One of the problems with our winner-take-all, state-by-state system for electing presidents is that it gives the impression that an entire state or region votes and thinks a certain way. Yet, even here in Kerry Country California there are areas as staunchly Republican as the middle of Alabama and, as you note, even in Texas there are outposts of progressive thought.
The problem is the Electoral College. But isn't going away because we'd have to convince the small states who benefit from the overrepresentation it gives them to give it up, and that ain't happening. My suggestion is to divide the votes more proportionally within the states, which can be done under current law. States are allowed, under the Constitution, to decide how their votes are apportioned, so there's no constitutional change required.
Each individual electoral vote represents a seat in Congress. I suggest tying each vote to how a specific Congressional district votes, with the two Senate seats going to whoever wins statewide. Maine and Nebraska do something like this.
What this does is put most states back into play in presidential elections. California would have votes to offer the GOP, and Texas would have something to offer the Democrats. Even Colorado would have something to give each side. Every state becomes a potential "swing" state, which is how, I think, we'd get states to sign on.
Even the Republicans I know speak in favor of a more direct vote for the president. "All the GOP does in California is raise money," one told me. Gee, that sounds mighty familiar, I thought. So I think they'd back a way to bring electoral votes closer in line with the popular tally within opening up the entire Constitution.
My modest proposal for the evening.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Comments on Comments - The Nature of Conservatism
Anonymous said...
Not sure that I agree with your assessment, Terry. Dubya is not interested in shrinking government. He is far more interested in the aggrandizement of power. Fiscal conservatives, the type that would have us choose between lower taxes and eating, are appalled by the guy.
We need to update our taxonomy of the Right. DUbya represents a convergence of interest between corporate privilege and a centralized State. Every one of Bush's programs represents an increase in government patronage. Think of "No Child Left Behind" as a model. Think of the prescription drug benefit. Think of the brand spanking new agencies devoted to Fatherland Security. The proposed Social Security debacle would necessitate a mammoth bureaucracy. How else to force federally mandated subsidies of Wall Street?
This will all cost. Dubya may go out of his way to screw single mothers, but he is not remotely close to bankrupting the treasury. Too many of his cronies depend on it. Something will give. Payroll taxes will go up. We'll get a national sales tax. The dollar will continue to tank. Inflation will reach Weimer proportions. But the Bush behemoth is here for the duration.
So if our Prez is not a Conservative as understood by our parlance before "9-11 changed everything", then what is he? I recently had an exchange with a Paleo-Conservative wherein I described the Prez as the first Harry Truman Republican. (Bush strikes me as a fair facsimile of that war-criminal.)
End quote ----------------------------------------------------
Bush and his gang remind me of an old schoolmate I ran into some years ago while waiting for a bus on San Francisco’s Market Street. The guy was one of the biggest crap distburbers in class, yet he became a decorated City police officer. You gotta explain that to me, I asked.
Easy, he said. The only problem I had with authority was that it wasn’t me.
Same with Dubya’s brand of corporate Republicanism. Government “gets in the way”, except when doling out tax breaks, loan guarantees, protected trade arrangements and direct subsidies. You’re damn right when you note that Bush ain’t about shrinking government, just redirecting it. But that’s got a long a glorious history in the Republican Party too.
He’s really a modern remake of a Rockefeller Republican, only allied with social conservative ground pounders because guys and gals in suits and ties ain’t gonna stand in sub-zero weather to win the New Hampshire primary for you and moderate Republican field organizations have withered on the vine. But he’s not one of them, and a lot of them know it. Jon Stewart recently pointed out that Bush phoned in comments to an anti-abortion demonstration taking place right outside his house in DC. Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct mail king, that night’s guest, said, “Yes, that’s right. That’s why even though Republicans are in charge, -conservatives- aren’t."
We need to update our political dictionary in part –because- Republicans are in charge. The internal wraps come off once you’re on top. This shouldn’t be news to Democrats, a party which once had Hubert Humphrey and Lester Maddox in the same room. We’ll see even more flavors of the GOP over the next term too. With no re-re-election to worry about they can fight all they want without being blamed for costing the Oval Office.
We see this already with Social Security, immigration and No Child Left Behind. The very Red states of Utah and Virginia object to the mandates without money and big federal nose in all their business. The fiscal conservatives are getting annoyed at all the money spent in Iraq. The question is whether or not Democrats, progressives, etc. will be able to make tactical hay out of all this.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Fear of the Ordinary
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: January 26, 2005WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 (AP) -
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.
The episode of "Postcards From Buster," which has not yet run, shows the title character, a bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont, a state that recognizes same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.
A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit organization had decided not to distribute the episode, "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations but that the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some parents won’t want their children to see this, the Secretary of Education warns. They shouldn’t have it thrust on them by public television.
I don’t have that dubious luxury. My six-year-old son has already met our gay neighbors here in my humble abode in suburban Sacramento, California. One household serves as the holiday social center of the cul-de-sac. At one party he met a little boy whose parents lived in the area and return to see the hosts, their friends, around holidays. It’s nice to be able to bring families together so the kids can meet new friends, isn’t it?
Opponents of gay relationships can’t stand seeing gay couples seeming, well, ordinary. Yet those of us who live and work with our fellow Americans in same-sex relationships note every day that they’re, well … ordinary. The homes are neat, some are nicer neighbors than others, and by and large they’re, well, ordinary.
And that’s what motivates the scare among so many. The fear of ordinariness. That gay couples dare to look and act just like any other couple, except for the configuration.
This isn’t new of course. Bigotry generally builds on fear of difference, which translates into all kinds of fearsome mental imagery. I have a Mormon acquaintance who tells of being asked if it’s true that Mormons have horns. And aren’t they all really polygamists?
The most powerful weapon against this kind of silliness is the basic ordinariness of most folks. Most black folks don’t want to beat anyone up, just a good job, nice home and good schools. You know, like the white folks. As housing and job segregation breaks down, more white folks see how ordinary most black folks are, and the invisible walls start to break down too. That’s why, I think, there’s such fear of ordinary gay folks. We’ve seen where such ordinariness leads too. Acceptance.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.
The episode of "Postcards From Buster," which has not yet run, shows the title character, a bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont, a state that recognizes same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.
A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit organization had decided not to distribute the episode, "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations but that the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some parents won’t want their children to see this, the Secretary of Education warns. They shouldn’t have it thrust on them by public television.
I don’t have that dubious luxury. My six-year-old son has already met our gay neighbors here in my humble abode in suburban Sacramento, California. One household serves as the holiday social center of the cul-de-sac. At one party he met a little boy whose parents lived in the area and return to see the hosts, their friends, around holidays. It’s nice to be able to bring families together so the kids can meet new friends, isn’t it?
Opponents of gay relationships can’t stand seeing gay couples seeming, well, ordinary. Yet those of us who live and work with our fellow Americans in same-sex relationships note every day that they’re, well … ordinary. The homes are neat, some are nicer neighbors than others, and by and large they’re, well, ordinary.
And that’s what motivates the scare among so many. The fear of ordinariness. That gay couples dare to look and act just like any other couple, except for the configuration.
This isn’t new of course. Bigotry generally builds on fear of difference, which translates into all kinds of fearsome mental imagery. I have a Mormon acquaintance who tells of being asked if it’s true that Mormons have horns. And aren’t they all really polygamists?
The most powerful weapon against this kind of silliness is the basic ordinariness of most folks. Most black folks don’t want to beat anyone up, just a good job, nice home and good schools. You know, like the white folks. As housing and job segregation breaks down, more white folks see how ordinary most black folks are, and the invisible walls start to break down too. That’s why, I think, there’s such fear of ordinary gay folks. We’ve seen where such ordinariness leads too. Acceptance.
War, Peace and My Son's Tax Bill
[From the Washington Post]
Record '05 Deficit Forecast
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin stanching the flow of government red ink, according to new administration budget forecasts unveiled yesterday.
Administration officials rolled out an $80 billion emergency spending request, mainly for Iraq and Afghanistan, conceding that the extra money would probably send the federal deficit above the record $412 billion recorded in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30. Bush has pledged to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, a promise the administration says it can keep. But at least for now, the government's fiscal health is worsening.
In separate briefings, administration officials detailed the rising cost of war while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its deficit forecast for the coming decade.
Taken together, the briefings painted a sobering picture of the government's financial strength, even in the face of a growing economy and rising tax receipts. The figures suggest the Bush administration will continue to have difficulty reining in federal deficits as long as war is draining the government's coffers.
"There is no question that [the insurgents], with relatively small expenditures, are proving themselves to be able to force us into much larger ones," one senior administration official said.
Of the $80 billion request, at least $75 billion would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. An additional $5 billion would go toward building an embassy in Baghdad, continuing reconstruction in Afghanistan, offering assistance to the Palestinians and sending relief to the Darfur region of Sudan. That $80 billion would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the war this year, pushing the total cost of fighting to $105 billion, up from $88 billion in 2004 and $78.6 billion in 2003.
The latest war request would push the total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other efforts since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to $277 billion, according to the CBO. That figure well exceeds the inflation-adjusted $200 billion cost of World War I and is approaching the $350 billion cost of the Korean War, according to Commerce Department figures.
In a separate briefing, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said tax cuts and spending enacted by Congress last year will contribute $504 billion to the government's overall forecast debt between 2005 and 2014. Additional debt over that decade should total $1.36 trillion, well above the $861 billion figure the CBO projected in September.
End of quote
So as a good progressive, I’ve got a very basic reason for hoping the Iraqi elections go well. The alternative is just too damn expensive.
I note this because the upcoming elections in Iraq create a complicated twist in the minds of a lot of my ideological ilk. As Bush-haters, I want everything he attempts to fail. It’s been fun to be able to say “Told you so!” over the insurgency and the near-complete absence of public Iraqi love for the occupation.
But as a progressive, I’ve been calling for more real elections in the Third World since my college days twenty years ago. So I hope the elections turn out well, and Iraq develops into a decent, functioning democracy. But then Bush and the neocons are proven right. And that bugs me.
So it’s easier to look at it just in terms of cost. If the elections work, then the new Iraqi government will conceivably start looking for a way to get U.S. troops off the property, to give themselves legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. They’ll have to work harder to train and develop an Iraqi security system. If it works, our troops leave and the bill goes down.
The Bush administration is in no hurry to see the bill drop. The whole Republican idea of destroying the federal safety net is built on bankrupting the federal treasury and forcing a dramatic showdown down the road where the national public will be forced to choose between raising taxes and school lunches for someone else’s kid. They’re betting that the public puts selfishness above national responsibility and it’s all brought down to a crashing end. Out of control spending on Iraq speeds up this day of reckoning. If the elections work and country becomes more stable, they declare victory. If it doesn’t, then the bill eventually bankrupts the federal government, vital services are destroyed and future Republicans declare victory. So the GOP sees it as win-win.
So what to do? Easy. Root for the Iraqi elections. Hope they turn out well and if they do, start a legitimate push to withdraw our troops. (The current progressive call to turn it all over to some unnamed international body erroneously presumes that someone else is willing to have their soldiers shot at.) Say we’re all glad it turned out well. Then point out the cost of unilateral action to the taxpayer. Remind folks of how little the Gulf War cost in comparison because we had agreement among the nations as to the cause and the cost.
We can’t talk about that now because Americans seem insistent on seeing this mess through. But there is sure to be sticker shock after the boots leave. We need to use this. We need to remind folks that the cost of unilateral action is the cost. It’s not just the love we lose, it’s the money. And even folks in Peoria can relate to that.
Record '05 Deficit Forecast
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin stanching the flow of government red ink, according to new administration budget forecasts unveiled yesterday.
Administration officials rolled out an $80 billion emergency spending request, mainly for Iraq and Afghanistan, conceding that the extra money would probably send the federal deficit above the record $412 billion recorded in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30. Bush has pledged to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, a promise the administration says it can keep. But at least for now, the government's fiscal health is worsening.
In separate briefings, administration officials detailed the rising cost of war while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its deficit forecast for the coming decade.
Taken together, the briefings painted a sobering picture of the government's financial strength, even in the face of a growing economy and rising tax receipts. The figures suggest the Bush administration will continue to have difficulty reining in federal deficits as long as war is draining the government's coffers.
"There is no question that [the insurgents], with relatively small expenditures, are proving themselves to be able to force us into much larger ones," one senior administration official said.
Of the $80 billion request, at least $75 billion would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. An additional $5 billion would go toward building an embassy in Baghdad, continuing reconstruction in Afghanistan, offering assistance to the Palestinians and sending relief to the Darfur region of Sudan. That $80 billion would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the war this year, pushing the total cost of fighting to $105 billion, up from $88 billion in 2004 and $78.6 billion in 2003.
The latest war request would push the total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other efforts since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to $277 billion, according to the CBO. That figure well exceeds the inflation-adjusted $200 billion cost of World War I and is approaching the $350 billion cost of the Korean War, according to Commerce Department figures.
In a separate briefing, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said tax cuts and spending enacted by Congress last year will contribute $504 billion to the government's overall forecast debt between 2005 and 2014. Additional debt over that decade should total $1.36 trillion, well above the $861 billion figure the CBO projected in September.
End of quote
So as a good progressive, I’ve got a very basic reason for hoping the Iraqi elections go well. The alternative is just too damn expensive.
I note this because the upcoming elections in Iraq create a complicated twist in the minds of a lot of my ideological ilk. As Bush-haters, I want everything he attempts to fail. It’s been fun to be able to say “Told you so!” over the insurgency and the near-complete absence of public Iraqi love for the occupation.
But as a progressive, I’ve been calling for more real elections in the Third World since my college days twenty years ago. So I hope the elections turn out well, and Iraq develops into a decent, functioning democracy. But then Bush and the neocons are proven right. And that bugs me.
So it’s easier to look at it just in terms of cost. If the elections work, then the new Iraqi government will conceivably start looking for a way to get U.S. troops off the property, to give themselves legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. They’ll have to work harder to train and develop an Iraqi security system. If it works, our troops leave and the bill goes down.
The Bush administration is in no hurry to see the bill drop. The whole Republican idea of destroying the federal safety net is built on bankrupting the federal treasury and forcing a dramatic showdown down the road where the national public will be forced to choose between raising taxes and school lunches for someone else’s kid. They’re betting that the public puts selfishness above national responsibility and it’s all brought down to a crashing end. Out of control spending on Iraq speeds up this day of reckoning. If the elections work and country becomes more stable, they declare victory. If it doesn’t, then the bill eventually bankrupts the federal government, vital services are destroyed and future Republicans declare victory. So the GOP sees it as win-win.
So what to do? Easy. Root for the Iraqi elections. Hope they turn out well and if they do, start a legitimate push to withdraw our troops. (The current progressive call to turn it all over to some unnamed international body erroneously presumes that someone else is willing to have their soldiers shot at.) Say we’re all glad it turned out well. Then point out the cost of unilateral action to the taxpayer. Remind folks of how little the Gulf War cost in comparison because we had agreement among the nations as to the cause and the cost.
We can’t talk about that now because Americans seem insistent on seeing this mess through. But there is sure to be sticker shock after the boots leave. We need to use this. We need to remind folks that the cost of unilateral action is the cost. It’s not just the love we lose, it’s the money. And even folks in Peoria can relate to that.
Friday, January 21, 2005
It's another beautiful day in Paradise, a.k.a. the Central Valley. In 2002 Sacramento was noted in 'Time" magazine as one of the most diverse cities in the United States. Heck, my son had two kindergarten classmates who merrily discussed life and playtime in Russian. He wouldn't have heard that in Oakland.
Boys Being Boys
Several years ago the absolutely fabulous director of the Omega Boys Club in San Francisco spoke at a National Library Week event at Oakland's Main Library. When asked to explain his success he said it was because he saw it as curing illness.
People "catch" behaviors from those around them similar to how they catch colds, he said. The answer, as with dealing with colds, is to break the cycle. Find the points where it's transferred, give people tools to treat it and toughen up the immune system. The "public health" analogy works fine as a model for effective treatment.
Gun ownership advocates often point out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and they're right. You also pointed out areas without drugs where the bullets were flying. There is a "cultural" issue here, in terms of dealing with a value system where gunfire is the answer to any conflict.
On a recent "This American Life" interview, a Bronx community activist noted how guns have radically changed the rules on how guys in his neighborhood fight. Before the guns there were rules. Guys would agree to meet at such-and-such a corner and duke it out. Guys weren't expected to beat up guys too much younger, and if a fight got out of hand, where one guy was just getting the tar beaten out of him, others would step in a break it up. Even if a guy lost a fight, if he did better than expected, honor was still satisfied. I remember a lot this myself from my own childhood. SF's Ingleside wasn't nearly as hard as the Bronx, but guys are still guys and we did have similar firm rules in this regard. The important part is that even violent conflicts could be settled with little more than a fat lip and dented pride.
Not anymore, the Bronx fella said. Now, anyone who gets a toe stepped on feels it's their duty to get a gun. Small guys feel they've got an equalizer, and the bigger guys know it, so the rules about not taking down a squirt is out the window. Overall, there's much less of way for honor to be served outside of gunfire.
This is what struck me a couple of years ago when the East Bay Express ran a year end description of every murder in Oakland. A lot of them had nothing to do with drugs. They were simply personal arguments. Fourteen year old boys settled scores with bullets instead of the traditional meeting after school. This isn't drugs, this a presumed code of honor talking. Everything becomes a blood feud. This where breaking the cycle comes in.
One of the interesting differences between my current home of Sacramento and my former home of Oakland is the missing issue of gun control. Although homicides around here actually increased, even Democrats don't bring up gun control as an answer. It's just a gun totin' environment. There are lot of outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen, and sport shooting is advertised on the radio. When guns do make the headlines it's after someone used one to run off an intruder.
I say this not to justify gun ownership, but that as an issue it's a tough one to get widespread support on because so many people seem to have guns as an entrenched part of their lives. Given all this, giving people better tools to resolve problems might be the more implementable solution overall.
People "catch" behaviors from those around them similar to how they catch colds, he said. The answer, as with dealing with colds, is to break the cycle. Find the points where it's transferred, give people tools to treat it and toughen up the immune system. The "public health" analogy works fine as a model for effective treatment.
Gun ownership advocates often point out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and they're right. You also pointed out areas without drugs where the bullets were flying. There is a "cultural" issue here, in terms of dealing with a value system where gunfire is the answer to any conflict.
On a recent "This American Life" interview, a Bronx community activist noted how guns have radically changed the rules on how guys in his neighborhood fight. Before the guns there were rules. Guys would agree to meet at such-and-such a corner and duke it out. Guys weren't expected to beat up guys too much younger, and if a fight got out of hand, where one guy was just getting the tar beaten out of him, others would step in a break it up. Even if a guy lost a fight, if he did better than expected, honor was still satisfied. I remember a lot this myself from my own childhood. SF's Ingleside wasn't nearly as hard as the Bronx, but guys are still guys and we did have similar firm rules in this regard. The important part is that even violent conflicts could be settled with little more than a fat lip and dented pride.
Not anymore, the Bronx fella said. Now, anyone who gets a toe stepped on feels it's their duty to get a gun. Small guys feel they've got an equalizer, and the bigger guys know it, so the rules about not taking down a squirt is out the window. Overall, there's much less of way for honor to be served outside of gunfire.
This is what struck me a couple of years ago when the East Bay Express ran a year end description of every murder in Oakland. A lot of them had nothing to do with drugs. They were simply personal arguments. Fourteen year old boys settled scores with bullets instead of the traditional meeting after school. This isn't drugs, this a presumed code of honor talking. Everything becomes a blood feud. This where breaking the cycle comes in.
One of the interesting differences between my current home of Sacramento and my former home of Oakland is the missing issue of gun control. Although homicides around here actually increased, even Democrats don't bring up gun control as an answer. It's just a gun totin' environment. There are lot of outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen, and sport shooting is advertised on the radio. When guns do make the headlines it's after someone used one to run off an intruder.
I say this not to justify gun ownership, but that as an issue it's a tough one to get widespread support on because so many people seem to have guns as an entrenched part of their lives. Given all this, giving people better tools to resolve problems might be the more implementable solution overall.
Fat Kids
Obesity.
What's really scary is how parents and schools help perpetuate it.
After all these years many parents still seem to have the idea that a chubby kid is a "healthy" kid. It's worst among poorer and/or non-white folks. Having worked in schools and now with a kid in one, I see a lot of parents beam with pride at their round little son or daughter. I think a lot see it as a testament to the world that -they- can take care of their kid. He or she's got food on the table, for sure. There's a crying need for some serious health education here.
Additional studies find the obvious connection between teevee and activity. A lot of overweight kids come from homes where the teevee is on, all the time. It's hard to convince kids that there's something better than endless teevee when mom and dad worship the tube all day and night.
This is why p.e. and recess in public schools is so critical. It's pretty much the only way a lot of kids will get introduced to physical activity.
Schools intuitively know how important this is. My kindergarten age nephew is walked around the school for fifteen minutes every morning after the first bell. The teachers find that it wakes up the sleepy kids and winds down the hyperactive ones. Which means they learn more. Other studies find that kids do learn better when given a healthy dose of physical activity (and art and music, but that's another story). Which shouldn't really be news, since most adults know you just feel a lot better after a good walk or bike ride.
Yet the mantra in education is getting kids behind desks as much as possible, and if recess and p.e. have to be short cut, then so be it. Because the kids need to -learn-. Even though they can't under those conditions.
Teachers and administrators know this in their hearts. But their heads and the mantra tell them something else. I've heard them groan about the time recess and lunch takes out of the classroom, then half an hour later groan about how whacked the kids are going to be because it's raining and they can't go outside. "Might as well show a movie, ain't nothing gonna get done this afternoon", I heard one say when I worked for the AmeriCorps tutoring program in the Oakland schools. But ask her opinion about physical activity any other time, and she'd complain about the time it took.
Any serious talk about school reform has got to include a demand for structured and unstructured physical activity. Kids need it as much as they need light and air. Best of all, it's cheaper in the long run because we'll have healthier people all around.
This is another reason we need a national health insurance program. If the public sector were footing our hospital bills it would have a reason to start connecting the dots here and require a serious physical activity regimen in our schools.
What's really scary is how parents and schools help perpetuate it.
After all these years many parents still seem to have the idea that a chubby kid is a "healthy" kid. It's worst among poorer and/or non-white folks. Having worked in schools and now with a kid in one, I see a lot of parents beam with pride at their round little son or daughter. I think a lot see it as a testament to the world that -they- can take care of their kid. He or she's got food on the table, for sure. There's a crying need for some serious health education here.
Additional studies find the obvious connection between teevee and activity. A lot of overweight kids come from homes where the teevee is on, all the time. It's hard to convince kids that there's something better than endless teevee when mom and dad worship the tube all day and night.
This is why p.e. and recess in public schools is so critical. It's pretty much the only way a lot of kids will get introduced to physical activity.
Schools intuitively know how important this is. My kindergarten age nephew is walked around the school for fifteen minutes every morning after the first bell. The teachers find that it wakes up the sleepy kids and winds down the hyperactive ones. Which means they learn more. Other studies find that kids do learn better when given a healthy dose of physical activity (and art and music, but that's another story). Which shouldn't really be news, since most adults know you just feel a lot better after a good walk or bike ride.
Yet the mantra in education is getting kids behind desks as much as possible, and if recess and p.e. have to be short cut, then so be it. Because the kids need to -learn-. Even though they can't under those conditions.
Teachers and administrators know this in their hearts. But their heads and the mantra tell them something else. I've heard them groan about the time recess and lunch takes out of the classroom, then half an hour later groan about how whacked the kids are going to be because it's raining and they can't go outside. "Might as well show a movie, ain't nothing gonna get done this afternoon", I heard one say when I worked for the AmeriCorps tutoring program in the Oakland schools. But ask her opinion about physical activity any other time, and she'd complain about the time it took.
Any serious talk about school reform has got to include a demand for structured and unstructured physical activity. Kids need it as much as they need light and air. Best of all, it's cheaper in the long run because we'll have healthier people all around.
This is another reason we need a national health insurance program. If the public sector were footing our hospital bills it would have a reason to start connecting the dots here and require a serious physical activity regimen in our schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
