Dear Editor

I finally put my issues about the fighting from both sides of the Common Core "discussion" on paper and wrote to the newspaper this week.  Last Saturday there were two long essays--from the proponents, and the opponents of this new initiative.  I agreed with the gal who wrote in favor of the CCSI.  Plus the guy who wrote against it is a notorious trouble maker in our district and I have nothing terribly nice to say about him beyond he must have cult-leader-like charisma because people certainly fall in line behind him and eat every word he tells them without any source checking of their own.  And I guess that isn't really very nice.

Here is what I sent the paper:

Dear Editor—

I read with appreciation the opposing opinions of the Common Core in the Saturday, May 18^th, Daily Herald.  I see the enthusiasm each contributor has for his/her side of this discussion.  But the discussion statewide has gone beyond the discussion into an ideological battlefield.  I’d sincerely hope that concerned citizens could take a deep breath, a step back and return to the discussion of this issue.

The current state of our public education is one that deserves enthusiasm and efforts and energy of all our citizenry.   Our kids are worth nothing less.  However, are opponents of the Common Core Standards Initiative directing their efforts and energies to the solution of this problem?  

The concerned conservatives who see the CCSI as a federal conspiracy, who quote a myriad of experts and implore us to “follow the money” have yet to propose an alternative solution.  Like many of the leaders we keep sending to Washington DC, there seems to be much complaining about what the “other guy” is doing, but not enough talk about how they propose to solve the problems we are facing.

Personally, I support the CCSI.  The standards themselves are not to blame or fear.  I want my children to have the very best educational foundation I can find and provide for them.  And as a parent, I have CHOSEN our local public educational system.  But this is Utah, and there are there are MANY other choices available.  We have a host of Charter schools that cater to nearly every educational niche there is.  There are some superbly run private school options in our area.  And if all those fail to meet a parent’s approval, homeschooling is one of the most personal and self-directed options there can be.  There isn’t even an argument about costs with this choice.

Why should the opponents of the CCSI remove the choice I have to send my kids to the local public school and the standards it now espouses from me just because they don’t agree with this new shift?  My choice is to send my kids, to spend my time volunteering there and to even write a check a few times a year to support the programs, teams, and clubs these local public schools offer.

My children have had wonderful, inventive and inspiring teachers over the course of their public education.  The administrators I have seen at work do their jobs with honor, diligence and an overarching goal to see ALL the children in their stewardship find success at school.  The efforts made on behalf of my children and their classmates are astounding.   If the CCSI opponents aren’t seeing the same thing I am, what is keeping them in the local public schools? 

I was over their "suggested length" but I said what I wanted to say.  In the meantime, I will put my head down and work as hard as I can to see our schools be as successful as they can for the kids they are stuck with as well as those who really want to be there.

This Time Of Year, You Just Can't Win

I recently read this article online by Campbell Brown, a former network news reporter.  I always thought she was well spoken, curious, intelligent and a bit like the proverbial 'girl next door'.  Her thoughts in this politically amped and PC-required moment in America's history make me think that the times are as frustrating for everyone as they have felt for me.  See what you think: 

Confessions of a Romney Wife--published on Slate on August 20, 2012--by Campbell Brown

I never thought I was harboring a dark secret. But if you live in the overlapping world of politics and media, as I am learning, anything less than full transparency can potentially do you in. There are quite a number of us who inhabit this world of mixed marriages and familial ties (mazel tov to the ABC News campaign reporter who just married an aide to President Obama), and we have all struggled at different moments with the question of how much to disclose about our personal ties.

I’m having a moment. My husband, Dan Senor, is an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney (He also worked for Romney in 2008, but since Romney never made it out of the gate, no one cared.) I do not have any involvement in this campaign. After a 15-year career in television news, sometimes spent biting my tongue in the name of objectivity and balance, I retired to raise our two small children. I am now basically a very opinionated mom, enjoying the freedom of being able to fully speak my mind. I have been fortunate that publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have allowed me to share some of my opinions with a wider audience. And since I am writing against the backdrop of this campaign, I have tried (and mostly failed) at getting the disclosure part right.

First, since I am writing opinion and am no longer an objective reporter, different rules apply. It is a bit more challenging for NBC political reporter Chuck Todd, whose wife is a Democratic consultant. It is a bit more challenging for NBC political reporter Chuck Todd, whose wife was a Democratic consultant in Virginia. But he is on TV so much (deservedly so) that if he disclosed this fact every time he opened his mouth, no one else would ever get a word in. My friend and former colleague NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has managed to have one of the most illustrious careers of anyone in TV news while being married to (and well before being married to) former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski’s personal life is a minefield. Her father is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and while one brother is an Obama appointee, the other advises Romney. Mika says she is always being labeled as “in the tank” for President Obama, and she finds transparency to be her savior: “I voted for Obama, and I am the first to say it.”

Fortune magazine's Nina Easton, who is also married to a Romney guy, once began her comments on Fox News with the disclosure, "I'm married to a Romney guy, so take this with a grain of salt". I'm seriously tempted to begin any future op-ed exactly that way.

Here is the truth: To assume that someone’s views are invariably influenced or shaped by his or her partner is lazy. It is an intellectual crutch we grope for when we do not have an effective counter to someone’s argument. In my limited experience writing opinion, smart people have challenged me with a reasoned response pointing out the weaknesses of my argument. The less intellectual partisans say, all full of ire, “She’s married to a Romney guy”.

But here is another truth: You can’t ignore the fact that two married people are most likely together because of some commonality. Given that, it is hardly unreasonable to assume they share some sort of identity and outlook, including, perhaps, a political worldview. The messy reality of our relationship, and I suspect most others, is that we are together on a lot of things and apart on many more. A few we agree not to even talk about. But mostly we challenge each other, learn from each other, and spend the rest of the time talking about the kids. Again, I’m married to a Romney guy, so take this with a grain of salt.

The degree to which my husband and I agree—or influence one another—is really less the issue than the disclosure. Failing to disclose gives your intellectual opponents a means of distraction, a way to create a diversion so that your arguments go unheard. It is an effective strategy. And I was slow to catch on. Here are the mistakes I have made and tried to learn from.

If you are going to criticize President Obama (as I did in the New York Times over his campaign for the women’s vote) then disclosing a Romney relationship is certainly a no-brainer. Where I apparently failed was in putting the disclosure in the middle of the piece, rather than at the top. Outraged readers filled the comments section and my Twitter feed with their disgust that I didn’t share my Romney connection. Clearly this was super  annoying to the people who wanted to dismiss the piece, but didn’t want to actually read it all the way through. Message received.

Another piece for the Times criticized Planned Parenthood for a weak legislative strategy that I felt was putting its federal funding at risk. I support funding for Planned Parenthood. Gov. Romney does not, so I didn’t think my husband’s role on his campaign warranted disclosure. But what followed was another round of attacks on my disclosure lapse, with Planned Parenthood, its supporters and many of my friends demanding to know why I hadn’t stated that I am “married to a Romney guy.” My mistake this time was not recognizing that during campaign season, you are never allowed to criticize those you support lest you give the other side ammunition to use against them. My bad.

Most recently an op-ed I wrote for the Wall Street Journal was critical of New York teachers unions for supporting a policy that makes it very hard to fire teachers who engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with children.In this case, I failed twice. The teachers union immediately pointed to my Romney tie (apparently in their view only a Romney supporter would oppose sexual predators in school?). They then rightly asserted that  my husband serves on the board of StudentsFirst—New York, an education reform group that advocates for charter schools. He receives no money from the organization, yet the teachers unions blasted me for hiding this connection, and falsely accused me of a financial conflict of interest. He receives no money from the organization, yet the teachers unions blasted me for hiding this connection and falsely accused me of a financial conflict of interest. Here I failed to disclose because I stupidly did not connect the teachers’ unions’ opposition to charter schools to their support for a system that protects teachers who engage in sexual misconduct. My sincerest apologies to the teachers unions for not fully appreciating how wrong they are on not one but two issues.

As you may have guessed, I am not feeling very apologetic. These pieces represent my opinion and mine alone. If you want a different answer, ask a different girl. I have, however, gone back and forth on the disclosure question many times with a journalist friend. She believes the only way to go is to overshare, because as long as you are a Romney wife, there are certain people who will always believe that you are somehow doing his bidding. (Thank you, Twitter, for allowing me to engage with those people each and every day.)

So in the interest of full disclosure, let me share a few more potential conflicts (that are mostly with my husband). Hopefully this will satisfy those who believe I am his ideological twin. For the deeply offended, contact info below.

Dan likes the Jets. But we all know that Eli Manning is inimitable. (Jets fans can reach me at @campbell_brown via twitter. Tom Brady fans, you can look up inimitable on dictionary.com).
Dan works in finance. I think the financial industry is EVIL, with the exception of my husband. (Goldman Sachs—see above twitter handle.)

I support Simpson-Bowles. Dan is opposed to tax increases during an economic downturn. But we are working on this one in couples counseling. (Grover Norquist, please call Dan directly. He has some influence with me except when he doesn’t.)

Dan wants to try for a girl. I think two boys are enough. (See couples counseling.)

Dan is obviously voting for Romney. I supported Obama in 2008. This year I am voting for…

Some things we should be able to keep to ourselves.

Feedback? You Bet!

Check this link: here

I heard about this "report" yesterday from a friend on Facebook.  After seeing and hearing just the minute or less that the FoxNews link my friend had posted had up, I wrote an email, using the feedback spot on the NBC site.  Here's what I wrote:

"I cannot believe that MSNBC would allow such a piece to be broadcast.  Mr. O'Donnell has obviously never looked into any background or history of the Mormon church--else if he had, he would have realized that the only piece of truth he had in his "opinion" piece was the name of the church's founder, Joseph Smith.  The rest was complete garbage. I'm shocked and appalled that an otherwise reputable news organization would allow such hated-filled filth to be distributed at their hands.

"If MSNBC has any journalistic honor a retraction will be offered along with a public apology for the lies this man has unleashed, and some censure be issued to Mr. O'Donnell personally for his slanderous and erroneous report.

"Mitt Romney's run for the Republican nomination has not been endorsed by his church's leadership.  He is seeking his political party's endorsement.  He is just another guy running for office.  His faith is a side note. 

"Regardless of the presenter's issues with a potential presidential candidate's faith or standing in the polls, and just because it was presented as an "opinion", should NOT make outright falsehoods agreeable by any news organization worth it's salt.

"Shame on your MSNBC.  And shame on Mr. O'Donnell."

Sadly, the political arena is now free to lie to make their point.  The mainstream media has an obvious bias. The character of any particular candidate is no longer important.  And the whole process is drug-out too excruciatingly long.  Oh, and money does seem to make the world go 'round. 

The whole thing is making me sick.  November's election cannot come soon enough for me.  Attack ads and hate-speech doesn't help me see the advantage to voting for anyone.  Yet, I know I must vote--else my decision is usurped by the seemingly growing majority of liars and slanderers.

Too bad we can't just have a debate--select each party's candidate.  Hold an issues-based debate between the two, and vote already.  That, I'm sorry to say, is only ever going to be a dream.

Take It Easy

Last night was the tree setting-up activity for our family. For seventeen holiday seasons I have collected and amassed ornaments and decorations for our tree. Each year, thus far, the kids have also selected an ornament that represents what they were into that year--with the hopes that someday they will have a little collection of their own to begin their adult lives with for their own tree.

In the process of putting things up last night, The Boy insisted on these bright blue LED lights--which are very pretty, I agree--but they are icicle lights. You know. The kind that hang three or four little lights from the eave of your house, or in a windy place might end up with three or four little lights in your rain gutter. These even have white, very bright white, cord and wires. There is no gentle or subtle blending in here. They are shockingly white wired, bright blue LED icicle lights on my tree.

Then, The Girl insisted that we only use the store bought annual collectible ornaments this year. The quantity while they are still loaded in the crate looks like we have tons of these ornaments, but when they shed their protective boxes and wrappings there are 12 for The boy, 14 for The Girl and Genius Golfer and I each have 17. 12 plus 14 plus 34...so...60 total ornaments. Our fakey tree us large enough for easily three times that many. It looks pretty naked, but for those white lights draped all over it.

Finally, the decision to put the tree in the basement family room was made the democratic way--by a majority vote. Two short people voted for it to go there because they wanted to sit on the couches when they open presents. One guy abstained and I was out numbered. Now the front room is still decorated, but I love driving into the garage and seeing the Christmas tree in the bay window of the front room. Very presentational, and much more formal. I even suggested we could bring the couches upstairs on Christmas day. Still outvoted.

I realize all of this makes no difference as to why we celebrate. And the reality of our tree location and decor is not a major factor in our celebration of the Savior's birth. But these kids sure seem to have strong opinions and no hesitancy in expressing them about family traditions they see as wrong.

What is a mom to do? Give in and take it easy, I was told. I'm working on that.