An anecdote about asylum seekers

When I lived in Denver a few years ago, I taught a student who came to this country because if she and her family had stayed in their home country, they faced a credible threat from the Zetas. Her older brother had already been murdered by gang members. The way the cartels operate, the entire family was now a target for harassment, extortion, and kidnapping.

In an alternate reality, my former student could've ended up coerced into a life that is the nightmare for any parents of a teenage daughter.

Faced with an impossible choice, they uprooted their lives and sought asylum at the U.S. border.

When people face a strong likelihood of persecution if they return to their homes, especially in certain places where their governments don't have the ability to protect them, American law permits them legal entry as refugees.

***

I try to imagine suddenly needing to leave Nashville with my family, giving up my home for no money, and moving to a place where we didn’t speak the language. I imagine giving up my way of earning a living because that likely won’t travel to the new place, either. I imagine doing this while grieving the loss of my son. The scale of it all is unfathomable.

Yet that is what my student’s family -- and tens of thousands like them -- did.

These families are who we, through our Border Patrol authorized by the government we elected, are arresting and separating at the border. 

These families, likely already traumatized, are being ripped apart by public servants acting in our name. 

***

Immigration, including and especially taking in refugees, makes our country better off. (Read the studies, if you'd like.) Contra Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Bible, and Jesus in particular, is quite clear about what should be done for impoverished, desperate strangers fleeing persecution.

We empathize best through stories though, and this one has a happy ending. My former student is now in college, training to be a teacher. Her other brother is in high school. Her parents rebuilt their lives, working incredible hours at tough jobs. Their children are thriving because of their sacrifice.

***

The potential we each have within us is a delicate thing. Single, cruel acts can reverberate across families and generations. Rebuilding one’s promise after such cruelty takes enormous effort. For every story that ends like my former student’s, dozens more have a tragic conclusion.

When our country opens its doors to those in need, we all benefit.

The opposite is also true.

Reading the New York Times with Father John Misty

I can’t grow thick enough facial hair to have a luxurious beard. Therefore, the second-most hipster thing I can do is to respond to today’s New York Times headlines using the titles of Father John Misty songs.

On this Father's Day, thank you for indulging my flailing attempts to be cool.

How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families

FJM - “When the God of Love Returns, There’ll Be Hell to Pay”

A Financier’s Profit-Minded Mission to Open a Channel Between Kushner and North Korea

FJM - “Things It Would’ve Been Helpful to Know Before the Revolution”

Just the Fear of a Trade War Is Straining the Global Economy

FJM - “Just Dumb Enough to Try”

Beyoncé and Jay-Z Deliver a Surprise Album: ‘Everything Is Love’

FJM - “Total Entertainment Forever”

Major Study of Drinking Will Be Shut Down

FJM - “Nothing Good Ever Happens At the Goddamn Thirsty Cow”

Casual viewer's guide to the World Cup

This viewing guide is an indicator of what I will do when I don't have enough formal responsibilities. Hello summer!

TEAMS TO ROOT FOR:

England: 

* England has world-class tabloids. Win or lose, the Sun's headlines will be amazing. 

*  England has recently cornered the market on entertaining Harrys. In this case, if Harry Kane wins the Golden Boot, he may be moved ahead of Prince Harry in royal line of succession.

* They have the second-best team nickname in the tournament - Three Lions. 

France

* You couldn't get away with this if you were a hard core England fan (read: English native) but no one reading this is, so have fun.

* If a middle school class were a World Cup team, they would be France -- equal parts drama, talent, and risky fashion choices.

* Kylian Mbappe is young, electric, and a threat to score at any time.

* Unlike England, if they perform to their talent level, they are plausible champions.

Nigeria

* The Super Eagles have the best nickname in the tournament. 

* They have the best uniforms, too. 

Egypt

* Mohammad Salah is the Steph Curry of international soccer - he scores a lot and often at insane levels of difficulty.

* Salah is single-handedly making Europeans more tolerant of Islam.

*...but he may miss games because of a questionable play during the European club championship where he injured his shoulder. It's no exaggeration to say that his left shoulder is the most watched joint in the world at the moment.

* Egypt has been an African powerhouse, but is making their first World Cup appearance in 28 years. When they qualified, the celebration was like Denver when the Broncos won the Super Bowl, but for an entire country. 

TEAMS THAT ON BALANCE, YOU SHOULD ROOT FOR, AND WILL BE FASCINATING REGARDLESS

Argentina

* Their national cuisine is grass-fed steak, reasonably priced delicious wine, and empanadas. These are my kind of people.

* Messi, in his likely final World Cup, is still the best player in the world and maybe the best of all time. Like LeBron's Cavs, they probably won't win the final....but maybe one of four times, they could.

* The power of Catholicism will be put to the test, as this is the Pope's team (and de facto team for the Vatican since Italy -- in the greatest national disgrace since fascism -- didn't make the tournament).

Spain

* They play one of the most recognizable styles in the world (tiki-taka, characterized by possession, short-passes, and lots of movement). Drop that knowledge at any watch party in order to cut off would-be mansplainers (present company included).

* They fired their coach the day before the biggest tournament in the world because of what amounts to a minor HR procedural matter. 

* Andres Iniesta, though close to my age, is a midfielder still capable of making pinpoint, beautifully geometric passes, thereby giving all the dads in my neighborhood hope that somehow, we still have it.

Iceland

* By far the smallest country in the World Cup. This is akin to fielding a world class team from the population of Williamson County.

* Their cheer is "Skol!" and their fans do a thunder clap. It's like the Florida Gator chomp, but won't inspire nausea since Icelanders are better people than Flordians.

Belgium

* The thinking person's dark horse bid. 

* Though the country was formed relatively recently from an odd mix of France, the Netherlands and Germany, they have a beer drinking culture that is all their own. Priorities, people. 

TEAMS THAT I WON'T CHEER FOR BUT STILL WILL WATCH FOR THE SAME REASONS I WATCH THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFFS EVEN THOUGH IT'S SUCH A NAKED MONEY GRAB AT THE EXPENSE OF UNPAID 20 YEAR-OLDS THAT I KIND OF HATE MYSELF CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM

Brazil

* They are the hipster bandwagon choice. Unless a person speaks fluent Portuguese, then one shouldn't wear the (admittedly gorgeous) Brazilian uniform. 

* Neymar is the favorite player of middle school boys most likely to earn detention for repeatedly talking during instruction.

* They are absolutely loaded and worth watching in the same way the UK basketball is. It might be a showcase of skill and athleticism; it might implode due to unrelenting pressure from their insane fans.

Germany

* Die Mannschaft is the equivalent of Alabama football. Their team is 2-deep with star-level talent at every position and they attract a lot of bandwagon fans but only a handful of natives are tolerable as human beings. 

* The nickname Die Mannschaft is cool. The translation -- "The Team" -- is boring. If ever a team nickname encapsulated a populace, this is it.

Portugal

* Cristiano Ronaldo is a beautiful man and knows it as only a elite narcissist can.

* Obnoxious personality aside, he really is that good.

TEAMS ABOUT WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW TO QUANTIFY MY FEELINGS

Mexico

* All the ingredients of a team I love to casually root for -- talented, but with a history of coming up short at the highest levels; passionate fans from a underdog kind of place; excellent native food; taught a ton of kids who will root their hearts out for El Tri

*....but they are US team's main rival (Dos a cero, anyone?)

* Regardless, I want to catch one of their games at a Mexican restaurant on Nolensville Road. It will be lit.

Uruguay

* They are the crazy-talented underdogs of South America. They have the twin virtues of being able to win the tournament and not being Brazil

* Their uniforms are simple and gorgeous. 

* Luis Suarez, their star scorer, is both compulsively watchable and also bit a dude during the last World Cup. That's a bridge too far for me. 

I AM NOT ROOTING FOR THESE TEAMS BECAUSE EVEN BY THE LOW STANDARDS OF THIS MESSED UP WORLD, THEY HAVE HORRIFIC POLITICAL SITUATIONS

Russia

* This World Cup is yet another example of Vladimir Putin using major sporting events to whitewash his invasions of sovereign nations, murdering of anyone who stands in his way, and committing mind-blowing amounts of graft and theft. Fuck that guy.

Saudi Arabia

* The royals prove that there really is no limit to man's greed.

Unalienable rights, unintended consequences, and 3D printing guns

What spurs me to write about this topic isn’t -- thankfully -- another mass shooting. (Does that mean it's a good time to talk about gun policy? Is there ever a good time?)

Rather, I listened to an unexpectedly horrifying podcast.

I get it and feel it. I understand that it is bad. But I'm already in a place - like an activist mentality - what is going to be done with this event? How is this going to be used? How is this going to be used against me? Look. I mean, that's where I am.

Let’s decode the pronouns. “This event” is Newtown. (Yes, that Newtown.) “It” is murder. The guy quoted above is Cody Wilson, who has been a driving force behind using 3D printers to make guns and gun parts.

Podcasts regularly feature some grisly crimes and terrible people. Can’t say I was expecting it from NPR’s economics podcast “Planet Money” though. Wilson was featured in the episode, “The Gun Man”.

When he learned about the murder of children, his reaction as an “activist” was to be primarily concerned with how it impacted his dream of making most any type of gun available to anyone with access to a 3D printer.

To put it kindly, Wilson comes across as the guy you hope never talks to you at a party.

Technology has empowered him -- and others like him -- in a way that likely can't be walked back. He really can make untraceable guns from widely available technology. That knowledge really has spread around the world. Short of Station Eleven-style mass regression in technology, 3D printing capabilities are only going to improve.

Sure, we’ve had weapons capable of mass destruction for a long time. It’s just before the advent of commercial assault weapons, it took some work and usually the approval of several other people to commit the sort of carnage, say, the lone Vegas gunman did. (Or the Sutherland Springs gunman. Or any of the other 307 mass shootings in the U.S. during 2017.)

Mass availability of assault weapons has given us a society where an individual can decide to end dozens of lives in a couple of seconds. Now with 3D printing, you can expect the distribution of assault weapons to hit overdrive in the near future. Pretty much anyone who wants to take a lot of lives won't be stopped by lack of tools to do so.

Side note: An important thing about those who use assault weapons professionally -- military and, in some instances, law enforcement -- is that there's a command structure. It’s odd that in some ways, our soldiers face more restrictions firing their weapons than the “Stand Your Ground” law that kept George Zimmerman out of jail.

The problem is that in our modern world, a lax approach towards anything approaching gun control coupled with ever-evolving technology means that unintended consequences -- mass murder by a deranged individual, intimidating the exercise of free speech by those who aren't armed -- comes at the expense of the “unalienable” rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Think about John Locke’s idea of unalienable rights: he (and later, the Founders) believed in the revolutionary idea that they weren’t granted by a king or government. Rather, these rights are given to everyone simply by the virtue of being human. The purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect those rights.

Of course, anyone who says there's an easy policy solution for any of this is conning you. It's true that most other countries don't have issues with mass shootings because of tight gun control. However, short of waiting for generational change in the Supreme Court , it isn't happening here. (Thanks DC vs. Heller.) I’m also skeptical about most proposals regulating 3D gun printing since I don't know how it's practical to meaningfully regulate a machine that runs a computer program to shape plastic.

I worry, though, that having our gun policy effectively set by people like Cody Wilson will come at a great expense. Namely, the rights we'll see scaled back are those the Second Amendment was originally intended to protect.

Our biases conspire against us

Extended breaks, like the one brought by the recent spurt of snow and ice, mess me up a little. The initial thrill wears off the first day so, then a lazy routine sets in, then I get anxious. I crave the structure and productivity of a work day while simultaneously wanting to do anything but work. It’s pretty close to the opposite of living in the moment. You can imagine requisite unsettledness that comes with it.

Hanging around the house with a two-year-old who is off his normal routine, unsurprisingly, exacerbates this. I wish his total focus on whatever is in front of him rubbed off on me, but it doesn’t work that way.

***

One of the takeaways from Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert’s research is that we are awful at predicting what will make us happy. To be more precise, we pursue the short-term boost, ignore the after-effects, and neglect the long-term investments needed to achieve happiness. Eat the donut, put off the call to a long-lost friend. Fixate on buying the sports car, neglect the daily run. Stay on the couch watching superhero movies, don't write the blog entry rattling around my head. And so forth, ad infinitum.

I’ve known this for years, read a few books by Gilbert and others like him, and still find myself with a non-productivity hangover at the end of breaks. You should’ve finished this. Why didn’t you use L’s nap time more productively? You haven’t been to work and you’re still going to be behind.

Did I plan entire trip around getting a chocolate milkshake from Hugh Baby’s two days ago? Yes. Did I practice guitar each day -- something I enjoy, but hate to start? No. Did I complete (insert paperwork I’ve been needing to finish for a week)? Don’t be silly. (Yes, I know that’s an ambiguous answer. What’s your point?)

So I know all of this stuff, yet cognitive biases still get me. Not all of the time -- I’m more ambitious in the morning (...when I can drag myself out of bed…) and once I get going, I can stick with something pretty easily. I love the payoff of getting something done. But it’s really friggin’ hard getting there.

I don’t have much a grand summation. Life can be challenging and our brains sometimes conspire against us. Pretty odd piece of the human condition.

My main comfort is that most everyone reading this likely struggles with same phenomenon. Another weird feature of our brains -- solidarity in unhappiness. Funny how that works.

The Devil and Tom Cotton

Trump has an odd talent for forcing everyone who supports him to make a Faustian bargain.

Take the case of Sens. David Perdue and Tom Cotton. They lied on national television Sunday, saying that Trump didn’t say “shithole countries.” This was to counter Sen. Dick Durbin confirming that Trump said “shithole countries” in the senators’ meeting with Trump on immigration. Perdue and Cotton were, not surprisingly, obfuscating. They told White House privately that they believed they heard “shithouse” -- a distinction without difference.

Imagine the thought process one must go through to deliberately mislead a nation thanks to the difference between shithole and shithouse. You wouldn’t tolerate that nonsense from a six-year-old. Certainly, black congressmen aren't missing the point:

“The words don’t matter,” Mr. Richmond (D-La.) said. “The words just cement his sentiment that the people in those countries are less worthy, and he would like people from different countries. He chose the black countries to say he didn’t want those people and one of the whitest countries to say he did want them. I think that’s telling.” 

Asked if he saw any difference between the two words, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only black Republican in the chamber, was equally dismissive: “No,” he said.

Trump’s mendacity is well known. What is more telling at this point is what is revealed about Perdue and Cotton. To wit: they are moral weaklings. They've now shown they will lie at the slightest convenience. They will cover for the sort of racism that is far more consequential the “locker room talk” it’s written off as because lowbrow banter rarely comes with the stakes of 800,000 people having their lives turned upside down.

Trump has been cruel and racist for a long time. (I find his bit part in the case of now-exonerated Central Park Five particularly nasty and telling.) What changed is we can now confirm that Perdue and Cotton are much the same way. To paraphrase football coach Denny Green, they are who we thought they were.

They aren’t the only ones. Paul Manafort, Anthony Scaramucci, Kellyanne Conway, and Sean Hannity are just a few of the many who made ridiculous statements, lied, and, in some cases, committed crimes because of Trump. They who didn’t merely sacrifice their dignity on Trump’s behalf -- they’ve shown they never had any in the first place.

The lesson of Faust is not just that making a deal with the devil costs you your soul. It's also that the pursuit is poison in itself.

Note to Cotton, Perdue, and their ilk: the kicker of every Faustian bargain is the devil never delivers what he promised.

Back at it and quickly iterating

My follow through hasn't been great. I wanted to write at least three or four times a week once school returned to its regular schedule. That, obviously, hasn't happened. 

However, I suppose the corollary to "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" is also to not let a temporary setback become a permanent failure. 

With that spirit, a few things that have been bouncing around my head:

* One of the more interesting ed ideas I've heard is from Matt Candler of 4.0 Schools. The theory is to push new ideas is in schools by creating a quick prototype at small scale, gathering feedback, then iterating quickly. 

In the podcast "The Leaders' Table," Matt points out a flaw in the mindset of many folks who work in the high-performing charter schools world. We want to come up with the perfect (and massive plan), then roll out an idea at scale. 

As a veteran of starting new grades six times, I can advise that this never works out. (Something about "the best laid schemes o' mice and men...") Inevitably, iteration happens but the lag time is, at best, weeks. More often, it's school year to school year. 

Matt argues that we'd all better off by getting an idea to the minimum level needed to make it live, then beta testing with a short window and small group of students and/or teachers. 

* In light of this, I've been thinking about the teacher's role in running a class so that students are mentally carrying the weight of the content. Another way of thinking about is moving from seeing teaching as something that is done to students; instead, a teacher works with students.

This, obviously, is not the easiest thing to pull off. The major barriers I face can be distilled to 1) I, as the teacher, have more content knowledge than the students and 2) creating strong enough cultural norms in class so that all students fully own their learning. 

Curating various social studies resources and savvy use of students' Chromebooks has alleviated issues around #1 so that I can see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. 

The second concern is more vexing. The students for whom this more self-guided learning functions best also tend to be strong readers and already have great grades. I note that students who are struggling readers and/or struggle with motivation at school can fall further behind compared to their experience in a tightly-run teacher centered class.

As a way to address this, I've been testing the optimal balance of using fluency tools like Quizlet versus games like Kahoot versus direct teaching. 

Here's what I've found so far:

- Mastering the terminology of a unit feels slow at first, then pays off in the last weeks of a unit. I now have students start a unit by spending 3 minutes of class per day in the first week doing Quizlet flashcards individually. 

- In the second week, I start using games like Kahoot. The best questions are at the "stamping the learning level" -- i.e. "What" and "Who" and "How" questions. 

- Direct teaching is best for connecting thematic elements of the unit. As shown by my exit ticket data, students absorb direct teaching better in weeks two and three of a unit. Spending much time on thematic elements in the first few days of a unit seems to be relatively unproductive versus having students build their knowledge base. 

If I were teaching a language, the equivalent would be heavy focus on mastering vocabulary, then moving verb tense and sentence structure only after a base of 100 commonly used words is built. 

The class still feels too teacher-centered. I'd love to figure out a way for students to have higher-quality interactions with the materials earlier. This could look as simple as analytical conversations in a turn-and-talk, then building to a short piece of analytical writing. 

However, I've seen that doing this too early just causes the students to parrot whatever I directly taught or just offer a recitation of various facts they've picked up. 

'Which Side are You On?'

A couple of folks asked me for my opinion on Betsy DeVos as education secretary. 

My response is that anyone who is willing to work for this administration has disqualified herself from being worthy of it.

To wit: if a person is willing to go to work for Trump, he or she doesn't have either 

1) the values to use the ed secretary's bully pulpit to push against the inequality endemic in public education or 

2) the spine to stand up against the bigotry necessary to do so.

The Secretary of Education has some formal power and a lot of informal influence. If DeVos is willing to compromise herself in to order to have the title, she's kneecapped herself in actually exercising the influence. 

That sort of influence comes from moral authority. In saying yes to Trump, you give up your claim to that sort of power. 

***

Of course, the argument goes, someone's got to be the secretary. It might as well be the best person possible. 

In a normal circumstances, sure. A secretary appointed by a Republican will be on one end of a range of views; a Democratic secretary will be on the other end. Ideally, I'd want someone who is willing to push on holding schools accountable, offer flexibility on licensing, and hold for-profit groups in check, to name a few (of many) things I personally care about. 

I agree with DeVos on a few issues, disagree with many more, and don't know about a lot of stuff because she's mostly been a philanthropist and behind-the-scenes player.

Elections have consequences and I'm OK with leaders who go in very different directions. I'm OK with DeVos's nontraditional résumé for the role. Such is the reality of our democracy. 

In these times, though, values come before before policy. Specifically, who one is willing to work for reveals a lot of about that person's values. 

Trump represents a series of values -- bigotry, cruelty, authoritarianism, irrationality, to name a few -- that run counter to the American idea. When history calls us to account for this era, the refrain will be the same as the labor and civil rights song "Which Side are You On?"

We haven't judged kindly those who took nuanced views on integrating schools, buses, and lunch counters in South. Working for George Wallace or Ross Barnett was a stain that has only looked worse with time. John Lewis took a side against them and the system they represented. 

Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

"All talk, talk, talk - no action or results."

One cannot truly value the idea of our public schools as the door the American dream for all and also be OK with Trump.

***

There is a time for nuance. There's a time for working with those whom you vehemently disagree. That's a necessary part of making this country work.

There's also a time for just taking a side. 

Everything we know right now about Trump says opposition is the only moral option.

Betsy DeVos's choice reveled where her values really are. The things Donald Trump said and did over many years -- and especially during his campaign -- did not disqualify him, in her eyes, from the presidency. 

Therefore, she is unfit to serve as the figurehead leader of American public education. 

Anatomy of a mediocre lesson

Today was probably my worst day of teaching this year. Here's why:

• I tried to cram too much in one lesson, so it felt disjointed on my end. The students likely didn't retain the most critical information because there was too much of it. This is best illustrated by attempting to slake your thirst by putting 20 oz. of water in a 12 oz. glass.

• I didn't consider the entire lesson from a student's perspective. Specifically, I didn't fully think through how they would process the information. Therefore, sometimes the students were put in a position of listening for too long a period without a chance to speak and write. This also hindered me knowing what they learned because the questions I did have them write about weren't the most critical to understanding the lesson. In short -- I focused on what would be doing at the expense of being clear regarding what I wanted them to do.

• I failed to order the information so it was clear which were the foundation pieces of knowledge, then how various pieces connected. The connections that were there were haphazard so it's likely most students' first impression were formed in very different ways. This is similar to having a poor foundation to a house. The only way to really fix is just go back and do it again. 

***

When these days (inevitably) happen, I think back to early in my career. When a lesson went sideways then, it meant that student behavior would be so off that I'd usually need to call in another teacher or assistant principal. On those days, I would leave school emotionally drained. I'd procrastinate on planning because I'd still be angry. I'd go to bed feeling a pit in my stomach, knowing that I'd set myself up to have the same problems the next day. 

Teaching is better now. My worst day now far surpasses my best day then. 

Now, I'm mostly just annoyed when I don't do that great of a job. I hate it when I see kids who are trying to learn, just not quite getting there, and it's my responsibility.

I understand this is a part of the job -- of any job, really. Just thought it's worth marking the days in the classroom that aren't typically captured in an exemplar teaching clip or make it to YouTube because kids are chucking chairs at each other.

I won't be nominated to be profiled in Teach Like A Champion anytime soon, but you shouldn't see my class on Vine either. (If you do, let me know, so I can confiscate the phone tomorrow)

Onward and upward! 

Propaganda -- what happens when you fill up on junk food

So I'm furious that the Russians tipped the election to Donald Trump. I can't say I'm surprised by it, though. 

I've read a lot of analyses about how the Russians did it and the various effects on the electorate. I've read critiques of the media for playing into the hands of Russian hackers and WikiLeaks. What I haven't seen much about is why tens of millions of Americans were primed to be played for suckers. 

Why were so many of us ready to buy into a what Internet trolls (some paid by Russian spy agencies) spread around Twitter? Why were John Podesta's emails interpreted as anything other than run-of-the-mill politics? Why were we so inclined to believe the worst about us? Why did we not see propaganda for what it is?

***

A couple months ago, the NPR podcast Planet Money tracked down a writer who wrote and spread right-wing disinformation via social media so he could cash in on the advertising.

SYDELL: And this brings us to the article we have been tracking this whole time, the one about the FBI agent who was killed after his alleged involvement in leaking Clinton's emails. Jestin did not write it, doesn't know the real name of the contributor who did, but he did publish it, and he says it got 1.6 million views over 10 days.
COLER: You know, the people wanted to hear this, you know? So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional - the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then, you know, had our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums, and, boy, it spread like wildfire.
SMITH: The story was quickly debunked on sites like snopes.com. And the real paper in Denver, The Denver Post. But for lots of Trump supporters, this did not matter.
COLER: They don't care that it was debunked, you know? Snopes is run by George Soros and is a Obama mouthpiece to them. And, you know, the credibility of these kind of sources, I guess, has been just tarnished so much that nobody even listens anymore.

(Emphasis mine)

They asked him why he didn't do the same for an audience of gullible liberals.

SMITH: And Jestin (Coler) says, at least in the beginning, he was an equal opportunity prankster. He tried to peddle fake news for lefties, he says, making up vile things about conservatives.
COLER: It just has never worked. It never takes off. People will always say - you know, you'll get de-bunked, like, within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

***

The Russian campaign of hacking, selective leaking, and disinformation in the service of electing Donald Trump was successful because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and a few hundred wannabes have done awfully similar work for the better part of three decades. 

Yes, it's horrifying that it's being done by a foreign power with malicious intent and it's fair to say this is one of the most successful campaigns carried out by foreign espionage service against the U.S.  

However, we, the voters, laid the groundwork for it to work. A significant chunk of the electorate has been mainlining propaganda that tells them that not only are liberals and Democrats wrong, they're actively and purposefully seeking to destroy America. They are capable of murder.

The boundaries of acceptable political discourse in our country have been decimated to the point that they really don't exist for a lot of us. Put it this way: if you think someone murdered a person for political gain, you can't then argue with that person (or people who support her) about the appropriate size of the federal budget. You chant, "Lock her up!" and equate voting for her with treason.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin didn't destroy our political norms. They just took advantage of that the fact we barely have any left.

We can blame a lot of people and organizations for spreading propaganda. We can call out the gains to be made from doing so -- money, influence. 

We should also call out that many of us eagerly lapped up this stuff and have been doing so for a long time.

Highly paid teaching position available in Nashville!

The Tennessee Titans fired their wide receivers and assistant wide receivers coaches today. 

I find this interesting and not just because I follow the Titans to a degree that would surprise even most people who know me. 

Anyway, NFL position coaches are one of the rare places in high profile sports where the job is mostly about teaching. While most folks don't know who these guys are (sadly and unfairly, most of them are guys), they are likely some of the most highly paid and heavily scrutinized teachers in the country.

(How much of an impact can they have? One of the reasons given for the New England Patriots' successful season is the return of their offensive line coach from retirement. The Patriots offensive line, with pretty much the same players, went from being one of the worst in the league last year to one of the best.) 

Their job is mostly focused on people development. There's an aspect of evaluation, too, though actual decisions about which players make up the team more heavily influenced by the scouting staff and general manager (and head coach in some cases). Unlike college coaches, NFL position coaches don't recruit players to a program. Their job is take the players they have and develop their skill set according to the larger vision of the head coach or coordinator. 

So, they teach. 

This firing raises those questions because the Titans' head coach has been friends with the more senior coach he fired today. The guy actually came out of retirement to coach the wide receivers. It doesn't seem personal. This seems like the head coach had an issue with how he was teaching.

I'm curious as to what actual instruction looks like at an NFL level. How do coaches develop their craft? How do they teach complicated game plans that can change significantly even in-game? How are position coaches evaluated at the end of the year?

I'm pretty sure "Hard Knocks" or any number of "NFL Insider" segments aren't representative of the teaching position coaches do. I would also bet that the people who coach at this level conduct themselves differently from the stereotypical screaming high school football coach. 

A few weeks ago, San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich hinted at the approach one takes with adult, professional athletes.

Gregg Popovich with a great response when asked it was his fault his players weren't motivated to play tonight pic.twitter.com/jdIUHB34Eh

— gifdsports (@gifdsports) December 9, 2016

"No Knute Rockne speeches." (Since I read more sports media than is healthy, I take special pleasure when future Hall of Fame coaches knock down sports cliches.)

While I really don't have an idea what teaching looks like at an NFL or NBA level, it's worth noting that U.S. Soccer hired Teach Like a Champion author Doug Lemov to consult. He's been working high-level coaches across the country to improve how advanced soccer players practice. He reflected in a recent post:

Had a pretty amazing day in Chicago on Wednesday, talking teaching with a group of (mostly) MLS professional soccer coaches who are enrolled in US Soccer’s new Pro License course. The group includes guys who I admire as coaches and who I followed as players. I was a little bit starstruck… but I got over that fast because the conversation was so rich. 

Interestingly, we didn’t watch any footage of soccer training. We watched classroom footage and applied the principles to teaching during training.The closest we got to watching “practice” was an amazing video of music teacher John Burmeister (who I’ve written about before) wokring with an upstate New York youth orchestra. His session is a master class on having a clear and specific goal and breaking the session up into rounds of progressive challenge, each with a single piece of feedback to focus on and execute.

The rest of the post is worth reading for its discussion of how to actually run a highly successful practice. One of the things I appreciate about Lemov is how he's evolved his focus to the intricacies of practice, then looked across disciplines -- teaching, music, soccer -- to apply it. (Hell, he wrote a book about it.)

Great teachers run great practices. I wish I could observe more high-level coaches when they're planning and running practice. I bet I'd find quite a few things to apply in my classroom.