New Hampshire Makes it Muddier

I'm listening to Barack Obama concede. It's clear that he's conceding nothing but the New Hampshire Primary... "And when I am president, I will end this war in Iraq and bring our soldiers home..." That's not a concession.

Barack won without winning and lost without knowing it.

He won because Hillary is still on the defensive. Almost winning has only increased his credibility as a challenger. Six or eight weeks ago the Democratic Party was a coronation procession on its way to crown Hillary Queen of America. Today most Americans aren't sure who the Democratic Party's frontrunner is. And I'm not sure myself.

Obama lost because he didn't replicate the young college vote miracle that work for him the Iowa Caucus. I'm sure his campaign people will worry about that...

Because it is a two-way race, Edwards is still in it and makes it a three-way race. But that will change soon unless Edwards a) comes in second, in front of one of the two "frontrunners" again before February 5th and b) wins at least a couple of primaries on February 5th (or before).

Who's not in it anymore? Joe Biden got twice as many votes as Mike Gravel. Since Joe Biden dropped out last week (he's still on the ballot because they were already set), maybe Gravel should reconsider his status. When Dennis Kucinich is 10 times as popular as you are, Senator Gravel, you're probably not popular enough to be President.

The GOP field becomes even muddier after New Hampshire. McCain has new life after winning the New Hampshire Primary. It will be interesting to see how much momentum that gives him going into the next few state, and whose votes he cuts into.

Romney and Huckabee are in a death struggle for the conservative religious vote. Romney has now lost twice in states where he was supposed to win; but he probably won't go away. Huckabee did better than expected in N.H. and is sneaking up on Romney in Michigan (next up, January 15). If Huckabee wins Michigan and South Carolina (January 19 for the GOP), I think Romney is toast. If Romney wins Nevada (far from certain) on January 19, that may take the edge off the defeat; but Romney has to win Michigan or South Carolina to stay alive, I think.

Giuliani finished fourth as was glad for it. He almost came in fifth. It's still three weeks until Florida. Giuliani decided not to compete in the races before Florida. The question is, will anyone remember who he is in three weeks? The economy has replaced terrorism as the leading issue; that's bad for Rudy. If Huckabee doesn't bead Rudy in Florida, McCain will. If McCain doesn't, Romney may. And Ron Paul got new life in New Hampshire by giving Giuliani a run for fourth place.

Does anyone remember when Fred Thompson was considered a shoe in; all he had to do was declare his candidacy? Huckabee, in third, got ten times the votes of Thompson, in sixth. Fred can take comfort in beating Duncan Hunter...

One week until Michigan.

Gravel to Drop Out Soon... (I'm Betting)

I said on Friday that Gravel had dropped out after the Iowa caucus. I was wrong, and Skyler pointed that out in my comments. I predicted at that time that Gravel wouldn't last too much longer. Now news sources in New Hampshire are reporting that Gravel told a group of teens there that marijuana was safer than alcohol.

"Alcohol is a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and I'm sure a lot of you have tripped out on alcohol," Gravel said. "It's a lot safer to do it on marijuana."

I know he favors the legalization of marijuana. He should discuss that with lawmakers and adults, not with teenagers.

I give him a week of political life...

Going to the Auction...

Cheryl and I used to go to the auction almost religiously. It was fun, something we could do together. It was social because there are always gobs of people there. It was a business venture to some small extent because we bought stuff at the auction and sold it on eBay.

There are a couple of auction houses here in Tazewell County, but the one we've enjoyed the most (and spent the most at) by far is Miller Auction in Richlands, Va.

A number of things in the last year have kind of worked together to keep us away from the auction. For awhile Steve Miller reduced his sales to about 1 good auction per month, on the first Saturday of the month. There's been a couple of those first Saturday's where we were simply out of town. There's been a couple where one (or both) of us had to attend a workshop of some kind. And there's been a few where we were just tired and decided not to go.

Last night we went to the auction.

The crowd was probably the biggest we'd ever seen. My guess is that there were six or seven hundred people there. Most of the items for sale were antique furniture pieces from an estate in neighboring Russell County. Proceeds of the sale went to the University of Virginia at Wise (formerly Clich Valley College).

To be honest, there wasn't much there we had a use for or wanted. Maybe if I win the Powerball we'll get a bigger house. Two of our three bedrooms are furnished with things we bought at auction. My computer sits on an oak computer desk we bought at auction. I have a roll top desk, next to it. The oak barrister bookcases in our living room, along with the oak entertainment center, hall tree, and table came from auction houses. The Persian rug in the living room and the walnut buffet in the dining room both case from auctions. There are a few other odds and ends, along with a plethora of books I couldn't resist...

Last night was fun to watch. I would have liked to have the Gunn Furniture Co. barrister bookcase pictured here, but it went for about $750 and I decided I'd wait for a better deal. there were four of five Thomas Kinkade prints, nicely framed. Cheryl considered bidding on them; but, likewise, they went for more than she wanted to pay. We also raised our paddle once on the mahogany stand pictured here, but it went to someone else.



The big item of the night was the Cherry Sideboard pictured here. Steve Miller read a history of the piece before it went on sale:

1800's Cherry Sideboard. Here is The History For This Piece. The Old Courthouse on Rt. 58 was built by Henry Dickenson & used as a courthouse from Sept. 20, 1787 to Sept. 28, 1798. Later, Frank & Mollie Etta Fugate lived in the Old Courthouse on Rt. 58, formerly Dickenson property. The property was sold to the county for restoration by the Fugate's granddaughters who were the daughters of the Virginia Fugate Muse. When the property passed out of the Fugate Family that is when James Lemuel Williams (1837-1919) the Great Grandfather of Bob Hancock bought the great big wild cherry side board from the Fugate Family. James L. Williams left it to his son Javey Williams. Javey Williams gave it to Thelma Meade Hancock (Bob's mother) for nursing him through a long 6 month battle with TB years later. This wild cherry sideboard would have been in the old courthouse sometime between 1798 & 1818 and used by the Fugate Family until it was sold into the Williams Family. Sincerely Lynda Williams Closson (Family Member)

The piece went for $11,500 - the highest price for a single piece in the history of the auction house. Since items come with a 10% buyer's premium and sales tax, I estimate that the actual price the bidder paid was about $13,000. An attorney I know bought the piece. He said he planned to take ti back to Russell County, where it belonged...

The auction started at 5pm. We stayed until about 9:30. The auction probably went until close to midnight. Tuesday night smaller and less expensive items will be on the block at Miller's and Cheryl and I will probably go.

The Stoics

I recently finished the chapter on the Stoics in Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. It was a chore, one of his longer chapters. But I enjoyed it and learned a few things…

I wasn’t aware that Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor portrayed at the beginning of the movie Gladiator as Joaquin Phoenix’s father, persecuted Christians. If you lived through a good liberal arts college education, you probably read Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations.

I wasn’t aware that the Stoics originate in Syria, not Greece. Russell presents the Stoics as something of a bridge between the Eastern philosophy of Asoka’s proselytizing, Buddhist India and European thought.

Most of my life I’ve been involved in Evangelical Protestant Christianity. And over and over I’ve heard teachers in Church suggest that I go back to the Bible and examine my beliefs and try to sort out “Eastern influences” in my Christian thought. So I found this chapter interesting because the Stoics influence early Christianity.

If I say stoic, you probably think of the absence of emotion. Stocks view emotion as destructive and self-control as a virtue. My perspective is that they were half right: self control is a virtue. The stoics were big on virtue; but virtue was internal, introspective. You can’t take it from me because I have it inside of me. Externals, like wealth and power, can detract from virtue (though some of the Stoics, like Seneca, were both wealthy and powerful.

Stoics also believed in determinism – to a greater extent that Greek philosophy had previously embraced that idea. Things are what they are because, well, they’re just bound to be that way.

So a contradiction developed, and it remains in many Western worldviews. On the one hand, things are the way they are because they’re supposed to be that way for some reason. When it’s your time, it’s your time (I don’t believe that). And so on… On the other hand, you should try and do good, make a difference in someone else’s life. The question is, if the life of Bob over there is predetermined to be that way, how does me trying to do good things for him change anything. The answer of the Stoics was, it doesn’t – but it’s virtuous of you to try. That makes virtue a pretty selfish concept.

I see that kind of selfish virtue in Christian circles some time. I see a determinism I don’t believe is Biblical in the mind of the Church. I see confusion about the place of emotions.

I thought the chapter was interesting. Thought provoking. Next I’ll probably read the chapter on the Cynics and the Skeptics (I’m jumping around)…

Biden, Dodd, Gravel Drop Out

The Iowa Caucus cleared up the democratic race a little by reducing the number of candidate. In the wake of poor showings last night, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska all dropped out of the Democratic race.

That narrows the Democratic field to five; the new frontrunner, Barack Obama, former NC Senator John Edwards, and New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton all have reasonable shots at winning the nomination. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich are both still in the race.

On the GOP side the Iowa Caucus seems to have done nothing to narrow the field. Duncan Hunter is counting on Saturday's Wyoming GOP Caucus. At last report Ron Paul was actually leading the opinion polls there and Duncan Hunter had the advantage of not being last there at the moment.

So we are likely to be stuck for with all six GOP candidates until at least February 5 when close to half the states in the US hold primaries. If we get rid of anyone before then, I expect it to be Fred Thompson. All the hype and high expectations surrounding his entrance into the race has meant that he has to start winning soon; if he finishes less than second in South Carolina on January 19, I expect Thompson to bail out...

The biggest question for the GOP is whether there will be an independent in November. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he's not going to run. Do you believe him? In a Washington Post interview last month, Ron Paul wouldn't rule out an independent run. Either candidate would have a Ralph Nadar effect on the GOP, costing them enough votes to ensure a GOP defeat - if that isn't a sure thing already.

Correction: Mike Gravel is still campaigning, as one of my commentors has pointed out. My bad...

Iowa is Over...

Well, almost.

At the moment about 94% of the precincts are reporting and Barack Obama is the clear Democratic winner with 37% of the vote. The Loser? Hillary looks set to come in third, about half a percentage point behind Edwards. In a state that borders Illinois, it's not surprising that Illinois Senator Obama had a small home field advantage. That doesn't account for a seven point victory. Obama clearly benefited from mobilizing new caucus goers. So the question becomes one of how much momentum her gains from this and whether he can keep bringing new participants to the caucus and primary process.

The last I looked, Hillary had a small lead in New Hampshire. And I believe NH is a winner-take-all state, unlike Iowa...

Iowa's Democratic Party uses the caucus process to pick delegates that go on to another caucus to vote on who to send to the nominating conventions. At the moment, CNN reckons that Obama will get 16 delegates sent on to the next level. Hillary will get 15 and Edwards 14, even though Edwards finished ahead of Hillary. Thus are the eccentricities of the system. there are 12 "super-delegates" that are uncommitted; so it's still anybody's guess ow tonight will effect the actual nominating process.

The GOP results seem to only be available through CNN. Even the GOP's Iowa Website doesn't seem to know how the vote is going. (The Iowa Democrats have had a very nice site updating numbers every 30 seconds since shortly after the caucuses started.)

Fred Thompson said that he needed to finish second in this race; he looks set to finish third, with McCain in fourth. But there's still about 15% of the GOP vote out and I'll probably go to bed before the count is complete.

And while the Dems seem to split their delegates, the GOP is closer to a winner-take-all format; Huckabbe, according to CNN, will get 37 of the 40 delegates from Iowa to the GOP nominating convention.

Giuliani is in last place; but considering he didn't really run in Iowa, that's no surprise. Ron Paul, in fifth, is probably the GOP's biggest loser; perhaps the hype about Paul will go away now...

Book Review: Ted McCain's "Teaching for Tomorrow"

My review of Ted McCain's book, teaching for tomorrow, has been moved to Suite101...

My Favorite News Sources

I admit it: I'm addicted to news. I don't know when I first became interested in news. I edited a high school paper and a college paper. I've written for rural weekly papers and worked a beat for a daily for awhile. I enjoy news, and news analysis...

While this list is by no means exhaustive, here are some of the news sources that I visit more or less weekly:

• Yahoo! News - this is more like a portal than a source. Yahoo provides links to wire service information and major newspapers, organized topically and searchable. If you want to read about politics, there's a page on politics. If you want to read about Asia, there's a page on Asia. If you want to read about science news, there's a page. You get the idea. Search by a person's name and you get a list of news articles about the person. I visit this site daily...
  
  
• USA Today - I browse the paper once or twice a week.
  
• The Washington Post - a good source for politics and for world news.
  
• National Public Radio - A unique perspective on national and international news. NPR has the advantage of allowing me to listen to news on the drive to and from work, time that might otherwise be wasted...
  
• The Bluefield Daily Telegraph - I wrote for them, long ago. This is the closest thing we have to a daily paper for Tazewell County. Their coverage is focused more on West Virginia, but we get their crumbs, as coverage goes.
  
• The Charleston Gazette - since I work in West Virginia...
  
• The Richmond Times-Dispatch - a good source of Virginia news.
  

Having spent a third or so of my adult life outside the Continental US, I like to read a few international papers, as well...

• The Sydney Morning Herald - good international news, and after four years in Oz I enjoy some of the local news there.
  
• The Bangkok Post - Writing about Asia for About Dot Com for a decade, I came to like this paper.
  
• The Manila Times
  
• the Times of London
  
• The Times of India

Friends in Finland...

I've been to Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Edisto Beach, the Federated States of Micronesia, France, Germany, Gormania, Guam, Hawaii, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kapingamarangi, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Majuro, Myanmar (maybe, hard to tell), Myrtle Beach, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, The Northern Mariana Islands, Orchard Road, Pawleys Island, the Philippines, Pigeon Forge, Puerto Rico, Boat Quay in Singapore, Rattanakosin (Old Bangkok), Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Texas, Thailand, Union Grove in North Carolina, the Virgin Islands, Wagga Wagga, Yellowstone, and several zoos. But not to Finland...

I have friends in Finland. When I lived in Canberra, Australia, the city there had a small but vibrant community of Finns. Youth With A Mission (whom I worked for there) had a steady flow of Finnish students coming through its training programs. I've lost touch now with all of them. But occasionally I see their faces in my mind and think about our old friendships.

One family in particular used to invite me to their home in Canberra.
They had a sauna they'd built themselves. (They pronounced that word as "SAU-nah," and the "sau" rhymed with "cow.") I could sit in the sauna with them. It would climb into the 80's, which is about 175F degrees. I could stand that; it was almost pleasant. But then one of them would throw a thimble or so or water on the hot rocks and steam would fill the room. I would have to exit the sauna. I could hear them chuckle as I went through the door.

I also remember drinking small quantities of a marvelous liquid with them. It was clear and tasted like berries - berries that were on fire. And if you drank enough of it the liquid made you want to sing. Can't remember what they called it, though.

I had the pleasure of doing a small amount of language work with one Finnish man for one of my linguistic classes at the ANU. Finnish is a beautiful and intriguing language, from what I remember.

Maybe one day I'll get to visit Finland...

Response to Intervention - A New Model for Identifying Disabilities

Note: Visit my education blog, The Green Cup.

When the regulations for IDEA 2004 became official not long ago, a new model came to town for identifying students as having a specific learning disability. It's called response to intervention, and is abbreviated as RTI or RtI.

To understand RtI and its implications fully you need to understand the previous model for deciding whether or not a child had a learning disability. That model, called the discrepancy model, compares IQ (on something like the WISC-IV) and achievement (usually measured with something like the WIAT) and examines the difference. The idea until now has been that if a child has the intelligence to learn at a particular level but isn't, that discrepancy between intelligence and achievement is evidence of a disability.

The problem was that it takes time, years in fact, for a discrepancy to become significant enough to be considered as a disability. In first grade there's not much to measure. And in second grade there's still not usually a big enough difference between intelligence and achievement to make the discrepancy model work.

When a teacher first suspects that a child may have a learning disability in the first or second grade, everyone felt trapped under the old discrepancy model. The child may well have had a disability, but we needed evidence of the disability in order to place the child in special education. So instead of getting help then, the child got watched more closely. It was kind of like having a rule that you can't throw a life preserver to a kid in the pool until their head goes under the third time. This year the child is just behind, next year the child will have a disability...

In contrast to the old discrepancy model, the RtI model begins looking for curricular intervention designed to catch the kid up as soon as they begin having problems - back in first or second grade. RtI has the potential then to allow disabilities to be identified and defined based on the response a child has to the interventions that are tried. At the very least, RtI can replace the pre-referal process for special education. And in theory, children with real disabilities could be identified and placed years earlier and children without disabilities won't be allowed to fall further and further behind simply to see if they have a learning disability.

The Reading First people have fleshed out the concept of RtI so that most educators today think of a detailed set of specifications when someone mentions RtI. Dallas Reading First has a website that describes the process of intervention well:

• Students get taught good stuff in a setting known as Tier I. This is the primary (or "core") instructional setting for all students.
  
• Sometimes a particular student needs more. So instruction gets supplemented with an "intervention." This is called Tier II. Students come and go in Tier II instruction for short periods of time to address specific areas where the student is falling behind or failing to "get it." Tier II usually involves 30 minutes of extra instruction a day in the content area of intervention. Usually there are no more than four or five students in a Tier II intervention session.
  
• When a student doesn't seem to benefit from 30 extra minutes in Tier II they get moved on up the intervention chart and start getting an extra hour a day (usually) at Tier III. Tier III interventions tend to be more individualized and involve one-on-one time with a specialist.

The Dallas Reading First site describes an intervention plan specifically for reading. And RtI is almost always thought of as a response to reading problems at the moment; but there is no reason the model couldn't be adapted to math or other content areas.

The Dallas Reading First website illustrates almost exactly what former International Reading Association President Richard L. Allington complained about in his article Research and the Three Tier Model in April of 2006. Students in Tier II in Dallas don't get help with what they did during Tier I instruction; instead they get more and different material on reading: they didn't understand McGraw-Hill so they get time in Voyager. But as Allington points out, that's not really a problem with the three tier model itself as much as with the manner in which the model is used.

Will RtI work? I suppose the more salient question becomes who will the RtI model work for? Will it work for the people who think it takes too long under the discrepancy model to identify a child who has a learning disability? Will it work for county administrators and other groups who sometimes feel that too many children are identified as having learning disabilities? And will it work for kids who don't really have a disability but do need help?

I'll take a look at some of the pros and cons of the RtI model in the near future...