Under Pressure

Last week, the kids headed back to school.  As with every new school year, there was a mixture of excitement and angst.  Even the kids were excited (I think).

It’s a tough job being a student.  There’s peer pressure, pressure to achieve academically, pressure to excel in sports, and the pressure to fit too many activities in too little time.  A Columbia University study found that 60% of high school students surveyed responded that they attended a “drug-infected” school.  The study also pointed out that “digital peer pressure” in the form of social media, makes a significantly negative impact on students, heavily influencing their decisions on the use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.

Students are under pressure to excel academically to get into college or to pass the numerous standardized tests imposed by state and federal education departments. A study by the Educational Testing Service, the organization that administers the Graduate Record Examinations and other standardized tests, estimates that 75% of high school students participate in academic cheating and the cheating is due, primarily, to the emphasis on high grades.

Athletes are also pressured to excel.  According to a survey by the Josephson Institute Center for Sports Ethics, in addition to pressure from overbearing parents, many athletes are pressured to cheat to maintain academic eligibility or comply with the “win at all costs” attitudes of coaches and fellow players.

A 2006 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics says students' lives are overscheduled long before they enter their teenage years. The report faults "changes in family structure, competitive college admissions process[es], federal education policies [and] fear a child may fall behind academically" for compelling parents to enroll their children in plenty of "developmental activities."

As I said, it’s tough being a student. I can’t imagine going through the high school years again.  Daily, students deal with negative peers, negative coaches, negative teachers, and a negative school environment.  They are overscheduled and their efforts are often underappreciated.  As parents and mentors, it’s up to us to fill them up with positive encouragement and praise.

How? Take time to listen to them and to understand their concerns.  Sure, whatever is on their mind today may be forgotten in a few days, but at the moment it’s huge to them.  Find some time to spend with them away from the normal routine and distractions, and simply listen to what they say.  Sometimes, all they want is for someone to listen.  Make your praise specific.  Instead of simply saying “good job”, tell them what the good job was so they know you were paying attention.  And don’t be stingy with the praise; it costs you nothing to give.

As the kids go off to school this year, I pray that they have successful and happy school years.  Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a coach, or a youth leader, give your students what they want; someone to set healthy boundaries and a relationship with an adult that truly cares about them.  As Herbert Hoover said, “Children are our most valuable resource.”

Issues and Opinions

Recently, while waiting for a flight, I ran across an article on CNN.com titled, “Ryan’s Dangerous Vision”.  The headline caught my eye, so I read the article.  The article talks about Ryan’s “extreme plan” and how the Romney-Ryan plan would “throw seniors under the bus.” It ends with, “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have solidified their roles as rubber stamps for the reckless and failed economic theories of the past.”

The piece was written by Donna Brazile, vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  CNN mentioned this information in an editor’s note at the beginning of the article, but it did not specifically state that it was an op-ed piece not a straight news story.  I wonder how many people had to reread the article, like I did, to discover it was an opinion piece. 

I’ve read Paul Ryan’s “A Roadmap for America’s Future” (http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/) and it explicitly states that it preserves the existing Medicare and Social Security programs for those 55 and older.  In the roadmap, you won’t find anything “extreme” or “reckless.”  Since Ms. Brazile is in a leadership position with the DNC, such language in an opinion piece about the opposing party’s candidates is expected.  But, having an opinion and getting it published doesn’t make it true.

It’s not my intent to defend Mr. Ryan’s plan.  I want to point out that as we get closer and closer to the elections in November, there will be lots of rhetoric from both parties.  Some of it will be inflammatory statements or eye-catching headlines intended to obfuscate the real issues. And, the real issues are much more important than the release of candidates’ income taxes or how they treated a family pet 30 years ago.  The real issues concern the future direction and leadership of this great country.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Franklin’s reply was, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  We need informed voters to keep this republic.  In order to be an informed voter, you’ll have to dig past the rhetoric and research the issues and the candidates’ positions on the economy, defense spending, taxation, the deficit, and social programs.  This November, the country needs a well-informed electorate, now more than ever.

One Hundred Years of Eagles

One hundred years ago this month, Arthur Eldred received formal notification that he was the first Boy Scout to earn the coveted Eagle Badge.  Since then, over 2,000,000 Scouts have earned the Eagle Badge, the highest rank in Boy Scouts.  Of the boys that join the Scouting program, only about 4% will earn the Eagle Badge.  Director Steven Spielberg, President Gerald Ford, actors Jon Heder and Mike Rowe, and astronauts Neil Armstrong, and Jim Lovell were all Eagle Scouts.

The Boy Scouts of America’s policies prohibiting atheists and agnostics from joining Scouting and prohibiting “open or avowed” homosexuals from leadership positions are considered controversial by some people.  A quick Google search indicates the many believe the Boy Scouts are a hate organization because of these policies.  Some of the Internet articles even compare the Boy Scouts to the KKK or Nazi Germany.  The Boy Scouts says that their policies are in line with the tenets of the Scout Oath and Scout Law and have been in place since the organizations founding in 1910. If the Scouting program is truly a hate organization, wouldn’t that hate be reflected in the Scouts who earn the highest honor?

Congressmen, astronauts, educators, athletes, actors, writers, doctors, engineers, scientists, and Medal of Honor winners are among those who earned the Eagle Badge.   That’s a pretty impressive list of achievers that were part of the Scout organization, but it doesn’t really answer my question.  I did some searching and found a study, that I believe, answers the question.

I found an article at ScienceDaily.com titled, “Eagle Scouts Have Positive, Lasting Influence On American Society, Study Suggests.”  The article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120410145910.htm) reports on the findings of a scientific study performed by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion and Program on Prosocial Behavior. The article quotes Byron R. Johnson, Ph. D., Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences, “"There is no shortage of examples or anecdotal accounts that suggest Scouting produces better citizens, but now there is scientific evidence to confirm the prosocial benefits of Scouting or earning the rank of Eagle Scout." Dr. Johnson also states, “The central question of this study was to determine if achieving the rank of Eagle Scout is associated with prosocial behavior and development of character that carries over into young adulthood and beyond."

The study’s findings (http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Boy-Scouts-Report.pdf) show that:

• “Eagle Scouts exhibit an increased tendency to participate in a variety of health and recreational activities.

• Eagle Scouts show a greater connectedness to siblings, neighbors, religious community, friends, co-workers, formal and informal groups, and a spiritual presence in nature.

• Duty to God, service to others, service to the community, and leadership are traits that are especially strong in Eagle Scouts.

• Eagle Scouts are more likely to engage in behaviors that are designed to enhance and protect the environment.

• Eagle Scouts are more likely to be committed to setting and achieving personal, professional, spiritual, and financial goals.

• Eagle Scouts show higher levels of planning and preparedness than do other Scouts and non-Scouts.

• Eagle Scouts are more likely than other Scouts and non-Scouts to indicate they have built character traits related to work ethics, morality, tolerance, and respect for diversity.”

In this list, I noticed service to others, service to community, enhance and protect the environment, and build character traits related to work ethics, morality, tolerance, and respect for diversity.  Hate isn’t even implied. 

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is “to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.” If an organization, committed to instilling values such as duty to God and country, kindness, helpfulness, trustworthiness, courtesy, and morality, produces accomplished adults with character traits that include tolerance and respect for diversity, where is the hate?

At a time when courtesy is no longer common, dependence on the government is rising, and a sense of entitlement is rampant, organizations that try to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices and produce tolerant and respectful adults and leaders should be encouraged, not bashed.

The moral compass of the Boy Scouts, the Scout Oath and Scout Law, sets a standard of conduct that is conspicuously absent in many in our society.  Scouting builds self-reliance, sets a moral code and finds purpose in our young people.  It’s not perfect, but in 100 years, it has endured to mold successful adults and commended leaders.  Hate has been around a long time.  I pray that the Scouts continue to shine no matter what they are labeled.  Before casting a stone, do your homework and find out what Scouting is really about.

Don't Hyphenate America

Like most of the world, I’ve been watching the Olympic games on television.  I had the chance to watch part of the games with my brother.  Regardless of the sport, if there was a US athlete in the competition, he watched it as if he’d been a fan all his life.  While watching the US men’s doubles team play the Korean team in badminton, someone commented that it was difficult to tell which team was which, given the US team members had Asian features.  My brother pointed out that it didn’t matter what they looked like, they were American and that’s all that matters.

I went to TeamUSA.org and found out that the US sent 530 athletes to the Games to compete in 25 of 26 sports (handball is the only sport in which the US doesn’t participate).  I also found out that Tony Gunawan, one of the badminton players, represented Indonesia in the 2000 Olympics before immigrating to the US, and Howard Bach, his team mate, was born in Vietnam.  As I browsed the list of names of the US athletes, I saw last names that clearly had origins in other countries, such as Iguodala, Ramirez, van Garderen, Wang, and Wozniak.  Like the US itself, the US Olympic team is a mixture of ethnicities and cultures, but American nonetheless.  That’s cool.

What really bothered me was the way the announcers and broadcasters often identified some US athletes as hyphenated Americans, e.g., African-American, Asian-Americans, etc., instead of simply referring to them as an American athlete.  None of the athletes from other countries were identified in a similar manner, as best I could tell. Why was it necessary to identify any American athlete as a hyphenated American?  It isn’t just the announcers at the Olympics that hyphenate America.  The media makes a point of specifying race when referring to those involved in an incident in the news or a political candidate running for office.  It is pervasive in our daily speech, but does it really matter where someone’s great-great grandfather was born?

I did an Internet search to see if this “hyphenization” occurred in other countries.  I didn’t find much beyond “French-Canadian” except for a couple of articles that referred to Dutch citizens of Chinese descent as “Dutch-Chinese” instead of “Chinese-Dutch”.  What I found even more interesting is that term “hyphenated American” has been around since the end of the 19^th century.

Evidently, calling someone a “hyphenated American” at the beginning of the 20^th century was akin to questioning their allegiance to the United States.  In fact, Theodore Roosevelt, in a 1915 speech given to the Knights of Columbus said:

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.”

President Woodrow Wilson, in a 1919 speech, said, “…any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.”

I know that, in the interest of being politically correct, people use ”hyphenization” to denote ancestry.  But is it necessary to identify someone’s ancestry?  Why not simply say “American of Chinese descent” or “American of African descent” if the identification is that important?

I don’t want to imply that ancestry, culture, or heritage is unimportant.  Each ethnicity adds to the strength of this nation.  This country has always been the melting pot. Immigrants assimilate into American society while aspects of their culture become a part of the American culture.  It could be because my own heritage is an indistinguishable blend of nationalities that I only see myself as American.  Maybe because of that, I don’t see hyphenated Americans when I look at the people around me at work, at church or on TV.  I doubt the Olympians are competing for a hyphenated America.  The tally of medals lists those earned by US athletes. Period

Using hyphenated American labels implies that people are identified as Americans second.  It shouldn’t be that way.  As I wrote before, it doesn’t feel like the country is united anymore (http://active-thinker.blogspot.com/2012/06/united-independence-day.html).  There is already too much divisiveness in this country as it is. We are already a squabbling nation; do we really want to be a “tangle of squabbling nationalities” also?

As we cheer on our American athletes at the Games, let’s avoid the “hyphenated American” label and recognize that we are, first and foremost, Americans.

Saving the Golden Goose

There’s quite a furor over the President’s statement during a recent speech, “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.”  The Liberal Left has been defending him, arguing that the statement was taken out of context and the speech was pro-American worker.  The Conservative Right is saying the statement sums up the President’s socialist ideology.  Whether it’s a “gaffe” or an ideological statement, the statement and the speech, has a lot of people talking about who deserves credit for their accomplishments.

A friend of mine sent me an email comparing the President’s statement to a passage in the book, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.  In Atlas Shrugged, the character Rearden creates a new metal.  In one scene, two characters debate his contribution:

"He didn't invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?"

"Who?"

"Rearden.  He didn't invent smelting and chemistry and air compression.  He couldn't have invented his Metal but for thousands of other people.  His Metal!

Why does he think it's his?  Why does he think it's his invention?

Everybody uses the work of everybody else.  Nobody ever invents anything."

She said, puzzled, "But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time.  Why didn't anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?"

While trying to find the passage on the Internet, I ran across a September 2011 speech by Elizabeth Warren, a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.  In the speech, she stated, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”  Like the President, she argues that business owners utilize the infrastructure financed with local, state, and federal income taxes.  She specifically points out that a business owner brings his goods to market over roads paid for by others.  She enumerates several other areas where business owners are “helped” by others. 

I don’t know if she doesn’t understand taxation or if she is ignoring the obvious, but the business owner pays federal, state, and local taxes that build and maintain this country’s infrastructure.  Some of the business owner’s taxes likely paid for the roads she mentioned.  To complete her story, she should have mentioned that businesses pay vehicle taxes, fuel taxes, registrations, payroll taxes and many, many others.  But that isn't the point she wanted to make.  For now, taxation isn’t the point I want to make here; I want to talk about the importance of small business in our country and who bears the risk. 

According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small businesses in this country (less than 500 employees) account for 99.7% of all employer firms, employ nearly 50% of U.S. workers, pay 43% of total private payroll in the U.S., and are responsible for 65% of the new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.  Looking at the data, it’s pretty obvious that small businesses are the backbone of the U.S economy.

The annual cost per employee to comply with federal regulations is $7,755 for large businesses (500 or more employees), but the cost is $10,585 for firms with 20 employees or less.  The smallest firms pay four and a half times more per employee for environmental compliance and three times more per employee for tax compliance than large businesses. 

But what Ms. Warren and the President didn’t acknowledge in their speeches is this; the business owners who started those businesses took a gamble.  It is by their initiative that the business exists.  They risked their life savings, their credit rating, their mortgage, and often their family life to start the business.  Not all small businesses are successful.  The SBA indicates that in 2009, (latest year for which data is available) almost 553,000 new small businesses were started, but over 660,000 closed.  The SBA also estimates that almost 70% of new businesses survive two years, but only half survive five years.  With only a 50-50 chance of being in business more than five years, why would anyone take the risk to start a new business?

In today’s depressed economy, shouldn’t the country thank the small business owners for taking the risk of starting or owning a business?  Shouldn’t the politicians, whose regulations impact small businesses more than the large ones, at least allow the small business owners to take credit for their accomplishments?  Instead, some politicians tell us that small businesses owe their success to the government.  Yet, in spite of tax and regulation burdens, successes and failures, small businesses are the backbone of the U. S. economy.

 Ronald Reagan once said, “We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem.” Politicians who refuse to acknowledge, or worse, don’t understand the contributions of the small business owners, are slowly strangling one of the geese that lay golden eggs.  This summer, dine at a “mom and pop” diner, get your car fixed at a local garage, visit a local farmer’s vegetable stand or buy lemonade from the neighbor kid’s lemonade stand and take advantage of the ingenuity and initiative that make this country great.  Before you vote in November, do the research and learn where the candidates stand on the economy, regulations, and taxation.  Don’t help them strangle the goose.

Thinking Logically

Overshadowed by the more recent ruling over the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruling concerning the Arizona immigration enforcement law hasn’t been in the news much lately.  The Arizona ruling struck down most of the provisions of the law, known as Arizona Senate Bill 1070, stating that federal law preempts state law and, in some cases, the state law served as an obstacle to federal law.

Recently, I discussed the ruling with a friend. We talked about the June CNN poll results that indicate 75% of American voters are in favor of the Arizona law. We discussed the recent announcement by the White House that the Department of Homeland Security would no longer initiate the deportation of illegal immigrants that meet specific criteria.   I pointed out that a Washington Post/ABC News poll, published earlier this month, shows that 52% of Americans do not approve of how the President is handling immigration issues.  My friend asked, “When the federal government fails to do its job, is it not the right of the state to fill the need?”

Is the federal government failing to do its job? In a July 2010, Fox News poll, 72% of respondents felt the federal government was not enforcing immigration laws.  Since Arizona passed its law in April 2010, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama passed similar legislation.  Apparently, some states agree that the federal government is not doing its job with regard to addressing illegal immigration.

I know that illegal immigration is a touchy subject with some segments of our population.  As with most touchy subjects, I believe that people allow emotions to cloud the logic of the discussion.  So what if it wasn't such an emotional subject? 

Let’s talk though another state-federal issue to demonstrate the logic.  According to the Federal Highway Administration’s website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov), the Interstate Highway System is owned and operated by the States.  As such, the States are responsible for setting speed limits and for traffic enforcement.  The website states that 90% of the funding for the Interstate Highway System comes from the federal government, as designated in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. So, the states have the responsibility of operating the highways, but the federal government pays for the highways.  Let’s play a what-if game.  What if the Supreme Court ruled that Interstate Highways are under the jurisdiction of federal government and the States have no right to set or enforce the traffic laws on federal roadways?

Then, if the federal government decided not to enforce traffic laws on those roadways, could you imagine the chaos on the roads?  According to the Federal Highway Administration’s 2010 Highway Statistics Report, there were over 3200 fatalities on the interstates that year.  Imagine of the number of fatalities if there were no enforcement at all?  And, it’s not just lives lost that would increase.

According to the US Justice Department’s 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Interstate Highway System is the primary route for illicit drug transportation.  “For Drugs or Money”, a July 16, 2006 article published in the Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald, examines the small town of Brazelton, Ga., which sits astride a five-mile stretch of Interstate 85.  The city police patrol the interstate for traffic infractions.  Quite often, a seemingly routine stop turns into a drug bust.  In three and a half years, Brazelton officers seized nearly 70 kilograms of cocaine, approximately 1500 pounds of marijuana, as well as $4.5 million in suspected drug money, according to the article.  Without traffic law enforcement on those roadways, how much would the drug trade increase?  What other dangerous cargo would pass along our interstate highways unchecked?

Perhaps the comparison between my hypothetical situation and immigration enforcement is stretch. I agree that immigration reform is needed.  What bothers me is the failure of one branch of our federal government to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3, US Constitution).  Our government is complex and the federal and state governments must work hand in hand on most issues.  When the laws assign responsibility, then the responsible party should ensure that they provide the means to enforce the laws.  If any group fails to do their part, we should call them on it.

Among the list of grievances against King George and the British government in the Declaration of Independence, “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.”  If you want the federal government to enforce the laws, contact your Senators (www.senate.gov) and your Congressmen (www.house.gov).  And by all means, vote in November.  Make the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” work for all of us.

Breeding Entitlement

I took my Boy Scout troop to summer camp this week.  It’s always an interesting experience, seeing how the younger scouts react to being away from home and away from mom and dad.  There were the usual tummy aches and homesickness, blisters and bug bites, but no major trauma.  During dinner on the first night, a young scout at the next table made quite a mess.  I pointed out to the boy that he should clean up after himself.  His response, in essence, “I don’t have to, someone else will”, startled me.  Over the course of the next two days, I saw several more instances of “give it to me” or “someone else will take care of it for me” attitudes from the younger scouts.  I wondered if it was just me, or is there a greater sense of entitlement among the kids today?

I did a little searching on the Internet and found a USA Today article from September 1, 2006.  It cited the results from a national survey conducted by Sacred Heart University.  Nearly 83% of the poll respondents agreed that America’s youth feel more entitled compared to 10 years ago.  Also, 54% of the respondents disagreed with the characterization of youth being more responsible.

Ok, so it’s not just me. Others also see a greater sense of entitlement in today’s youth.  But, what’s causing this sense of entitlement?  I did a little more research and came across an op-ed article in Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal from June 2011, titled, “Well-meaning parents fuel kids’ sense of entitlement”.  The article was written by Jon Butler, executive director of the Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., the organization behind Pop Warner youth football programs.  He mentions that Pop Warner rules prevent tryouts, prevents cutting players from teams, and requires mandatory play, yet the organization faces lawsuits because the parents don’t think their child gets enough playing time.  Instead of encouraging their kids to improve their skills to earn more playing time, the parents take the legal route?  Mr. Butler wrote, “Instead of the positive values of team sports, they’re learning that Mom and Dad will fight their battles and will make any negative situation go away.”

Mr. Butler referenced another Sports Business Journal op-ed piece titled, “The secrets of leadership are often found at the bottom”.  Written by Rick Burton and Norm O’Reilly, professors in the areas of sports management and sports business, the article discusses that many of the leaders in sports and sports media started at the bottom and worked their way to the top.  They wrote:

“We believe strongly that a disconnect exists between parents’ excessive coddling and their children’s ability to learn valuable leadership traits. It may be a parents’ right to assist their child, but keeping a young person from starting at the bottom may alter his or her capacity to master group dynamics and truly seek out servant-leadership moments on thankless tasks. This problem manifests itself when these same children graduate from college expecting to lead departments or divisions, less than 90 days after graduating. Trust us, this is a major challenge facing higher education today, and not just in North America.”

 As a parent, I want my children to succeed. I don’t want them to be unhappy.  I would like to protect them from the heartache of failure.  But, if we, as parents, coddle and protect our children from experiencing failure, do we prevent them from learning that success comes from hard work?  If we lead our children to believe that they are deserving of better than what they earn, are we breeding entitlement?

I think we have to stop coddling our children and stop responding with instant gratification.  We need to teach them to do for themselves, that choices come with consequences, that demanding is not the same as earning, and that sometimes they won’t succeed. Otherwise, we may create a society of parasites or adults that cannot cope with failure.

Raising kids is a tough job.  Being a Scout Master isn’t easy either, but the rewards of watching the younger scouts take the first steps towards self-reliance and older scouts taking on leadership responsibilities are immeasurable, even when compared to the benefits they experience themselves. Trying to provide for our kids without spoiling is often a tough line to walk.  Messrs. Burton and O’Reilly wrote, “Entitlement without hard work is a recipe for disaster.” Let’s avoid the disaster.