What's missing?

As our public school curriculum changes, we are told that we are searching for an educational path that better prepares high school graduates for college. Why do we want them to get college educations? So they can have better jobs!
Recently, about 100 of the country's top CEO's gathered in Washington D.C., and among the topics discussed, were the most important traits they find lacking in today's high school graduates. As a soon-to-be member of the education profession, a system meant to equip students for better quality of life and achievement, my ears perked up when I heard the list:
(I cannot remember the order, but here are the five)
1.) Leadership
2.) Critical Thinking skills
3.) Teamwork
4.) Hard work ethic
5.) Concentration

The group referred to these skills as "21st Century Skills" though I fail to see what is 21st century about them, I think they've been around for awhile.
That's so interesting! They didn't seem to complain that high school graduates hadn't high enough calculus or chemistry. They want these "21st Century Skills."

I got the heard the 2007 National Teacher of the Year, Andrea Peterson, speak today, her message to these CEOs was simple: "I have very good news for you. Every single one of these skills, you will find in our public schools, each and every time you step into a thriving music classroom!"

If you have a kid who enjoys his/her music elective at school, encourage it! If their advisors or AP teachers are pressuring him/her to drop out in order to fit more advanced classes into the four years of high school, fight it!

Baby Morris

First off, if you haven't read, or don't read Marla's blog, (my sister, for those of you who may have never met her) then you'll want to go read her post from today as soon as possible.
About three weeks ago, I found out that Marla and Josh are expecting their first baby at the beginning of September, but have been careful who I've told until they were ready for everybody to know.
I take it from Marla's blog post and announcement on facebook.com, that they're ready for everyone to know.
Soooooo, Blog reading community:
Sometime around September 1, I will officially become Uncle Sam.

More details that you could find on Marla's blog as well:
The doctor is 80% sure it will be a girl, but they'll know for sure in about a
month.
All signs so far indicate a healthy baby and, despite a rough bout with morning sickness, a healthy mom.

The New Arms Race

Please read my post from January 19th, 2007, if you are not familiar with all the background information to this post.

My fellow Americans: We are now in an arms race with a nation much bigger and with greater fighting potential that the Soviet Union had at any time during the Cold War. I know that sounds a bit overly-dramatic, and I believe (and HOPE) that it is a more dire statement than the situation we're in.
The U.S. is spending more on arms and weapon building than the rest of the world combined, we have pulled ourselves out of nearly every nuclear-nonproliferation treaty (or at least declared that we reserve the right to) passed since the Carter administration, and now we seem to be matching poker bids with China.
I wrote of my concern when China demonstrated their ability to shoot satellites out of the sky, and now, just a year later, the US has done the same. First off, the fact that we had to blow up a non-functional intelligence satellite begs the question "What information was on it?" But furthermore, we've had satellites in orbit since the 1950s, and we've never needed to shoot one down before. In the past, we've allowed them to dissentegrate in the atmosphere, or even retrieved them with other satellites. This seems a bit show off-ish.
And that's the whole idea! I firmly believe that Bush made the decision to shoot down this satellite as a message to China and anybody else that if they give us reason to do so, we will take away their global surveillance or communications etc.
China, we've learned in the last year or so, is building air craft carriers and other vessels of military warfare.
So what should our next president do about this? I will not be so presumptuos as to say I know what the answer is. Should we continue to outspend and build more weapons in hopes that they will decide they can't keep up with the US (mind you, if China wants to stop us from building, all they have to do is stop loaning us our budget deficit every year), or do we back down, take away the threat while setting an example? I would like to hear this discussed in the coming monhts.

Don't take this too seriously

As Obese Population Rises, More Candidates Courting The Fat Vote

Cellists for Obama: Take II

For those of you who haven't read the blog this week, I recently wrote a post titled "Cellists for Obama." And while I meant everything I said in the post, I wrote it while kind of worked up over the whole election process, and was steamed when I heard to news of Clinton's personal loan to her own campaign. I have deleted the post, just because I was only angry for a brief time, and don't want that one snapshot to represent how I feel about these candidates.
For those of you who did read the post, I did follow through on my decision to donate money to the Barack Obama campaign fund, as well as order a bumper sticker to put on my car.
Here's a summary of what the last post said:
I've probably made it no secret whom I favor in the Democratic primary race. While I haven't come right out and said "I like Obama better" I have preferred his campaign style to Hillary's.
When it comes down to the Clintons, I agree with alot of her ideas, but I do not trust Hillary or Bill, and furthermore I simply do not think she is capable of organizing a better health care system, handling international affairs, or working in a bipartisan fashion to reverse the direction of the economy. This has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. I do believe that America is in a place where we could readily follow a woman leader, if the person who was best for the job happened to be a woman. My opposition to Hillary is not an opposition to a woman president, it is an opposition to Hillary.
Already in the primaries she is exercising the same kind of snake-ish deceit that her husband so masterfully wielded in his second term. I do not use the term "masterfully" sarcastically. The Clintons are truly gifted communicators and speakers. I give them full credit for that, but I also submit that they use those gifts for their own advancement, even when it means having little regard for truthfulness. Clinton attacks others' records on Iraq, when her own voting record clearly shows that even she has not known all along what the right move is. Her husband's comeback for this, "Give me a break!" His words. Well, I'm sorry Bill, I can't give you or her a break, and frankly it's not fair of you to ask me to. You are asking me to make your wife the leader of my country and the most influential person in the world? I have every right to not give you a break!
Bill Clinton is the one who brought race/gender into this election. Barack Obama should not have played along as long as he did, but he was justified in sticking up for himself and the legacy of people like Martin Luther King Jr. Now the message the Clintons have put out there is that there is equal blame in the spat, and they're the bigger people for letting it go. This just rubs me the wrong way. I think Barack is the bigger man for letting it go for the sake of keeping the discussion in the issues. I'm glad the race/gender argument has died down at least for the moment, but I think Hillary decided to hit below the belt right before Super Tuesday, and knowing there was a risk of bad repercussions, she had her husband do it for her.
Now, the most recent instance which set me off was Hillary's decision to throw in $5 million of her own assets to her campaign. Here is why this one thing, as opposed to others, didn't just dissappoint me, it angered me. I'm still unhappy about it, I'm just not without my temper.
Up until now, one of my favorite things about Hillary Clinton's record, in fact one of the things, aside from her last name, that brought her national attention as a Senator was her advocacy of Campaign Finance Reform. Did this loan she gave her campaign violate the rules of campaign finance reform? Well, no, but the ethical violation should be clear.
Campaign Finance Reform comes in response to political races and decisions going to the side with the most money. The time had come to put a stop to people getting simply on the basis of enormous donations from just a few sources, and then serving the interests of mainly those sources in order to keep the campaigns financed to remain elected. Limits were put on individual donations so that funds raised is a reflection of popular support. Clinton championed these rules, and I cheered for her when they passed.
When donating to a campaign or candidate, you have to promise that you are not a lobbyist or a foreign agent, and that the funds you are donating were not given to you for the express purpose of using as a contribution.
Now, Hillary, technically, did not donate $5 million, she loaned it, and the loan may get as high as $20 million before the Democratic convention, according to CNN.com speculation. Basically, the campaign has the money to use now, and can take as long as they need to to raise the money and pay her back.
Again, there is nothing illegal about this, this was Hillary and Bill's money. However, think about where these millions come from? Bill Clinton has spend the last 8 years giving speaking engagements all over the world. For instance, he spoke in Budapest Hungary shortly before I visited there in 2007. One 20 minute speech or something, and he collects over half a million in honorarium! 8 years of this, and no wonder they have $20,000,000.00 they could put into Hillary's campaign. Now, who is paying him for these million-dollar speeches? Well who else would want to fork over that kind of money for one speech? Wealthy people and organizations that like him. That are interested in what he'd have to say, and his ideas. So interested in his ideas, in fact that they're willing to give him 500,000 for an evening of his time. If we're not using legal terminology (Clinton has done nothing illegal) but just similar terms that mean similar things, you could call a group of people interested in his ideas, interest groups. We could call these wealthy patrons who want to give him large sums of money for a small slice of his time, supporters. You could call these honorariums that have amassed an eight-digit fortune, contributions?
If Hillary cannot even follow the standards she has set for others, I don't want her as my president! I believe leaders should set a standard, and then exceed it! Instead of making the rules, but being glad she left herself enough legal elbow room to still do what she wants to do.
See, that's where I come off saying that Bill and Hillary would rather use their own brilliancy for their personal advancement, over using it for the sake of truthfulness.

Hear Clark Griffith!

Here is Clark playing Bach during the final round of the Cliburn back in June! If you want to hear his entire perfmances, from all three rounds, you can buy his complete programs on iTunes by simply searching "Clark Griffith" in the iTunes store.
Enjoy! And please, do not pirate this music! Clark is a talented player, and the Cliburn Foundation is a non-profit organization that works hard to raise the donations they need to promote classical music in this country where there would otherwise be none. If you decide you like their (in this case, Clark's) music enough to hear all of it, then like it enough to pay for it.


(Pictured left to right: My uncle Perry (1st cousin once removed to Clark), Clark, and Clark's parents Anna and Carl, at the Cliburn competition, moments after Clark is named a finalist!)