Can Every Child Learn?

Does every child belong in a public school?

A local school board member had the misfortune of asking that question last week. I’m sure he won’t make the same mistake again.

The mistake of asking questions, that is.

First, some history. In 2002, the parent of a severely disabled teenager sued Cedarburg High School, demanding that the school not allow her daughter to graduate.

The daughter, 19 at the time, suffers from a condition called lissencephalopathy. The Journal Sentinel described her:

She functions at the level of a 4-month-old. She requires the use of a wheelchair and cannot move without help. She is fed through a feeding tube.

The cognitive abilities of a four-month-old child, with little hope for improvement even after 16 years of public schooling.

Federal law entitles her to continue until age 21, unless she graduates sooner. The school district decided to let her graduate. The mother sued to stop them.

In order to serve this young woman, the school district had to provide regular physical therapy sessions, in addition to almost constant one-on-one help. Several times the cost of an ordinary student, I’m sure.

Did the young woman benefit? Possibly, but no more than she would have in any other program for the severely disabled.

Did she learn anything? With the cognitive abilities of a 4-month-old?

No matter how uncomfortable it is, we must ask the question: would it have been better – for both her and the district – to direct the school’s resources elsewhere? Did she belong in a public school?

If the local letters page is any indication, the Baraboo community has answered resoundingly “yes,” and has forbidden anyone from ever asking again.

Just ask Kevin Bartol, the school board member I mentioned before. At his second-ever school board meeting, he said:

"There are some people in this country that cannot be educated," Bartol said to the board. "They may have their eyes open, but there's no one awake upstairs."

And:

"To my knowledge, all the students that are attending the Baraboo School District fall into the category of being able to be educated," he said. "But it is feasible and it has occurred in other school districts where students that because of some type of brain damage were not be able to be educated and yet they were allowed to go to school."

This was an extremely poor choice of words. Insulting. People have little patience for explanations when they think they’ve been insulted and attacked, and that’s what’s happened here.

But clearly, Bartol was not talking about regular special ed students. He was not saying we should start kicking kids out of school for getting bad grades. He was describing the sort of situation that occurred in Cedarburg.

Still, the response was swift. Over a dozen letters to the editor so far, most of them venting anger. Venom. Calling Bartol hateful. Ignorant. Unfit to serve.

A parent of a disabled student asked: why doesn’t Bartol think my kid deserves to be in school? A special education teacher asked the same, about the children she teaches.

This, of course, is not what he said. Irony: many of the letter-writers accused him of not knowing the facts.

No matter. The piling on continues, even from his fellow board members:

Board Vice-President Judd Maxwell said he respects each board member's right to ask questions and voice opinions. "But if he's going to stand by those (comments) — as he has until this point — I don't think this board has room for an individual like that," he said.

President Kevin Vodak said Bartol's implication that the School Board and administration supported his comments was untrue. "We do not see things the way that Mr. Bartol does," he said. "His comments were completely out of line and hurtful to the community and that's not what we're about."

We say we want non-politicians representing us on our local boards. People who will speak their minds, not stick their fingers in the wind. If so, we should be ready for some lack of polish. Ready to accept apologies, and clarifications.

We also say we want new thinkers, new ideas, innovative solutions. We want people willing to ask the tough questions.

It is teachers, is it not, who tell us there’s no such thing as a stupid question?

Bartol asked a question. Clumsily, and insensitive, and federal law made this particular idea a non-starter. But he tried.

I hope this experience won’t stop him – or any other local official – from trying again.

A Life of Ease?

What if you could have anything you wanted? Right now, this minute, without cost?

Food, clothes, new countertops. Right this second, push a button, and there it is. Poof! Push it again, and get something else. From nowhere, a double bacon cheeseburger and curly fries. Diet soda, just so you don’t feel fat.

Yes, my fellow nerds, I’m talking about replicators. Star Trek style. Always ready to dispense a cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot; or coffee, double-strong double-sweet; or the Klingon version of whiskey. On command.

Clothes, spare parts, instruments, food, simply by asking for it.

Fiction often requires the audience to suspend their disbelief. I found it easy, watching Star Trek, to suspend mine over the faster-than-light travel, the teleportation, the aliens, even Counselor Troi falling in love with William Ryker.

But the idea that a human society could survive the kind of plenty replicators provided? That was hard to swallow.

The concept itself isn’t all that far-fetched. Nanotechnology. It’s coming along as we speak, with more potential uses being thought up all the time. A few trillion itty-bitty robots, some sort of interface to direct those robots, and viola! They simply use whatever raw material is at hand, dismantle it molecule by molecule, and use those molecules to build whatever you want.

What would we humans make of it? What would it make of us?

It’s my theory that, human nature prevailing, we would no longer have much motivation to do anything.

Much of what motivates us, I think, is that we want. We want a full freezer (but first we want a freezer!). We want clothes. We want a working/decent/nice/bitchin’ car. A home. A vacation. We want to be secure in our retirement. We want to give our wives nice presents for their birthdays.

These desires motivate us to work. To earn. And at the same time, to create. It’s our needs, wants and desires that fuel our economy, both from the supply and demand points of view.

I think it’s great that some people take vows of poverty. I’m just glad everybody doesn’t.

This old theory resurfaced recently, thanks to a story I just read in the latest issue of Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine (yes, I subscribe): “Nano Comes to Clifford Falls,” by Nancy Kress.

Clifford Falls is a small, rural town, among the last places to get nanotech. And then they do. Replicators, just like in Star Trek.

And then the next-door neighbor has a new sports car. Another neighbor has new diamond earrings, and a fancy new dress. Oh, and they’re building a new house, too.

All for free.

But where Star Trek ignores technology’s effects, Kress gives us a hard look at them. Suddenly, people’s wants were filled with no effort at all. Supply was limitless. People stopped going to work, because…why bother? They didn’t need the money anymore. Let the bank foreclose.

No work meant no taxes. Teachers didn’t get paid. Policemen. Government began to shut down, and a limited amount of chaos began to ensue.

The local plant shut down, too, but that’s not all that must have happened to the economy. For example: the jewelry industry is out of business. Might as well be, since nanotech can make diamonds and gold from scratch now. Those things will quickly become worthless.

The auto industry – that’s gone, too. And the clothing industry. All the stores, all the factories, all the farmers and chemists who make the raw materials. Done. Out of work.

At least we won’t be exploiting third-world workers anymore, paying them subsistence rates to stitch our sneakers together. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.

It’s a new take on an old story. The combustion engine running the buggy whip out. Wal-Mart out-pricing locally-owned stores. Overseas labor putting the squeeze on American manufacturing.

Normally, from an economic point of view, this is a good thing. New efficiencies and lower prices free up resources, which are then available for other things. This helps the economy grow.

But with nothing to work for, no work gets done. Human nature: we need challenge, deadlines, motivation. We need needs.

Why should anyone strain? Why should anyone try? Why should anyone care enough to achieve?

Ms. Kress’ narrator has the answer: “nano sorts out two different piles: the ones who like to work because work is what you do, and the ones who don’t.”

The question is: how many of the former do we have, and how many of the latter?

What's a conservative to do?

Conservatives are disillusioned. One doesn’t have to read blogs to know that. They – we – are upset with political leaders who seem to be ignoring conservative principles, and we’re asking ourselves a very circular series of questions:

If we re-elect Republicans in November, aren’t we telling them we approve of the job they’re doing?

But as bad as the Republicans have been, aren’t they still better than Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid?

But as bad as that would be, won’t it be better in the long run if the Republicans lose, take the hint, and get back to their conservative roots?

But what’s the point of sending a message if the Republicans don’t have any power to implement that message?

And, if the liberals take Congress now, what’s the guarantee we’ll get it back anytime soon?

We’re mad, but whatchagonna do? Vote for Tammy Baldwin? .

Allow me to point out: the state of American conservatism isn’t as bad as some conservative blogs are saying. For example, tax cuts, more tax cuts, and then more tax cuts. Our Republican Congress has passed at least three tax cuts since 2000 – four, if you count the recent extension.

Supreme Court Justices. I know, that’s more the President’s thing. Still, those nominees would not have made it through confirmation without Senate Republicans, including the “Gang of 14” deal brokered a few years ago.

Homeland Security. We can imagine that President Gore would have done much the same that President Bush did, following 9/11. But can we suspend disbelief enough to imagine that a Democrat President and/or a Democrat Congress will stay the course as the Republicans have?

Let’s not become fickle, whiny children.

True, we haven’t gotten everything. We didn’t get Social Security reform – I would have traded the tax cuts for that. Or a robust, aggressive defense of the war in Iraq. Or something resembling a serious response to illegal immigration.

We really haven’t gotten spending restraint. The Party of Smaller Government has increased federal spending at about twice the rate it grew under President Clinton.

That’s embarrassing. And ironic, in an only-Nixon-can-go-to-China sort of way. It’s possible this would continue (in reverse) under a Democrat Congress – they may feel obliged to prove they’re not the same old Tax and Spend Democrats.

Or maybe they’ll load the budget up and dare President Bush to veto it. Cast themselves as the compassionate ones, and Republicans as the mean ones, to position for the 2008 elections.

To get even more Democrats elected. Including to the White House.

You can bet – if the Dems win either house of Congress in November, Social Security reform is bye-bye. Ditto immigration reform. They may not repeal the tax cuts outright, but they’ll whittle away. Forget about making them permanent.

So. Where does that leave us?

Republicans. Democrats. Can’t live with ‘em. Can’t stuff ‘em in a sack and leave ‘em by the side of the road.
Perhaps we should take a lesson from our liberal peers.

Since 2000 and 2004, liberal outlets (read: moonbats) have demanded that their side – the Democrats – return to their liberal roots. Get more liberal, not less! That’s how we’ll win the election!

We conservatives have had lots of fun egging them on, and for good reason. The more they talk about Chimpy McBushitler, civil rights for terrorists, abortion on demand, trees first people second, the better for our side.

That’s because winning at politics means harnessing the majority, which means blending into the political center. Instead of trying to win both the Left and the Center, our beloved leftists push their party further to the left every time they lose.

Every time I hear conservative complaints about today’s pseudo-conservatism, part of me agrees, and part of me thinks: we’re doing what they’ve been doing.

Let’s not.

That doesn’t absolve Republicans of responsibility. We need leadership from our leaders. Somebody’s got to look to the troops’ morale. We need support. We need a reason to get excited, like we were in 2004. So far, on a national level, we don’t have it.

Come November, I’ll do what I always do. I’ll go vote. Because that’s what I do. It’s a habit. And a duty.

For whom will I vote? Jim Doyle? Tammy Baldwin? Peg Lautenschlager?

Nope, nope, and…oh, please.

I’ll vote for Republicans, because they most closely represent my views. I just hope enough conservatives do the same.

Speak English!

Why can’t we all just speak English?

The US Senate asked that question yesterday, when they took preliminary votes on a measure to make English the “official language” of the United States.

The measure, approved by a 63-34 vote, directs the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services to be provided in other languages.

"We're free to say what we want, speak what we want, but it is our national language," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said of the amendment, proposed by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

But Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, went so far as to say the Inhofe amendment was racist.

…Later Thursday, the Senate approved a weaker amendment declaring English the "common and unifying" language of the nation, on a 58-39 vote.

Maybe one of these will make it into the final immigration bill, maybe not. That’s not clear. What is clear, at least to me, is that Americans have to start looking at what we’ve got in common, and the English language would be a good place to start.

Diversity makes America great. That, at least, is the multi-cultural credo. Respect diversity. Encourage it. Tolerance. Make allowances for the differences of others, even when it costs you.

I scoff, but there is some truth in there. Just like there’s some truth to another annoying axiom: moderation is the key.

We wouldn’t be nearly so wealthy, proud, successful, powerful, if we were all inclined to be artists. It’s our diversity of talents, abilities, interests, aptitudes that helps make this country great.

On the other hand, there’s such a thing as being too diverse. Like it or not, differences separate us from one another. Similarities bring us together.

Look at it like this: a successful negotiation focuses first on where the sides agree. That’s a building block. It encourages dialog. Empathy. Understanding. This is the basis of friendship. It shows separate groups that they have something in common.

Or this: a friend is introducing you at a party. What does he say, as he does so? Things that will interest the people you meet. If your hobby is rebuilding old cars, he’ll mention that to people with similar hobbies. It gives you something in common. You’re more likely to hit it off.

The rich educated lawyer and the poor janitor who dropped out of high school might never say a word to one another until one of them mentions the ball game last night. And then it’s no longer two people from completely different backgrounds: it’s two fans talking about their favorite team.

That’s not to say they’re going to invite each other over for long weekends, but it’s something. A connection. Something they have in common, despite all their differences.

Back to “official English.” Just another example of typical American jingoism, xenophobia, if not outright racism? More evidence that we’re afraid of anything that differs from us? We can’t leave it alone, can we? If you don’t look, talk, dress, sound, think like we do, then there must be something wrong with you.

Such arguments are, themselves, an ironic form of jingoism. The whole “tolerance and diversity” ethic is. We must all believe that difference is good, and more difference is better.

Therein lies the problem: being different is no longer just a fact about you or me. No longer just another characteristic. It’s a virtue all in itself.

We don’t want to assimilate everyone to the point that we’re all completely alike. Even if we could do it, we can’t do it.

That’s the First Amendment. Say what you want, when you want. This includes speaking in another language, other than English. We have the right to do that. We have the right to never learn English, if that’s what we want.

We have the right to associate with whomever we like, and to not associate with whomever we don’t like. If we want to associate only with people who look, talk, dress, act exactly like us and no one else, that’s our right. Nobody can tell us not to.

We’ve elevated “diversity” to the point that we prefer difference, segregation, Balkanization, alienation from one another.

If every society contains the roots of its own destruction, this may be the root of ours.

It’s not what makes us different that makes for peace and harmony. It’s what we have in common. We should be emphasizing, encouraging, celebrating that.

Wanting It Both Ways

I learned from an early age what it meant to “want it both ways.” I wanted to be too sick to go to school, but not too sick to play outside. I was too full to finish my vegetables, but not too full to have some cake. I was too busy to clean my room, but not too busy to watch cartoons.

Sometimes I got away with it. Other times, not.

WEAC, the state’s biggest teacher’s union, wants to get away with it. Our public schools can’t be both spectacularly successful, and on the verge of collapse, but that’s what WEAC says.

This week, WEAC publicized the results of a new study, which ranks metro areas in the U.S. by the quality of their school districts.

From their release (emphasis added):

Wisconsin public schools again came out on top in a new national ranking that emphasizes the importance of quality public education for companies seeking to expand their business.

Seven Wisconsin metropolitan areas are included in Expansion Management magazine's list of the top 25 locations with quality public schools. No other state has more than three metropolitan areas included in the list.

The magazine ranked the nation's largest 362 metropolitan areas in terms of the quality of public education. The seven Wisconsin areas to make the top 25 are Sheboygan at 5, Eau Claire at 7, Madison at 8, Wausau at 11, Appleton at 16, Oshkosh-Neenah at 20, and Fond du Lac at 24.

Seven out of the top 25, in Wisconsin. This is excellent news, and proof that our schools are doing a great job. Wisconsin has great schools! Every kid deserves one!

If good schools are important to economic growth, to attracting businesses and high-paying jobs, to maintaining a high quality of life, then Wisconsin is looking good. It’s not surprising that WEAC wants to publicize it. If anything, I’m surprised they haven’t done so even more.

Or maybe that’s not so surprising. Maybe the surprising thing is that WEAC announced it at all.

While WEAC is telling us how terrific our schools are, they also want us to believe our schools are heading right into the toilet. If they’re not there already.

In February, they released results from a survey of district administrators, detailing the meager and worsening condition of Wisconsin schools:

State-imposed education caps are devastating the curriculum in our state’s great schools and worsening over time, according to a survey released today by the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators.

Among the findings, in 2004-05:

62% of districts offered fewer courses.
57% reduced the number of academic courses.
61% reduced programs for gifted and talented students.
66% laid off school support staff.
65% increased student fees.
53% reduced extracurricular programs.
53% reduced programs for at-risk students.

Our schools are great! Our schools are failing! They’re the same schools!

There’s one rational – and irrational – explanation for this dichotomy. Revenue caps – our school funding system – simply hasn’t ruined our schools yet.

But it will.

It’s rational, because it’s plausible. It can never be disproved. Disaster will always loom around the corner. It’s irrational, because revenue caps went into effect eleven years ago.

Eleven years under the caps, and we still top the nation in ACT and SAT scores, we’re still above average in national standardized test scores, we still beat most states in teacher compensation and per-student spending. We place seven metro areas in the nation’s top 25, when it comes to educational excellence.

I’m tempted to ask how our schools have survived so long, even under the caps. Instead, I have to ask: how have our schools excelled so long, even under the caps?

WEAC wants it both ways. They want credit for a top-rank educational system. They want everyone to know their members – public school teachers – are doing a great job.

The evidence suggests that they are, at least in part, correct.

They also want us to believe that our schools are suffering and collapsing under a miserly, merciless, never-quite-enough funding system.

Of course, our system allows our schools to spend just as much as they want, as long as they get their voters’ permission to do so.

The survey doesn’t mention that. Ignores it, in fact, except for a brief mention of school officials’ dislike of referendums in 2001.

A telling omission, which points to what WEAC really wants. The money, without the vote. They know best, silly voters. They shouldn’t have to ask.

Is Tommy In or Out?

Will he, or won’t he?

Should he, or shouldn’t he?

Last but not least, do we want him to, or not?

As we head into the NFL draft this weekend...oh, wait. That was another column.

Now that Brett Favre has (finally!) made his decision, another Wisconsin icon’s indecision is in the state spotlight. Tommy G. Thompson, longest-serving Governor in Wisconsin history, says he’ll decide by Sunday whether or not to run, one more time, for his old job.

If he does, it’ll be the first time in twenty years that he’s the challenger, rather than the incumbent in an election.

I’m sensing a lot of conservative eye-rolling over this. A sense of breached finality, as in: come on, Tommy, we’ve seen this movie. Your day is over. Time to let somebody else take the reins.

It may be that Thompson’s mulling is nothing more than that. Publicly keeping his options open. Keeping up the buzz. Staying in the public’s eye. People are either talking about you, or they’re forgetting about you.

Still. Just imagine the political chaos that will ensue, if Thompson decides to run.

Congressman Mark Green is, at the moment, the de facto Republican nominee. What’s he supposed to do? Run against Thompson – his mentor – in a primary?

But if Green drops out, then what? Run for his old Congressional seat again? If so, what do John Gard and Terri McCormick do? Run against Green, the incumbent? Or abandon the race for Green's Congressional seat and run for their old Assembly seats again?

And then, what do the Republicans planning to run for those Assembly seats do? Swallow hard, smile bravely, and proclaim themselves happy just to see Wisconsin’s biggest Republican coming back?

Not likely. Oh, there will be plenty of team-mongering. And there will be hard feelings. Dissent. Bitterness. And media willing to broadcast it statewide.

The Republicans are fighting again!

So many questions. So many possibilities. My own track record for predictions is bad enough that I won’t add one here (Tommy won’t run), except for this: whatever happens, it will be interesting.

One wonders what’s going through Thompson’s head. It must be hard to be The Man for as long as he was The Man, and then not be The Man anymore. It’s hard to have the spotlight for so long, and then not.

There’s a certain appeal to being Thompson right now. He’s pulling in some serious coin (or so I’ve read), and can still be a major center of gravity in Wisconsin politics, whether he’s in office or not.

There’s also some allure to being the Senior Statesman, the retired former Boss who can now sit back and pick his issues, pick his moments, take up a cause, rake in the speaking fees.

But...this is Tommy we’re talking about. Not one to be satisfied with warming a rocking chair, no matter how much he's getting paid.

But. Conservatives don’t seem to want him back. Not in the Governor’s race. You don’t have to listen very hard to hear the chanted refrain, rising ghostlike from conservative ranks: “run for the Sen-ate...run for the Sen-ate.” Almost as if we’re trying to distract a rambunctious toddler by dangling a cookie within reach.

It’s not the worst idea. Tommy is probably the only guy in Wisconsin who can put a statewide campaign together between now and November. Probably the only guy who could run against the incumbent millionaire Senator Herb Kohl and win.

Not that I’m betting my house on that. Nor am I betting on him wanting to be a Senator.

President, maybe. At least, that’s what he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. If so, conventional wisdom says he has to be Governor. Senators don’t win the Presidency.

What about Senators who are also former Governors, though? And who served four years in a President’s cabinet?

Not much precedent for that.

The thought of Thompson running for President is causing even more conservative eye-rolling. Admit it. And then, admit that Thompson’s got some things going for him, too. A good campaign will emphasize Thompson's welfare reform, and school choice, and four successful elections. It will emphasize executive experience on both the state and federal levels.

Plus, he comes from Wisconsin, whose 10 electoral votes were hotly contested in 2000 and 2004. Our other Senator, Russ Feingold, is in the race already, and will at least be an attractive choice for Veep. Thompson would be just as attractive for the Republican ticket.

Angry at Immigrants (but not the ones you think)

Robert Miranda is angry. Very angry. Fuming. Bitter. Venemous.

About what? The word “illegal,” and the way we’ve been using that word to describe people who are illegally in the US. The “undocumented,” as he calls them.

Miranda, editor in chief of the Milwaukee Spanish Journal, wrote this week:

Mexicans come from 10,000 years of human history and all of it in the conquered lands now known in history books as Mesoamerica and the United States of North America.

“Who you calling ‘illegal’?” Miranda (repeatedly) wants to know. The point being: his people were here first. When the Dutch and Spanish and French and English began to arrive in the New World, the World was hardly New. There were already people here, and Miranda is descended from them.

Most Mexicans are, as I’ve discovered. According to the CIA World Factbook, about 90% of Mexican citizens are either Amerindian (their word), or mixed Amerindian-Spanish descent.

They were here first. It’s the rest of us who are “illegal.”

There are lots of things we could point out. For instance, those historic tribes and nations were territorial, but did they have immigration laws, as we do today? No law, no “illegal.”

But that’s boring. We could also point out that those historic tribes and nations were aggressive, warlike, unfriendly to strangers. In many cases they treated strangers worse, even, than the Mexican government does.

Not that the Europeans were angels. And, of course, European settlers and their descendants, with their technological and demographic advantages, eventually conquered most of North America.

Miranda is livid about that.

These lands stolen by the greed and manipulations and war of those who arrived on ships from Europe, and then began stealing land that was never theirs, today have descendents who have inherited their wealth from this theft and have turned to the descendents of the native people and have called them "illegal."

To be fair, we haven’t called all of them illegal. Mexican citizens who are living in Mexico, for example, aren’t illegal. Mexican nationals living legally in the US aren’t illegal.

As of 2004, Hispanics/Latinos made up 14% of the US population. Even if that number includes every illegal immigrant (highly unlikely), that still leaves some 16 million Hispanics/Latinos living here – working, playing, watching American Idol – legally.

We’re not calling them illegal.

Then we come to this part: “My support for the immigrants – undocumented as well – is strong.”

Huh? His “support” for “immigrants”?

The whole point of his rant (up to there) is that he – and others of similar ancestry – aren’t immigrants at all. Bloodthirsty land-thieving white conquerors from Europe are the real immigrants.

And here I thought he was mad at us.

I’m not an immigrant, of course. I was born here. My Great Grandpa Burri emigrated here (legally, as far as I know) from Switzerland. That makes me fourth-generation. My children are fifth-generation. Or, follow another branch of my family tree, and I could join the Sons of the American Revolution.

No matter, as far as Miranda is concerned. I’m part of the marauding conquering European horde. So is my four-year-old.

Here’s the funny part. What are we – pro-border control conservatives – according to the Left? Racist, intolerant, divisive.

Miranda’s column absolutely reeks of those very things.

Here’s another funny part: we’re here. I’m not European. I’m American. So are my children. We live in Wisconsin, and we’re not going anywhere. Get used to it.

And now I sound just like the protesters at any (illegal) immigration rally. We’re here. Whatchagonna do about it?

That’s a very good question, when you ask it about the estimated 12 million people (not all of which are Latino) living here in violation of our immigration laws. Arresting and deporting 12 million people would seem to be impossible. Logistically, politically, and in many cases morally.

It’s a very silly question, when you ask it about people who have lived in the US, and North America, and the Western Hemisphere for generations.

There’s one further irony. Whatever his purpose was in writing that editorial, it’s almost certain to have a negative effect. Rather than make a case for amnesty, streamlined immigration, acceptance of Latino culture, this kind of venom will only harden ordinary people – who might otherwise be inclined to support Miranda – against him.

I’m glad he’s proud of his heritage, but some of us want to find a solution to our immigration problems that is realistic and compassionate, yet doesn’t undermine the rule of law. Miranda isn’t helping.

Brandon

I first met Brandon, I think, early in 2001. He was eleven years old. Younger, then, than my oldest son is now.

His mother came to work in my office that year, and she brought him in from time to time. And he was a kid. Kinda bored, kinda fidgety. Annoying. A kid.

So I shot a rubber band at him.

You know how it is. You’re an adult, wanting to get along with another adult. Be friends. Work together. So you try to make good with the kids. Impress them. Get them to like you.

With boys, that means doing something...well, combative. Violent, but in a cartoonish sort of way. Most importantly, his mother has to disapprove. At least a little.

Shooting rubber bands is a bit of a tradition in my family. Growing up on the farm, my father and his brothers used rubber bands for all sorts of things, notably chasing mice and flies out of the barn.

They were too poor to afford flyswatters. At least, that’s what they said.

So they used rubber bands, and became expert rubber band marksmen. Or so they said. My brother and I disputed this. Words were exchanged. Insults. Challenges. And thus, the Rubber Band Wars erupted. In our living room.

It was in this tradition that I began shooting rubber bands at Brandon.

It took a few tries, but eventually he picked one up and shot it back at me. Tried to, anyway. He needed some practice. And he got practice. Plenty of it, over the course of several visits.

Good bonding stuff. Especially when I showed him how to use a folded piece of paper as ammunition. Then paper clips. Those will leave a welt, if you do it right. I never did teach him how to shoot pencils with a paper-clip-and-rubber-band ballista. I do have some sense.

Eventually, Brandon’s aim improved enough that I didn’t want him aiming at me anymore. So I changed the rules: we had to first bank the rubber bands off the ceiling, hit each other indirectly. Many a rubber band was removed from the light fixtures in our office over the next few years.

Of course, then he started landing them in my coffee cup. Like I said, he could be annoying.

We didn’t spend every minute together shooting rubber bands, of course. Our families got together at Christmastime, and for a couple of Thanksgivings.

I heard all about everything from his mother, and his aunt, and his sister. The grades, the sports, the girlfriends. The trombone. The youth group. His bizarre preference for the Broncos over the Packers. The mission trip to South America. All the chaotic errata of a teenage boy’s life.

But the rubber bands – that was simply the thing Brandon and I did. Whatever else was going on in his life or in mine, we knew to expect a flying rubber band. Sooner or later. Every time we saw each other.

I kept a ready supply in my desk, and still do.

Brandon died the night of November 30, 2005. A traffic accident.

Yesterday, May 4, was his 16th birthday. And I can’t stop thinking about the rubber bands.

Rubber band fights are silly. A kid’s game. Such a trivial thing to remember someone by.

Especially since there was so much more to Brandon. This was an annoying little kid, growing into a capable young man. I only saw him, probably, a few times during the last year of his life. But each time, the changes were extraordinary. In his appearance, and his demeanor.

He was gonna be big. We could all see that. I still have some of his hand-me-down shoes. The ones he outgrew. The size twelves.

He was going to be a gentle man. Kind. Forgiving. Christian. Strong. The kind of man who doesn’t have to be tough, because he is tough. The kind of man who takes kids from church on hunting and fishing trips, just because he likes to spend time taking kids to do things like that.

My older kids are in the same age range now – Brandon’s age, over the five years I knew him. We don’t shoot rubber bands at each other much. It’s different with your own kids – you don’t want to be too buddy-buddy.

Tonight, though...tonight, I think, if you come over to my house, maybe you’d better be ready to duck.

Because I feel like remembering Brandon.

Making More Money

It’s summer. Hot. Humid. Sticky. On a whim, little Bobby opens a lemonade stand on the corner. A week later, he’s pulling in $5 a day, after expenses. Five dollars profit.

If he can withstand the intense public scrutiny and scorn brought on by the parade of press releases accusing him of gouging the public, of greed, of cynical exploitation of the need for something cool to drink on a hot day, he’ll soon face something even worse.

Competition.

See, little Timmy, down the block, has noticed Bobby’s success, and he wants in. He opens his own lemonade stand.

Timmy uses a different recipe. Slightly bigger cups. And he offers a deal, if you also buy one of his Mom’s chocolate chip cookies.

Viola! Consumers have a choice.

The more profitable an enterprise, the more competition will exist. The more people will want to get involved.

That’s why more people apply for higher-paying jobs, while low-paying jobs would go unfilled were it not for all the Mexican nationals jumping the fence to get here. Or so we’re told.

When it comes to paying government employees, government admits that money is a great motivator. We have to pay a competitive wage, or else we won’t get good people.

Government – certain parts of it, anyway – do not recognize this when watching success in private industry.

When it comes to certain things – needs, we call them – our government doesn’t like big profits, no matter how much tax revenue they produce.

The latest example: Governor Doyle’s shot at “excessive” oil company profits.

“Middle-class families across Wisconsin are being squeezed at the pump, while big oil companies are reaping billions in record-setting profits,” Governor Doyle said. “The President’s suggestions do not go far enough. Regular people need real relief and the only way to do it is to find a way to cap the outrageous profits of oil companies. I ask every family in Wisconsin who is getting squeezed by these ridiculous prices to go to www.lowergasprices.wi.gov and sign this petition. We need to send a clear message to Washington and to the boardrooms of big oil that these excessive profits have got to stop.”

We can debate whether oil company profits are too big or not. My thought: I wish their profits were even higher.

Just look what happened when little Bobby started throwing his quarters around like he was growing them in the back yard. Competition and consumer choice.

The more money in a business, the more people will get into that business. The more money will be invested in that business. Competition will ensue. Consumer choice. Lower prices. That’s generally how things go.

Granted, there’s a lot more to oil prices than there is to lemonade stands. As I pointed out last week: “there’s more to the price of gas than our domestic energy policies. For some reason, those places that have the most oil also seem to be most prone to political unrest, schizophrenic despotism, and terrorist infestation.”

Not to mention a monopolistic cartel made up of governments generally hostile (at least in public) to the United States.

Pharmaceuticals are a better example – that’s another industry demonized over profits, greed, making money by charging through the nose for a product people sometimes can’t live without.

Kinda like farmers and grocery store owners. Imagine, making a profit off people’s need to eat.

There’s big profits in pharmaceuticals. A lot of money. Some people act like that’s a bad thing, but it isn’t. All that money is attracting more investment, more innovation, more research, more new and different and life-extending medicines.

I know, it’s expensive. Ridiculously so, sometimes, it seems.

Take the profits out of it, and it will be less expensive. We will also have fewer drugs, if any at all.

Perhaps that logic doesn’t transfer completely to the oil industry. It also can’t be completely irrelevant – people will invest more in a profitable industry than in an unprofitable one.

Instead of being angry when our neighbors are making money, we should be happy for them. Congratulate them! They’re doing well for themselves, and their employees are doing well, too!

If we can’t be happy for them, then let’s be happy for ourselves. Just like Bobby vs. Timmy, their success will mean better things for all of us.