ROMNEY'S SICKEST LIE

45,000 deaths annually are linked to a lack of health coverage

BUT /Romney in Ohio, October 11, 2012:

“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’  ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” (emphasis mine)

Elected officials and effective leaders know it’s perfectly OK to espouse personal values and beliefs, but it’s never OK to re-shape the facts, as my Mom used to say---she so hated the "Lie" word!!!
 
This latest Romneyism is reminiscent of a shamefully ignorant Santorum comment during the primaries, in response to a question about the 45,000 deaths annually:
 
“The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance...People die in America because people die in America. And people make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. And they don’t go to the emergency room or they don’t go to the doctor when they need to...And it’s not the fault of the government for not providing some sort of universal benefit.”

Sadly, people DO die in America because of a lack of health insurance. The Harvard Study* documented several statistics, but one that is especially poignant to me is the fact that they found 2,266 US veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because of a lack of health care and reduced access to care.

If I were to meet Mr. Romney, I would share a conversation I had riding in a taxicab in Washington DC one day in 2008. In speaking with the cab driver, I learned that he was not having a very good day, having just come from a close friend and fellow cab driver’s funeral. He explained that his friend died from kidney failure, unable to afford the dialysis treatment he needed, and while he and his friend worked over 70 hours a week, the money did not stretch. Further, this death was the most recent of three close friends the driver had lost in just over a year, all US veterans, all hard working cab drivers, and all unable to afford the health care they needed.

Very sad and very sick. The facts from the Harvard Study and from cab drivers in DC serve to illustrate that there is a major issue before us. Is there room for a "healthy" debate about the role of health care in the US? Absolutely. Is there room for a difference of opinion about the role of the government in health care? Absolutely.

But I'm beyond upset about Romney's lies and pandering just to get a job where he can add more zeros to his millionaire buddies income. I'm beyond upset about Romney's insensitivity to some harsh realities of life and when it comes to hurting people and animals, I'm all in to stopping this guy's bid.

PLEASE share my anger at the polls November 6!

*http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
 

 

A CASE FOR TAXES

We will hear a lot in the next few months about big government versus small government,

about doing the right thing for people versus staying out of people's lives,

 

about fair versus unfair taxation.

Yes, the role of government, personal freedom, and taxes will be the centerpiece of most political conversation.

 
I'm not really a one-side or the other kind of guy, and most of us are not. We know that there are no easy answers and 140 character Twitter comments or repetitive slogans help but they don't get to many who vote. Whether you live in a blue state or a red state or whether you are for or against a certain individual running for public office, when it comes time to vote in November you might want to keep this in mind:

           individual initiative has made this country great,
          but that initiative has always been complementary
                       to our collective commitments.
         You and I----"we"---make a powerful partnership!
 
So, how do "we" make the case for or against government, individual freedom, and taxes?  Do YOU want smaller government and lower taxes???
 
Before answering too quickly, please check out the following list from the very interesting blog "What Would Jack Do?" It's a specific list of what NOT to do if you DON'T believe in taxation for the greater good.  I'm not a negative person, but sometimes a focus on "no" is a way to make a point---here's the list:

1. Do not use Medicare.
2. Do not use Social Security
3. Do not become a member of the US military, who are paid with tax dollars.
4. Do not ask the National Guard to help you after a disaster.
5. Do not call 911 when you get hurt.
6. Do not call the police to stop intruders in your home.
7. Do not summon the fire department to save your burning home.
8. Do not drive on any paved road, highway, and interstate or drive on any bridge.
9. Do not use public restrooms.
10. Do not send your kids to public schools.
11. Do not put your trash out for city garbage collectors.
12. Do not live in areas with clean air.
13. Do not drink clean water.
14. Do not visit National Parks.
15. Do not visit public museums, zoos, and monuments.
16. Do not eat or use FDA inspected food and medicines.
17. Do not bring your kids to public playgrounds.
18. Do not walk or run on sidewalks.
19. Do not use public recreational facilities such as basketball and tennis courts.
20. Do not seek shelter facilities or food in soup kitchens when you are homeless and hungry.
21. Do not apply for educational or job training assistance when you lose your job.
22. Do not apply for food stamps when you can’t feed your children.
23. Do not use the judiciary system for any reason.
24. Do not ask for an attorney when you are arrested and do not ask for one to be assigned to you by the court.
25. Do not apply for any Pell Grants.
26. Do not use cures that were discovered by labs using federal dollars.
27. Do not fly on federally regulated airplanes.
28. Do not use any product that can trace its development back to NASA.
29. Do not watch the weather provided by the National Weather Service.
30. Do not listen to severe weather warnings from the National Weather Service.
31. Do not listen to tsunami, hurricane, or earthquake alert systems.
32. Do not apply for federal housing.
33. Do not use the internet, which was developed by the military.
34. Do not swim in clean rivers.
35. Do not allow your child to eat school lunches or breakfasts.
36. Do not ask for FEMA assistance when everything you own gets wiped out by disaster.
37. Do not ask the military to defend your life and home in the event of a foreign invasion.
38. Do not use your cell phone or home telephone.
39. Do not buy firearms that wouldn’t have been developed without the support of the US Government and military. That includes most of them.
40. Do not eat USDA inspected produce and meat.
41. Do not apply for government grants to start your own business.
42. Do not apply to win a government contract.
43. Do not buy any vehicle that has been inspected by government safety agencies.
44. Do not buy any product that is protected from poisons, toxins, etc…by the Consumer Protection Agency.
45. Do not save your money in a bank that is FDIC insured.
46. Do not use Veterans benefits or military health care.
47. Do not use the G.I. Bill to go to college.
48. Do not apply for unemployment benefits.
49. Do not use any electricity from companies regulated by the Department of Energy.
50. Do not live in homes that are built to code.
51. Do not run for public office. Politicians are paid with taxpayer dollars.
52. Do not ask for help from the FBI, S.W.A.T, the bomb squad, Homeland Security, State troopers, etc…
53. Do not apply for any government job whatsoever as all state and federal employees are paid with tax dollars.
54. Do not use public libraries.
55. Do not use the US Postal Service.
56. Do not visit the National Archives.
57. Do not visit Presidential Libraries.
58. Do not use airports that are secured by the federal government.
59. Do not apply for loans from any bank that is FDIC insured.
60. Do not ask the government to help you clean up after a tornado.
61. Do not ask the Department of Agriculture to provide a subsidy to help you run your farm.
62. Do not take walks in National Forests.
63. Do not ask for taxpayer dollars for your oil company.
64. Do not ask the federal government to bail your company out during recessions.
65. Do not seek medical care from places that use federal dollars.
66. Do not use Medicaid.
67. Do not use WIC.
68. Do not use electricity generated by Hoover Dam.
69. Do not use electricity or any service provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
70. Do not ask the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild levees when they break.
71. Do not let the Coast Guard save you from drowning when your boat capsizes at sea.
72. Do not ask the government to help evacuate you when all hell breaks loose in the country you are in.
73. Do not visit historic landmarks.
74. Do not visit fisheries.
75. Do not expect to see animals that are federally protected because of the Endangered Species List.
76. Do not expect plows to clear roads of snow and ice so your kids can go to school and so you can get to work.
77. Do not hunt or camp on federal land.
78. Do not work anywhere that has a safe workplace because of government regulations.
79. Do not use public transportation.
80. Do not drink water from public water fountains.
81. Do not whine when someone copies your work and sells it as their own. Government enforces copyright laws.
82. Do not expect to own your home, car, or boat. Government organizes and keeps all titles.
83. Do not expect convicted felons to remain off the streets.
84. Do not eat in restaurants that are regulated by food quality and safety standards.
85. Do not seek help from the US Embassy if you need assistance in a foreign nation.
86. Do not apply for a passport to travel outside of the United States.
87. Do not apply for a patent when you invent something.
88. Do not adopt a child through your local, state, or federal governments. 89.Do not use elevators that have been inspected by federal or state safety regulators.
89. Do not use any resource that was discovered by the USGS.
90. Do not ask for energy assistance from the government.
91. Do not move to any other developed nation, because the taxes are much higher.
92. Do not go to a beach that is kept clean by the state.
93. Do not use money printed by the US Treasury.
94. Do not complain when millions more illegal immigrants cross the border because there are no more border patrol agents.
95. Do not attend a state university.
96. Do not see any doctor that is licensed through the state.
97. Do not use any water from municipal water systems.
98. Do not complain when diseases and viruses, that were once fought around the globe by the US government and CDC, reach your house.
99. Do not work for any company that is required to pay its workers a livable wage, provide them sick days, vacation days, and benefits.
100. Do not expect to be able to vote on election days. Government provides voting booths, election day officials, and voting machines which are paid for with taxes.
101. Do not ride trains. The railroad was built with government financial assistance.

                                   The list is from: http://www.whatwouldjackdo.net/

                                        

WHO KNEW?

        Why is this lady off on another adventure?
                        Isn't that Kimberly?

The same lady who celebrated her 30th birthday by taking a 15 plus hour trek up and down Half Dome with her sister?

        Yes, that Half Dome and that Jennifer!


The same lady who would rather be water-skiing, enjoying sailing, or kayaking on Canandaigua Lake?

                                    Yes, that lady!


The same lady who left a successful career with Four Seasons, living and working in Chicago, New York, Nevis, and San Francisco and decided to give it all up and go to graduate school at Syracuse University?

                                   MA in International Reations from the Maxwell School

                                         MS in Public Relations from the Newhouse School

                                                                   
             Hanging out with the children of India while researching  international water issues.


Yes, that lady and that Syracuse University Public Diplomacy Program requiring completion of dual master's degrees from two of the most pretigious programs in the country. From engaging classrooms to reserach in northern India to an internship at the US Department of State in Washington DC, Kimberly's love of learning and making a difference by solving enviornmental issues is front and center.



 Why another adventure?









At the graduation ceremonies this weekend, there were many words of wisdom shared, but the ones that probably best answer the question "Why?" came from the speaker who reminded us it's easy to offer criticism---but we have a chance to make a difference when we offer solutions.  

Kimberly intends to make a difference! :-)

Congratulations, Little Guy. Your friends and family are so very proud of you, and we know the world is a better place because you care so much!!!        
                

ROMNEY'S SHOOTING GALLERY STYLE

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is clearly a formidable opponent for President Barack Obama in the upcoming election. He is the choice of a large number of US voters, he has the endorsement of several influential individuals, and he has the experience of being front and center in an exhausting campaign.

However, his "shooting gallery" approach to leadership might suggest that he is far from ready for the complex challenges one needs to address as President of the United States. It is not my intention to associate Mr. Romney with the drug-related "shooting gallery" reference but rather the target practice shooting, where a very focused eye and a quick trigger are necessary to hit a moving target. It clearly is an effective strategy for honing shooting skills, but it seems like a dangerous leadership style.

Some recent "shooting gallery" moments:

                                                              Chinese Dissident:

   

Romney: 'The reports are, if they are accurate, that our administration wittingly or unwittingly communicated to Chen an implicit threat to his family and also probably sped up or may have sped up the process of his decision to leave the embassy," Romney said. "If these reports are true,
this is a dark day for freedom, and it's a day of shame for the Obama administration." (yahoo news)

Days Later: After days of behind-the-scenes talks, reversals and emotional calls by Chen from a guarded hospital room, the U.S. and China made a series of announcements signaling a logjam had been broken. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Chen may apply for travel permits to study abroad. An American University has offered Chen a fellowship with provisions for his family, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, adding that the U.S. expects Beijing to quickly process their travel permits, after which U.S. visas would be granted. (yahoo news)

Comment to Mr. Romney: International incidents often require diplomatic interventions that may not be as clear as a rubber ducky in a shooting gallery; quick shots may score political points but often miss the target. When the "game" is over, rather than shooting from the lip---"If these reports are true"--- a leader would check out the whole story and recognize the sensitivity of saying too much until there is a clear resolution. If it ends badly for the individual and the US, then give it your best shot---until then, it's best to hold your fire.

                                                                      Bin Laden:

Romney: "...it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”  (AP/2007)  

Comment to Mr. Romney: Might want to check out the tapes of the planes hitting the towers.

One Year After Bin Laden's Death by Navy SEALS: Reports he would have made the same decision (LA Times/2012)

Comment to Mr. Romney: Isn't it interesting that with all of the facts your aim is much sharper--now that's leadership!


                              Doesn't Everyone Have an Elevator for the Family Car?



Romney:“I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them." (CNN Money/2012)

Comment to Mr. Romney: Might want to re-read the Ryan Budget you recently supported---it would actually put a few more holes in that safety net. Keeping your eye on the target---POTUS----means keeping an eye out for the people you wish to serve.

                                                                     Auto Bailouts:



Romney: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" was the title of a 2008 op-ed Romney wrote to outline his opposition to the auto-industry bailout. (NYTimes)

Three Years Later:  Detroit is back and the government is on the hook for $14 billion BUT would have paid $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone. In addition, thousands of jobs in Detroit and at related sites/providers have been saved and are more productive than ever. (CNN Money/2011)

Comment to Mr. Romney: Making glib comments and predictions about complex issues is a little like shooting rubber duckies in a shooting gallery---it's fairly easy to do. Making decisions about the future of the country takes a little more skill: cheap shots are not a hallmark of effective leadership!!


                                                             IS IT NOVEMBER YET?!

                                

OBAMACARE: BEYOND THE HEADLINES

I struggle with how divided our country has become. Much of the division comes from a fast moving environment where people want easy answers, simple solutions, less work, no deep thought; I often think we have created an entire world of headline readers, 140 character  responses, cryptic comments, punch lines, a real bumper-sticker mindset.

Then, when something serious hits or an issue gets personal, people change; they want more information, they seek out second opinions, they are all ears.Today, I share this piece from Mother Jones magazine because it captures what I believe is a perfect example of what is usually missing from a discussion about, in this example, Obamacare. As with too many important issues, we don't really know what it means to be in favor of or against something,  Here's an example of the kind of exchange I wish we would build into our our educational system---beyond the headlines---the human side---the implications---it's not right or wrong---let the students decide, but introduce them to more than the headlines:

 FROM  motherjones.org:

Marla Tipping's 14-year-old son, Cam, has to have his blood cleaned every two weeks. He has a rare condition that makes his body produce too much cholesterol.

Tipping says her family has had "to be absolutely vigilant in never having a lapse in coverage…because many carriers would never carry you with a preexisting condition again."

That was the case before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now, children like Cam cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Similar protections for adults are set to start in 2014.) While Tipping says she and her husband still pay between $20-25,000 out of pocket every year for costs their insurance won't cover, the ACA at least guarantees that they'll be able to find some kind of policy for Cam, even if they are forced to leave their current plan.

Likewise, Stacie Ritter, a mother who participated in protests supporting the ACA's passage, no longer has to worry if her twins, who have a rare form of leukemia, will be denied coverage if they have to change insurance providers.

"This law protects them from being discriminated against if my husband lost his job," Ritter says. "Right now what's protecting us is the fact that my girls can't be discriminated against; we don't have to fear that we don't have access to insurance. That's a really scary thought if the law is repealed."

Most of the speculation over the fate of the Affordable Care Act has focused on the individual mandate and what the decision could mean for the 2012 presidential election. However, if the Supreme Court decides to throw out large parts of the law along with the mandate, Tipping's family is one of millions that could lose the benefit of provisions that are already in place.

When it issues its decision, the Supreme Court has a handful of options: It could uphold the law, strike it down, or allow only certain portions to stay on the books.

"There are basically five ways this could come out. None except upholding the law are good," says Donald Berwick, who until December 2011 served as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he helped implement early provisions of the Affordable Care Act. "The implications of the law going away are dire for millions of Americans." Given all the provisions already in place, any changes spurred by the court would also be an administrative nightmare. "It would be logistically very, very difficult," Berwick adds.

The high profile parts of the bill, like the mandate, don't kick in until 2014, but defenders of the law point to several parts that are already active that would be taken away if the Supreme Court struck the entire law down.

Aside from banning discrimination against children on the basis of preexisting conditions, the National Center for Health Statistics estimates that about 2.5 million young Americans have benefited from being able to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26.

Seniors no longer have to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket before qualifying for assistance paying for their prescription drugs—help that fills the so-called "doughnut hole."

The Affordable Care Act has also eliminated the cap on lifetime benefits, which means people with serious health problems won't find themselves overwhelmed with health care costs because their insurance company no longer wants to help pay the bills.

Jeremy Aylward, who now works as an accountant for a hospital, was 12 years old when doctors discovered he had a congenital heart defect. At 22, he was booted off his father's insurance.
Aylward says he was unable to find a workable insurance plan given his preexisting condition. "[I had] no affordable, realistic insurance coverage options," Aylward remembers. Had the Affordable Care Act been in place, he would have been able to stay on his father's plan, and wouldn't have had to go without health insurance and pay out of pocket until a year later, when he found a job. Even then, his employer's health insurance plan still kept him off for a year because of his preexisting condition and the fact that he had "allowed" his coverage to lapse.

It might seem extreme for the Supreme Court to throw out the entire law if they find only one part of it unconstitutional. But at least one of the justices has already explicitly endorsed the idea. During oral arguments over whether or not the mandate could be overturned separately from the rest of the bill, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone." Opponents of the law are justifiably concerned about the infringement on individual freedom the mandate poses. But they neglect the very real restrictions on freedom that the law rectifies by ensuring and extending health care coverage.

The Affordable Care Act remains unpopular, despite the provisions already in place. Even some of those benefiting from the bill think it's not an ideal piece of legislation. Ritter, who followed the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, simply wishes for a single-payer system.

"I don't believe our health should be a product. I don't believe we should be a commodity. I don't think my life and well-being should be for sale," Ritter says. "It's big business playing with people's lives. I can't understand why [Obamacare opponents] are not angry about that."

LIMBAUGH AND THE DALLAS ISD: GOOD OLD BOYS?

What do Rush Limbaugh and the Dallas Independent School District have in common?  Here's a quick summary of two recent "events":

On February 9th,  the Dallas school district took nearly 5,700 fifth-graders to a theater to watch the new movie "Red Tails" about the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black American male pilots who flew missions in World War II.

The  $57,000 field trip was paid for with Title I federal funds, which are earmarked for educating low-income students, and  the trip was approved by a monitor for the Texas Education Agency. World War II is part of fifth grade curriculum, and teachers designed lesson plans to be used before and after the movie.

OK. Sounds like a great field trip.

However, something rather amazing happened: only 5th grade boys attended; girls stayed at school and watched "Akeelah and the Bee," a film about an 11-year-old South Los Angeles girl who participates in the Scripss National Spelling Bee.

"There is only so much available space at the movie theater, so the decision was made for boys to attend the movie," according to Dallas ISD spokesman Jon Dahlander.

Really!?

Fast forward to February and the now well documented tirade by Clear Channel's Rush Limbaugh as he lashed out at Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.

     

In summary, Mr. Limbaugh, was reacting to Ms Fluke's testimoney before a congressional committee about the Obama Administration's new health insurance regulation, requiring that nearly all plans cover contraception.

Focusing on issues she is aware of at Georgetown, Ms. Fluke illustrated problems with the current law, including the story of a classmate who needed birth control medication to control ovarian cysts. The classmate had difficulty convincing pharmacists that the medication was for her medical problem (supposed to be covered) rather than to prevent pregnancy (which it's not supposed to cover). Facing $100 out-of-pocket expenses she could not afford, the classmate stopped taking the pills and developed a large, painful, and dangerous cyst. Doctors had to remove one of her ovaries and now the twenty-something law student is showing signs of early menopause.

Limbaugh, who clearly did not hear Ms Fluke's testimony or was intentionally misleading his listners, said the following:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

It got worse the next two days as  Mr.Limbaugh offered to buy aspirin for Georgetown coeds (you know the context) and provided what was for me the most unbelievable comment, "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."

OK. So why is this blog, about education in action, connecting

(a)  a school district that is ostensibly interested in teaching about discrimination but is found practicing it

AND

(b)  a radical shock-jock famous for making outlandish comments doing it again?

I find it hard to believe, after years of fighting for and educating about the importance of equal rights, there are still vivid examples of leaders of education and business who don't get it. In both cases the protagonists are 100% convinced they are making the right decision---the Dallas folks convinced that it's OK to leave the girls back at school--heck, the boys would like a movie about pilots more than girls would anyway---and the most listened to radio personality in the world is simply mouthing venom that he knows his millions of listeners will like to hear, simply more evidence that he's got it right.

Maybe the sadest thing of all is not only have they have lost their moral compass, but they don't know it and they really believe that whether it's fifth graders or third year law students, girls and women don't count.

The superintendent of the school district in Texas and the CEO of Clear Channel Communications have what we in education would call a teachable moment: they should act immediately to let their constituents know that such inappropriate behavior will not be tolerated and is fundamentally wrong!

TEST IS BECOMING A FOUR-LETTER WORD

Students in England taking the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), a testing process that has generated issues much like the USA's NCLB.

What's wrong with this picture?

I see a symbolic illustration of how an obsession with testing has changed not only how we measure what happens in schools but it is also a yardstick of what's really happening in schools. And what's happening is simply depressing  to consider if you care about the future of schooling, as it is becoming, from my view, a testy situation--pun intended!

Sadly, the idea of taking a test is an innocent enough concept and, in fact, an important concept. A test does not have to be thought of as a pejorative word; it does not have to be thought of as a nasty four-letter word. In fact practically everyone wants tests---we want our airline pilots to have passed lots of tests, we expect our surgeons to have done well on  all of their tests, our teachers need to be certified, we believe that medicines should be tested before they receive approval for distribution, we want to take a test-drive before we buy a new car, consumers want products tested before they buy them, when there's a health concern diagnostic tests can be lifesavers for humans and for our family pets, and then there's the white-gloves test to see if the house if ready for company.

In schools we have always had tests, some better than others, but despite a few bad experiences we have never thought of tests in quite the same way as we do today. A random review of blogs about testing found these very representative comments:

from a mom: "I think this whole test business is awful. I remember going on field trips and doing fun science lessons when I was in elementary school. I would not have the love of reading I have today if I had to take all those tests instead."

from a dad: "Too much testing and not enough learning. We need to come together and find a better way to make sure our kids are succeeding. Speak out!"

from a teacher: "Rather than holding teachers accountable for student progress and improvement over time, this legislation (a new teacher performance system in NY) dictates that students and teachers, out of an entire school year, will be judged by a few hours of a no.2 pencil scratching."

And Califonia Governor Brown recently delivered an interesting one-liner in the context of criticizing a piece of testing related legislation, "Adding more speedometers to a broken car won't turn it into a high-performance machine."

A fascinating piece from the Educational Testing Service in 1999, "Too Much Testing" is worth a visit, even though it was written over a dozen years ago. You can download the full report at ets.org.

It has clearly withstood the test of time!

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY

A message from the late, great comedian and sometime philosopher, George Carlin; it has been a few years since he wrote this, but much of it seems to still ring true...see if you agree:



The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider freeways but narrow viewpoints.

We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families, more knowledge, but less judgement, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not how to make a life. We've added years to life, but not life to years.

We've been all the way to the moon and back, but we have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not our inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things...

Remember, spend time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.

Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.

Remember to say "I love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend a hurt when it comes from deep inside you.

Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:

      Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,
           but by the moments that take our breath away.

CAN THE WEALTHY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP?

While most Americans still face an uphill battle in these challenging economic times, it appears that many of our political figures may not be feeling our pain.

Mitt Romney makes a point at Thursday night's CNN/Republican Party of Florida debate. Courtesy of CNN.com

We have recently learned that presidential candidate Romney makes more money in a day than most of us make in a year and former Speaker of the House Gingrich has made millions from his political connections. We know that former President Clinton is now doing quite well and that many members of today's Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are not too concerned about their next paycheck.


Is this further evidence that our political leaders, who live in a different economic universe, are out of touch with most of their constituents? Is this economic divide in our national leadership the root cause of the havoc surrounding our current and, most likely, our future policy decisions?


Given the deep political and philosophical divide in today's Congress, it is easy to conclude that the nation's lawmakers are not only ineffective at their jobs but they might also be, sadly, out of touch with the needs of most Americans. This "wealth gap" is certainly contributing to the belief that we are not being well served by our political leaders and, maybe worse, that we are being thrown under the proverbial bus. Many Americans are concerned and there are increasing calls for a major revolution at the ballot box in November.


All of that said, I'm not convinced that personal wealth is the issue.

In my experience, true leadership has always been financially neutral---it was never an issue, one way or another. I have admired wealthy leaders and I have despised wealthy leaders, but it was not their wealth or lack of it, it was their words and their actions, their beliefs about their responsibilities, their definition of leadership.


We tend to associate influence with wealth, whether it's in government, business, education, or entertainment. We tend to expect a lot from those who have a lot, and while "a lot" is certainly a relative figure, anyone in a leadership position is susceptible to anger, distrust, suspicion, you name it, when times are tough.


We should expect a lot from our elected officials, and today, if we are disappointed, I don't think we should conclude that their wealth is a factor. To me, it's really much more deep-rooted than that: it's how they define leadership. If leadership is defined as moving forward personal and political agendas, narrowly defined, with clear winners and losers, then that's the issue. It's the issue because leadership is, in fact, moving forward personal and political agendas, but those agendas need to provide for the greater good, with a win-win outcome. That requires communication, compassion, collaboration, and compromise.


As complicated as that may seem to be and as hard as it may be to achieve, the reality is we manage things and we lead people. It seems that Congress has many millionaires and many managers, but very few leaders.


I vote for leaders!

GABBY GIFFORDS: SHE WILL RETURN

Recalling the classic General MacArthur pronouncement “I shall return,” I was moved and inspired by a modern day “general,” Representative Gabby Giffords as she announced her retirement from Congress via a YouTube video:

Leadership is and always has been defined by action, not position. While Congresswoman Giffords may forever be remembered as a victim of a tragic event in Tucson, she is much more likely to remembered as an inspirational leader. In fact, much of that leadership has yet to evolve, as she begins a new stage in her life and gains the emotional and physical energy needed to make a difference in what is likely to be an even more influential role than that of her elected office.

It is clear from her recent recovery and her remarkable spirit that she will be a force in the future and that all citizens of the world will benefit by her vision and commitment, not just those in her home state of Arizona.

In my field of education, the effective use of a “teachable moment’ can be huge part of the teaching-learning process. Teachers know the power of maximizing a special moment to move their students’ heads as well as their hearts. These moments may not occur every day, and some of them may be lost in our seemingly data obsessed school systems, but  when Gabby Giffords announces “I will return and we will work together,” it’s a powerful moment for reflection and resolve.

Gabby Giffords will return and together we will make a difference!