might have languished in obscurity for even more centuries, had a college student not realized that it could still be ratified. In 1982, he started a grass roots movement and the consti-tution was amended 10 years later. Today, twenty-one years after it became a law, it is still the most recent amendment to the constitution. So, what does it say?

It says “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” In other words, a sitting Congress can’t change its pay while it is in session. It can only change the salary of the next Congress or Senate.

Now, here’s the unintended consequence: Last week, GOP leaders crafted a new law that links congressional pay to the budget debate.If Congress can-not agree on a 2014 budget by April 15 (in the next 3 months), then their pay shall be withheld.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well not really, because it also says that in exchange, congress shall suspend the debt ceiling. Here at AWildDuck, we believe that this is would be terribly irresponsible. Seriously, guys & gals: The buck has to stop somewhere...We can’t kick this can forever!

But, speak of kicking the can, here is the real kicker: The new law is probably illegal, because of the 27th amendment. Remember that one? Congress cannot change its pay. That includes, it would seem, deferral, escrow, withholding, what have you!

I wonder if James Madison had just a glimmer of his influence on lawmakers 224 years hence. D’ya think? Nah! But it sure would be fun to go back and show him.

Read more about it at our source, the National Constitution Center.

Alex Jones: Theatrics on Piers Morgan

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, CNN’s Piers Morgan has no qualms about aligning himself with gun control advocates and against the NRA. In a live debate with the executive director of Gun Owners of America, he called the guest “dangerous,” “stupid” and “an idiot.”

Years ago, news anchors avoided overtly taking sides and especially avoided name calling on the air. But even when he does these things, I consider Piers Morgan an example of a reasonable voice in mainstream media. But...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

But in an interview with Alex Jones yesterday, Piers was subjected to a most incredible rant. I can’t recall seeing anything quite like this on television. I have seen guests with opposing views shout at each other over a news anchor, but they weren’t shouting at their host. On Jerry Springer and Morton Downey were hosts to chair throwing incidents and bar room brawls. But these involved the audience and not noted guests. It even eclipses the antics of early Gerlado shows. Perhaps Alex Jones can be compared to Hulk Hogan screaming about his anticipated bone crushing, head stomping victory at the World Wrestling Federation—But that is understood to be theatrics spoken for pure entertainment.

See these clips from the interview. (Be sure to see both clips--before and after a break).

Alex Jones is a conservative radio talk show host at the fringe. (His network produces The Katherine Albrecht Show—a more reasoned a conservative. I was a guest on her show last year).

Piers begins with a very civil introduction. He explains that Alex Jones is behind a popular White House petition to deport Piers back to England! (Incidentally, Alex justifies the petition based on Piers being a foreigner who is attacking the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Jones see this as an attempt to influence or overthrow our government.

Sitting next to Piers in the CNN studio with a humble smile, Jones politely explains that the deportation petition was simply a way to wake up his listeners and give momentum to the debate. But any debate yet to begin and without provocation, he loses all control in the first two minutes! Piers never has a chance to interject or ask a question. The guest is filled with hate and rage. He threatens to overthrow Piers and his relatives by restarting the 1776 independence revolutinon.

Don’t miss this one. It is unbelievable that Jones – a talk show host with a significant audience – cannot control his passion and rage during an interview with a mainstream host. C’mon! Even if you don't consider Piers Morgan to be “mainstream”, in the words of James Earl Jones, "This is CNN!"

Was Jones playing to the camera in an effort to score viewers for his own talk show? Perhaps his producer told him that jumping up and down like a monkey in estrus would ignite a durable soap box moment in the Internet age. Well, perhaps...But the message broadcast from the CNN soap box was “I am a buffoon!” —So sayeth Ellery.

I would love to hear from a 2nd amendment advocate. Does Jones represent your opinion? Does your passion match his? Is he articulate? Could it be that he is really a stooge for advocates of tighter gun controls? Now, that would be a clever ploy!

Culture of Violence: Are games & media part of the problem?

This is the 4th and final Wild Duck editorial related to the Newtown school
massacre in December 2012. Scroll down to view these articles:

■ Logan’s Guardians: Poignant Sandy Hook back story ■ 3-Prong Approach to School Security Avoids Lockdown

■ Few tributes to killer's mother? Don’t feel guilt ■ Violence in Games & Media: Not part of the problem

Liza Long has become an internet sensation of sorts. Her Blog post “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother”  [alternate site] went viral in the aftermath of the Newtown school shooting. Of course, she is not Nancy Lanza. The shooter’s mother was the first victim of a calculated rampage that left 28 dead in all, including 20 first-grade students and 6 staff members.

Mrs. Long’s 13 year old son exhibits periodic, aggressive and threatening outbursts. This violent behavior alternates with longer periods of high-performing academics and true remorse over the violent episodes. As you can imagine, the boy has had numerous diagnoses. Brief episodes of aberrant behavior interspersed by apology or confusion could be a symptom of mental illness, a tumor, or even a trauma. It could relate to his food, his family environment, or even religious delusion (In this case, none of these are among the various diagnoses of mental illness).

But the article is not an analysis of the boy. It is a sharing of the enormous effort and anguish of being parent to a teenage child with mental illness and, as Liza explains in follow-up interviews, it is a plea for help and also an expression of her opinion that identifying and treating mental illness may save more lives than gun control.

Mrs. Long is one heck of a great writer! Her story column is among the most compelling and persuasive editorials I have ever read. I could learn from her communication style: captivating, thought provoking, and very clearly articulated.

I suspect that both issues factor into the number of mass murders: mental illness and easy gun ownership & transfer. But some pundits, including the current head of the National Rifle Association are pointing to America’s culture of violence, especially the violence depicted in Hollywood films, on TV and in computer and video games.

I would not be quick to ban violence in films or in fiction (TV and video games). It is a slippery slope that easily leads to banning Roadrunner cartoons (Wiley E. Coyote frequently blows himself up or falls into canyons). What about non-fiction? Why not ban guns and bombs in historical documentaries? What about War and Peace? What about Disney? (the beginning of Bambi or Finding Nemo). What about the Bible? That’s probably the most violent book ever written!

In my opinion, banning violence in media provides a false panacea. Research demon-strates a connection between fictional violence and immediate attitude. I acknowledge this. For example, when kids play military “kill” games, they are more likely to react to an innocent bump as if it were intentional—and they are more likely to escalate the interaction.

While I do not dispute these findings, I believe that the reaction is temporary and superficial. The Japanese culture is filled with horrific violence in both games and fiction. Hentai cartoon books are a popular staple in subway kiosks and snatched up by business commuters. They depict rape, gore and dismemberment. Yet, the incidence of real violence, including violence directed toward woman and children, is almost non-existent. It is far, far below the statistical rate in America.

In fact, a contrary force may actually correlate violent media with peaceful coexistence. I suspect that fictional violence provides a personal release for aggressive tendencies and therefore reduces violent interaction in the real world.*

If I am correct (that fictional violence offers a relief valve), then the real question is what mechanism or what types of individuals cross the chasm from imagination to practice? Certainly, easy availability to weapons can play a role in transforming a moment of intense passion or rage into an act of aggression. So, introducing gun control is very likely a good thing. But guns will never be impossible to obtain, and so we must also explore the roots of mental illness and more importantly, the mechanisms or identification of individuals who may “cross the chasm”.

Some people choose to commit suicide by jumping into the Grand Canyon. Because of this, the National Park Service briefly fenced off every lookout point in the mid 1980s. I was incensed! They were taking away from every citizen and visitor the privilege and majestic view! It just didn't make sense. I was relieved when they buckled to an outraged public reaction. After all, someone bent on suicide could step in front of a car or slice open a vein. I see the removal of violence from media not as an overreaction, but as completely ineffective and quite possibly counterproductive. (Imagine outlawing Terminator, Rambo, or a World War documentary).

* I believe that the same is true of pornography. Fortunately, an increasing number of feminists have dropped a tired, outdated argument that pornography debases {name a gender, race or socio-economic class} and subtly alters a consumer’s attitude toward the characters depicted. But I dasn’t mix venues. It is a separate issue.

Ellery Davies clarifies the intersection of Technology, Law and Public
Policy. He is a contributor to Yahoo, CNet, ABC News, PCWorld and
The Wall Street Journal. He is also Chief Editor of A Wild Duck.

Few tributes to Nancy Lanza? Don’t feel guilt

In the wake of the Newtown Connecticut school massacre, there were many tributes to the 20 students and 6 teachers who were slain by Adam Lanza. The number of victims, 26, was repeated by news media, bloggers and even the US President as they honored the victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School and shared in a nation’s collective grief.

[caption id="attachment_1988" align="alignright" width="300"] Shedding a tear for 26 victims[/caption]

But Adam Lanza killed 28 indivi-duals on that day. In addition to killing himself, the first shooting victim is absent in this count. She wasn’t at the school. Having re-turned from a resort vacation, she was still asleep on Friday morn-ing. As he set out to decimate a community, Lanza started the day by shooting his mother, Nancy Lanza, four times in the head. Minutes later, he parked at Sandy Hook Elementary School and entered the building, commando style. The rest of that morning is etched into our collective psyche by the sheer enormity of its evil.

Today, CNN anchor, Carol Castello asked viewers how Adam Lanza’s mother should be remembered. Specifically, should she be part of the many moving tributes to the victims of her son’s massacre? After all, with 4 gun shots to the head in her own bed, was she not also a victim?

Regular readers may notice that this posting has no photo of Mrs. Lanza. Adam Lanza’s mother is certainly a victim. There is no doubt. But deserving of a nation’s collective grief and the outpouring of homages to the school victims? Hardly! Grieving or honoring her life is a personal decision. Anyone can offer a tribute or honor her memory as a victim. But I certainly don’t think of her in the same light as the slain students & staff in Newtown.

Hers, is an individual story of a woman killed by a family member. I place it in the realm of domestic violence, even though, in this case, the violence came about as the result of mental illness and easy access to weapons—rather than at the hands of an abusive spouse.

But the children and staff killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were murdered by a stranger and on a massive scope. By any definition, they are the “innocents”. They present a tragedy of national interest--­not just because of our collective grief, but because they raise such important questions about our safety, views and laws... Questions that are finally being debated in earnest by the electorate.

It is not clear to what degree that Mrs. Lanza bears responsibility for the actions of her son. But, the death of a mom who played a role in enabling her mentally unstable son is of less collective, emotional import than the death of 26 women and children who were so innocent of any involvement in Mrs. Lanza's affairs. For me, this is the real reason that I will not be celebrating the memory of a killer’s mother.

3 Prong Approach to School Security Avoids Lockdown

This past Friday, we witnessed the aftermath of violence and tragedy: The murder of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. In the article before this one, AWildDuck shared a poignant and emotional story of Logan Dryer, a 6 year old boy who was protected from his fears four victims of the massacre.

In the wake of tragedy caused by violence, it’s inevitable that politicians, pundits, and specialists rush to patch the security apparatus or call for new studies of mental illness. For many in the United States, it’s high time for more restrictive gun control laws, and certainly, something could be done to improve detection and intervention of individuals capable of massacring children. A national dialogue on meaningful gun control is certainly in order, but this won’t address the root of the problem and it certainly won’t solve the problem. It’s hard to imagine that criminals and high performing individuals with aggressive forms of mental illness will not get access to weapons.

Of course, a better understanding of mental illness would be a great leap forward, but we certainly don’t want a police state that incarcerates people because of what they might do.  In this moving Blog post, the mother of a 13 year old boy with mental illness explains the tribulations of dealing her son. He has brief explosive bouts during which he presents a danger to anyone in the vicinity.

Improved school safety could definitely be part of a solution, but here – again – we don't want our children studying in prisons that are inhospitable to pupils, educators and community participation.



Bob Strang, the CEO of Investigative Management Group is a specialist in threat-assessment. In a Fox News interview, he proposes addressing the effectiveness of all three areas: weapons, criminal psychology, and school security. His 3-prong proposal is designed to reduce the likelihood of a lethal school rampage like the one we witnessed this past week.

Mr. Strang suggests that we simultaneously change or reinforce these areas, not necessarily in major ways. For example, he does not propose that we ban civilian guns or prevent all unannounced visitors to a school. The first may be unrealistic and the latter may set a grim tone for socializing and learning.

1. Gun Control:  For example, ban assault weapons, limit clips, end the gun-show loophole


2. Mental Illness:  He has no specific suggestions, but I think he is hinting at better identification and preemptive intervention


3. School Security: This is where it gets interesting . . .

Strang suggests that every school have an armed security professional, possibly recruited and screened from returning war veterans.

In my opinion, suggestion #3 has several problems.

• I wonder if Strang envisions a sniper in a watch tower? I cannot imagine that a single officer in an interior office or even patrolling corridors could be very effective. I could see using armed guards at some inner city schools that struggle with violence daily.


• And where would the money come from? Probably a reduction in teaching staff!

[caption id="attachment_1961" align="alignleft" width="313"] Elementary school of the future?[/caption]

■ Most importantly, a subtle shift from an inviting campus to a restrictive campus has profound implications. The presence of armed guards contributes to an environment that feels more like a prison than a place for learning. It deters unannounced visits from parents and educators—even if the guard is undercover. It bakes into our daily routines an omni-present fear of terrorists and murderers and teaches children that strangers are inherently bad, rather than the judgment they need to develop personal safety habits and an ability to adapt. I prefer an inviting campus that does not have intimidating barriers to plays, concerts, sports events, community groups, and especially parent-teacher conferences. The presence of guards and guns puts a chill on all of these venues.

This led me to think of a slightly less apparent security apparatus and a less restrictive environment. I wonder if it could be effective. Rather than an armed sniper at every school, I wonder if this plan could be an effective alternative to part 3 of Mr. Strang’s suggestion...

3a)  A national school-safety czar. Not necessarily at the cabinet level, but under the auspices of our Department of Homeland Security. His role is to set coordinate studies, gather consensus, set policies and encourage standardized practices for drills, lockdowns, spotting suspicious activity, negotiation, etc.

3b)  An individual at each school (perhaps existing staff), who is liaison to the safety czar. She gathers intelligence (identify aberrant behavior, online threat absences, etc), investigates cause, implements a standards-based policy, verifies that cameras and perimeters are alert and secure, trains teachers & admins, avoid the complacency that comes with peaceful years on end.

She also works with local law enforcement to plan and practice response time,
review interior maps and perhaps install quick reacting defense, such as tear gas
or floor-level grease dispensers that can disable aggressors in access corridors.

How does my #3b differ from Mr. Strang’s #3. First, it doesn’t add lethal firepower to an area that seeks protection from firepower. I don’t buy the NRA claim that more guns is a solution to ending gun violence. After all, with a population of 200 million adults, America already has 300 million guns. It certainly hasn’t shielded her citizens from violence. Second, it is probably cheaper. Third, it relies on brains, standardized plans and preparation rather than brawn and bullets. Perhaps it’s just me, but I think that this fits within the ethos that we teach our children.

Using a loose analogy, this is why Captain Picard solved problems with his head rather than using his fists and groin like the original Captain Kirk. That earlier Star Trek series looks like a slapstick satire next to the newer one. This is not just due to an improvement in special effects. The Next Generation series is more believable because it is not a “shoot-em-up” western.

And where would the money come from? Probably a reduction in teaching staff!

Logan’s Guardian: Poignant Sandy Hook back story

[caption id="attachment_1970" align="aligncenter" width="720"]                                   Lives cut short. Such enormous loss. So much grief[/caption]

This is a difficult Monday morning, as a nation reflects on the Sandy Hook / Newtown Connecticut school massacre. Six adults and twenty children (all of them, 6 or 7 years old) were slaughtered as they started school on Friday.

[caption id="attachment_1967" align="alignright" width="286"] Depth of despair: Emilie Parker's Dad, Robbie[/caption]

It’s possible to have empathy for distraught parents and families and to imagine their grief, but it is impossible to experience the depth of their despair. Somehow, it seems unfair that we are powerless to shift some of their overwhelming grief onto our own shoulders.

There are many tributes on TV and across the country with photos of individual victims and a vignette about a favorite color, hobby, school work or their families. But here is a simple story in the Los Angeles Times that has no photo, yet it is a profoundly emotional read. (This is triggering—It left me shattered)...

The family of one victim, Madeline Hsu, has not provided a photo of their child. So far, news bureaus have refrained from using school photos. The family does not want her face broadcast in the media. They are grieving privately, with a police cruiser outside their home to discourage reporters or well-wishers from bothering them.

Across the street lives a little boy, Logan Dryer, who is 5. He is one year younger than Madeline and suffers from panic attacks. (He does not yet know about the shooting). Since the start of the school year, he has been afraid of going to school, especially afraid of leaving on the school bus. But with the help of Madeline and another shooting victim, Carolyn Previdi, he has been getting onto the bus on most mornings. Madeline promised Logan’s mom that she and Carolyn would be “Logan’s Guardians” and demonstrate to him that there is nothing to be scared of. Each morning, they take over for Logan’s Mom and hold his hand as they wait for the bus. Then, these two girls — both are dead now — would sit next to Logan and help him to be calm, happy and engaged on the bus ride to school.

According to the Times article, Madeline and Carolyn’s parents didn’t know that their daughters had taken on the role of guardians to a panic prone child. In fact, they had never met the Dryers. The girls did this of their own volition.

[caption id="attachment_1941" align="alignleft" width="304"] Dawn Hochsprung (Principal) and Mary Sherlach[/caption]

Once Logan arrived at school, two caring adults took over from the girls, holding Logan when he needed it and whispering away his fears: Principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung and school psycholo-gist, Mary Sherlach. But Fate took another gut wrenching turn for little Logan, because these two adults were the first shooting victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The killer had apparently fingered them as targets from the onset.

Now, Logan’s mom asks herself the really tough question: How can she explain to Logan that all four of his guardian angels were killed without cause and without warning? These were very individuals who brushed away fear and gave a 5 year old the strength to go to school. They assured him that it was safe to do so. And it wasn't.

Ironically, Logan did not get on the bus last Friday. He had a panic attack. That was just before a shooter entered his school and began killing.

How can anyone read this story and not cry? Is safety and illusion? How will Logan’s family eventually explain this to the frightened boy? How can he believe in anything now?

Other back stories, selected by AWildDuck:

• Source:  LA Times: All 4 of Logan’s Guardians are gone


• Victim Photos: Sandy Hook, Newtown CT


• Six year old Newtown survivor played dead as shooter killed her classmates


• Neighbor took 6 young survivors into his home


• 6th grade student brings handgun to school for protection in wake of Sandy Hook


• I am Adam Lanza’s Mother: Grappling with 13 year old son’s mental illness


• AWildDuck: 3 Prong Approach to School Security Avoids Lockdown


• AWildDuck: Few Tributes to Nancy Lanza? Don’t feel guilt!


• AWildDuck: Culture of Violence: Are games & media part of the problem?