Obama and Romney NOT THE ONLY ONES running

If you just follow the mainstream media, you might think that the only people running for US president are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

photo from Associated Press

Not the only ones running for US President



However, there are lesser known contenders out there.




There is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/


----

There is the Green Party  candidate Jill Stein











http://www.jillstein.org/


--


There is the Constitutional Party candidate Virgil Goode.



















http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/


---------



The major media outlets ignore them.  They only focus on well-known, well funded candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.


The USA has 300 million people.

There is no way in hell that all 300 million people would be in near-total agreement with either of just 2 politicians!


But that's how the media portrays our nation.


To make matters worse, yesterday's  presidential debate only had Obama and Romney.


All I learned from the debate is both of them like to interrupt the moderator a lot!


And only 2 viewpoints are highlighted in the debate.


John Nichols, a liberal writer, express an extremely good point about opening the debates to more presidential candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170312/these-debates-could-use-some-jill-stein-and-gary-johnson

The United States does not have presidential debates in any realistic sense of the word.

It holds quadrennial joint appearances by major-party candidates who have been schooled in the art of saying little of consequence in the most absurdly aggressive way. And Americans will be served a full helping this evening, as the travesty that the Commission on Presidential Debates foists on the country every four years begins its latest run.

Good starting point, but Nichols is about to make even stronger points that everyone needs to hear..

What would make the debates better?

More candidates.

In most developed nation—from Canada to Britain to France—debates are multi-candidate, multi-party affairs. It is not uncommon for five, six, even seven candidates to take the stage. Those countries do not just survive the clashes, they thrive—with higher levels of political engagement than the United States has seen in decades.

Only the most crudely authoritarian states erect the sort of barriers that the United States maintains to entry into the debates by so-called “minor-party” candidates.

and it gets even better

The fool’s argument against expanding the number of contenders is that debates involving more than the nominees of the two big parties—which, conveniently, control the access to the debates through their joint Commission on Presidential Debates—is that it would somehow confuse the electorate. As if Americans aren’t quite as sharp as the French.

Adding more candidates would not create confusion. It would add clarity
 

.

Imagine if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein joined Obama and Romney for this year’s debates. Instead of having to listen to a pair of adult men trying to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare, we could hear a working physician explain why a “Medicare for All” program would be dramatically more efficient, economical and humane than what either the president or his Republican challenger has proposed.

Imagine if Libertarian Gary Johnson could respond to the predictably empty wrangling about whether America is “broke”—as opposed to suffering from broken budget priorities. Johnson would propose bringing American troops and resources home from policing the world’s trouble spots, a wholly sensible fix that would make the United States safer, richer and a more popular.

Imagine if Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode—who once talked about denying a US House seat to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, because Ellison clutched a Koran rather than a Bible when he was sworn in—opened up a real discussion about the relationship between church and state. Instead of dancing around the issue, as they both do, Obama and Romney would be forced to get specific about how seriously they take the promise of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” They might even call Goode out, sending a message that America needs to hear. from the leaders of both major parties.
 

So what are Obama and  Romney afraid of? Why won't they engage with their lesser known opponents?  Are they nervous that the side effects of their policies will get exposed? Are they afraid it will be harder to pander to certain demographics?  Are they nervous about losing voters?



And what are the major media outlets afraid of?  Are they afraid of new ideas? Are they afraid of not having enough air time (or newspaper space) to cover more than 2 candidates?  Are they afraid of having less time to cover celebrity gossip?



Are the partisan networks (ie. Fox News, MSNBC) afraid of no longer being able to just rely on the "good vs evil" narrative when it comes to Democrats and Republicans




Whatever it is, it is time to spread the word. Let the people know that there is more to this election than Obama and Romney. But more importantly, let the people know that there is more to our politics than just Democrats and Republicans.


-----------

I also wrote a blog post (also published on UH's newspaper Ka Leo O Hawaii) back in 2004 concerning the same issue.

Check it out at

 http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2004/10/back-on-ka-leo-after-so-long-my-stuff.html



Privatize PBS already

At last night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, there was a question over how to reduce the deficit. Each candidate had their own ideas of what to cut out of the federal budget.


Mitt Romney mentioned that he'll cut federal spending on PBS.


OMG, people on facebook went ballistic!


People were acting as if Romney was going to make PBS illegal!

People were acting as if Romney had hatred towards Sesame Street!


HELLO PEOPLE,  all Romney said was that PBS would no longer receive federal funding!

PBS could still receive private donations!


That's how it should be! 

Let's put it this way ---- I  may like hip-hop and rock music. I prefer those musicians get paid by their fans instead of  receiving government subsidies! 

I feel the same way about PBS! 


I have NOTHING against PBS programming! I used to watch Sesame Street, Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Reading Rainbow, Wild America and Caillou. 

But I also think those programs should be 100% privately funded!  


Governments shouldn't be running media outlets. Period. Exclamation Point!

Private organizations should be running media outlets.

I wrote a blog post about NPR (National Public Radio) a few years back. It was related to a controversy regarding one of its former journalists Juan Williams. Towards the end of that blog, I linked and posted quotes from Jeff Jacoby about why NPR (and PBS) should NOT receive government funding!

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2010/12/airport-secuirty-juan-williams.html

After the whole Juan Williams controversy, some right-wing conservatives were demanding the government stop funding NPR and PBS!

NPR and PBS are already mostly privately funded, though it still accepts government subsidises!

I do believe NPR and PBS should be totally privatized, but for a totally different reason from those Conservative Correctness Crowd!

Government shouldn't be owning any TV or radio stations. Government shouldn't be in charge of any journalism organization!

Jeff Jacoby made some following great points on the issue of government funding of NPR!

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby112410.php3

1. They aren't fair. Other radio stations and networks, from Air America to Clear Channel to Univision to Westwood One, must sink or swim in a competitive market. They survive only if listeners and advertisers value what they do. Uncle Sam doesn't keep them afloat with tens of millions of dollars annually in direct and indirect subsidies. If they can operate without corporate welfare, NPR can too.

2. They aren't appropriate. In a free society, especially one with a robust tradition of press freedom, the very idea of government-underwritten media should be anathema. When news organizations depend on largesse from the treasury, there is inevitably a price paid in objectivity, fairness, and journalistic independence.

3. They aren't necessary. NPR's partisans claim that public broadcasting provides valuable news and educational content that listeners can't get anywhere else. That may have been a plausible argument in 1970. It is utterly implausible today, when audio programming of every description can be found amid a vast and dizzying array of outlets: terrestrial and satellite radio, internet broadcasting, podcasts and audio downloads.

4. They aren't affordable. At a time of trillion-dollar federal deficits and a national debt of nearly $14 trillion, NPR's government subsidies cannot possibly be justified. All the more so when public broadcasting attracts a fortune in private funding, from the gifts of innumerable "listeners like you" to the $200 million bequeathed to NPR by the late Joan Kroc in 2003.

AMEN to all that!

education reform - part 2

In my previous post, I mentioned some ideas to improve our education system

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/10/education-reform.html


Now, here's a few more


1) Get rid of seniority preferences


Imagine shopping at a store where those with seniority can say "you look fat in that dress" and still be less likely to be fired than a new hire who provides great customer service!


Well guess what? That is how our public education system operates!


That's right. A rude ineffective teacher who's been around for decades is LESS LIKELY TO BE LAID OFF than a new great teacher that inspires the students.


In fact, that's the union rules!


It's called Last In, First Out or LIFO!

I'm not anti-union per se!   Unions can help with workers who feel that they've been mistreated by their bosses.


But with LIFO, the unions are becoming the new oppressors!


Some say "hey, the older teachers have been in the community for a long time, let's keep them around"


A rude ineffective teacher HURTS the community, especially if he/she been around for decades.


Plus, sometimes people lose it with age.


Sometimes, a teacher who has "lost it" could be better placed in a different position (ie. tutor, security) than a lead teacher.


But more importantly, IT IS CRUEL to get rid of a new effective inspiring teacher just because of seniority issues!


It's time to put LIFO in the garbage



2) Pay math/science teachers more


I just heard President Obama promising to hire more math & science teachers.


Easier said than done.


Those who are talented in math and science can easily get more high-paying positions elsewhere!


Those who are English and history majors have less opportunities than those with math & science majors.


You know what this mean?


We will have to pay math/science teachers more than English/social studies teachers.


Blasphemy?



Look, LeBron James gets paid more than a bench-warming teammate. That's because it is harder to find and replace someone with LeBron's talent. It's easier to replace a bench-warmer. Therefore, LeBron gets paid more.


This is basic economics.



If you're smart enough to be a teacher, than you're smart enough to understand that the schools will have to pay more for certain teachers with certain specialties.


This isn't personal, it is business, even if you're not working for a private business.




3) Conclusion


While those ideas won't solve every problem, I believe they make major improvements to our educational system.

education reform

The Chicago teacher strike came and went, but it won't be the last time teachers, administrators, parents, students and politicians feel like they're being pitted against each other.


Teachers feel like they're being under attack! They are feeling the heat from their students, the parents, the administration, politicians and the general public.


But the general public is angry about the education results. Tons of money being spent, but the students aren't passing the standardized tests.  The students are falling behind their peers in Asia and Europe. And the students in low-income communities are falling even further behind.


This is why there are much louder calls for accountability. There are proposals to evaluate teachers based partly on their student's test scores. After all, many workers in other occupations are evaluated and judged by their results. 


This has got many teachers scared, especially those who work in low-income communities in which many students come from dysfunctional communities and even dysfunctional families.  It is harder to get students up to standards if they're not from education savvy families.


However, this has brought the issue of "soft bigotry of low expectations". After all, don't we want students from the ghetto to graduate with the same level of academic knowledge as students from wealthy suburbs?


As you can see, this is an on-going debate that isn't going to be settled anytime soon.

------

However, certain things can be done.


No, we can't expect every student to be the next Einstein.

But we can and should reduce the number of students who leave the school system unprepared for the 21st century economy.

---

For one thing, teachers should be evaluated partly by their student's test results.



Yeah, I know, teachers don't have full control all the factors leading to test results.

But salespeople are judged by their sales goal, even though certain things that affect their sales score (ie. how many  customers show up, etc) are out of a salesperson's control.

That's just life!



But I would NOT only just evaluate teachers on test scores. Other things, such as how a teacher interacts with students, classroom management, and other things will also be evaluated.

Teachers who are struggling which such things need mentoring. Those seen as hopeless even after mentoring shall be referred to a career counselor to help find the next chapter in life.

--------------------------


However, a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE that needs to be addressed is that the teachers and students need more help.



Expecting a teacher to control a classroom filled with 30+ rowdy students  alone is unrealistic.


Expecting a teacher to effectively teach a  large class filled with students of extremely varied academic levels alone is unrealistic.




That's NOT what happens in many of the private schools I subbed at!



But that is BUSINESS AS USUAL at many public schools I subbed at!



That needs to change!



In classrooms in which many students are disadvantaged, there needs to be more tutors/assistants/etc in the classroom.  This helps with both behavior management AND with academic learning.



Also, the lead teacher need some hired help with paperwork and keep the class items organized. (This is NORMAL at some private schools but UNCOMMON at most public schools).



You can't expect a teacher to do everything expected all by oneself with facing some serious burnout! That's just not realistic!



Sure, having multiple staff members can be an issue if they don't get along. There will be some growing pains.



But if we expect our students to be able to effectively work in teams in their future workplace, then the students need to see a TEAM of staff members helping them INSIDE their classroom.



Will getting this done be easy?


Nothing is easy!


The money to pay for all that is hard to come by.


That should be the goal.


Our local government can stop their pie-in-the-sky rail plans. The governments in mainland cities can stop trying to bribe pro sports teams to come or stay.  The feds could stay playing the global police!


But more importantly, the private sector can help too!


It could be from donations or even starting another private school to ease the burden on public schools.



Will my ideas  solve everything?




No, but it solves some things, and that is what is needed.

Paranoia over Adultery (part 2)

Earlier this year, I had written a blog post titled "Paranoia over Adultery"

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-paranoia-over-adultery.html


It was about PARANOID  spouses who don't want their spouse to have conversations with anyone else of the opposite gender.  Ultra-conservatives think that paranoia helps a relationship. I think that paranoia POISONS a relationship.


Even after I advertised that blog post to my facebook list, a conservative member of that list (who will go un-named, since names aren't an important part of this discussion anyways), wrote the following

In other words...just don't blindly go into a situation, thinking that "I have this under control, my intention is not to cheat on my wife/girlfriend etc." Really think about it! Really fight to guard your marriage even though you have "great intentions" - you and I both know, intentions aren't enough. So many people cheat nowadays and they never "intended to" why? It's not the "big" things but "little" things, that harmless little conversation that didn't look like meant anything, but inside caused you to be more intimate with someone...not all conversation/situation is like that, but you just gotta use wisdom and watch yourself! :)

I responded with

and even if they did hold hands for a few seconds........... that doesn't even mean that would be some earth-shattering long-term affair. It's a manini thing that shouldn't turn into a major deal ........unless you make it out to be!

she responded  with

Well, that's where we differ! To me, an innocent "holding of hands" - isn't really innocent! You might as well have an innocent kiss to go with that, or even an innocent coddling...then you innocently get into bed and that's where the whole issue begins! Well, that's where we differ! To me, an innocent "holding of hands" - isn't really innocent! You might as well have an innocent kiss to go with that, or even an innocent coddling...then you innocently get into bed and that's where the whole issue begins!

--------------

Those situations of "minor interactions leading to an affair"  has more to do with   rap video fantasies and ultra-conservative fear-mongering than real life!

Let's look at something even more "physical" than hand-holding.  Let's look at "freak dancing" at the clubs. 

Anyone with experience at the nightclubs can tell you that the  ...............

  OVER-WHELMING MAJORITY of those "freak dances" are just "one-song stands" ...................

 meaning .....................................................

boy meets girl ...........................
they dance REALLY, REALLY CLOSE ...............................
by the time the song is over (or even before that)  ............
THAT'S IT! ......................
Boy and girl move on, most likely never to see each other again.

After all, most people with nightclub experience will tell you that most people enter AND leave the club with the same group of friends, even if they did dance with strangers while inside.

After all, a dance is usually just a dance, that's it.

This stuff about "freak dancing would automatically lead to sexual intercourse"  is just the fantasy promoted by rap videos and frat boy movies!


But  those entertainment FANTASIES fuel ultra-conservative fear-mongering about extremely minor situations!


This fear-mongering leads to excessively possessive  and controlling behavior by spouses (or soon to be spouses).


Those controlling  spouses are DANGEROUS! They are poison to any relationship! They are poison to your life!


So yes, I encourage you all to continue to have conversations with those of the opposite gender! Continue to engage in minor flirting behavior with the opposite gender!  Continue to laugh while talking with someone of the opposite gender.  Even have a "one-song stand" (or two-songs) on the dance floor!

And if your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever still have a problem with that, well, they need to get some serious psychological help!

Life is too short! Enjoy life and say HELL NO to the insecure control freaks around you!

Quitting is UNDER-rated

All our lives we hear messages like "quitters never win" or "quitting is just the easy way out"


We have catchy songs like "2 Legit 2 Quit" by Hammer
 [personal note: that just happens to be the 1st audio-cassette I bought, back in 5th grade!]


And sometimes, we have moments of doubt, but we keep going, And we are glad that we kept going!


But sometimes, quitting is the best option.

In fact, in many cases, Quitting is UNDER-rated!

I got that phrase from Lenore Skenazy who has written blogs and books criticizing hyper-active parents who over-worry about stuff.

And here are some excerpts from a recent article "Quitters Do Win Sometimes" in which Lenore Skenazy promotes the virtues of quitting!
https://www.care.com/child-care-quitters-do-win-sometimes-p1017-q20633254.html

What is your personal philosophy on quitting?

 I think quitting is underrated. While "quitters never win," neither do kids forced to participate in activities they have very little interest in. Give them some space - and time - and they will probably find something they love and don't want to quit.

Read that paragraph again anti-quitters! Read it again and again! And again and again!

But there's more

Have you ever felt that your kids are doing too much? How do you determine how many and which activities your kids are enrolled in?

I have felt they are doing too much and, at other times, too little. Once I started researching child development for my book, also called Free-Range Kids, I came to realize the value of free time and free play. So I let them drop their music lessons (scandal!) and have some free time between school and homework.

Growing up, how did your parents handle quitting an activity/sport/class?

They let me quit both Sunday school AND piano. And as an adult I went on to write a musical (well, the lyrics). And I went to live in Israel for a year. So either I got something out of those lessons before I quit, or I got something out of them BECAUSE I got to quit before I ended up hating everything they stood for. I actually don't know!

Yep, you do get something positive out of quitting. You learn to not put up with crap! You learn to leave negative situations.


It reminds me of something I read a decade ago, about a domestic violence survivor who spent YEARS in an abusive relationship.  The reason?  She said she grew up hearing the "you shouldn't quit" message!   She applied that message even to abusive relationships! Guess what? She ended up realizing that sometimes, quitting is the best thing you could do!

So yes,  quitting soccer practice  (or violin lessons, or whatevers) when you no longer have the passion for soccer, is GREAT PRACTICE for quitting negative relationships.



More from that interview

Have your children expressed a desire to quit an activity or sport before? What was your response?

Yes - see above. One quit guitar, one quit piano and they both quit the namby-pamby soccer and Little League teams we had enrolled them in as grade schoolers. Today, one still dislikes sports and one now lives for them!

At what point have you or do you feel it's ok to let your kids quit? Explain.

 If they really have no interest, I don't understand why it wouldn't be ok for them to quit a non-essential activity. I would've detested my childhood if I had to keep taking the skating lessons I was bad at. Instead, I spent a lot of time reading and writing. Kids find their own level. We have to believe in them and that they're going to be okay.

There are some who believe that not letting your child quit an activity is a learning experience in and of itself. Do you agree or disagree with this? Why?

 I hate to make blanket statements about how anybody raises his or her kids. All I can say is that the belief that we can CREATE a certain kind of kid by pushing them or not pushing them is a strange one. One of the chapters in my book is, "Relax! Not Every Little Thing You Do Has That Much Impact on Your Child's Development." It's a false feeling of control to think, "If I Do X, my child will turn out exactly the way I want." OR, "If I DON'T do X, my child is ruined forever."

What tips can you give parents of children who are expressing a desire to quit?

 Don't worry that this is the make-or-break decision that will determine who they are, what they like, and what they will become.

What lessons, if any, have your family learned from quitting (or not quitting)?

 Not every activity is for every kid, and that's ok. Also: sometimes an activity that seems uninteresting at one point becomes extremely interesting later on (and vice versa). And decisions aren't forever. My son who quit kiddie soccer now plays it with his middle school friends after school. Unless your child is going pro (VERY UNLIKELY!) there is always time to get back in and enjoy.

Thank you Lenore Skenazy.

These are true words of wisdom.

Meanwhile, last year, I wrote a series of blog posts criticizing Amy Chua, who has the opposite mentality.

She not only believes in "don't quit", she forces music lessons on her kids and proudly admits to verbally abusing her kids for making minor errors, as if playing music instruments is an "essential life skill". IT IS NOT!



Here are my blog posts.

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/03/stuff-amy-chua-doesnt-want-you-to-know.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-amy-chua-is-dangerous-to-asian.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-us-latinos-need-their-own-version.html (this one I criticize the Latino versions of Amy Chua, and to deflect race card abusers who think criticism of Amy Chua is "anti-Asian racism"
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-stuff-amy-chua-doesnt-want-you-to.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2011/04/criticisms-of-amy-chua-continues-its.html


These are aggressive criticisms of Amy Chua, her mentality and her fans!

Unfortunately, most media pundits are politically correct COWARDS who are too scared of the "race card" to give Amy Chua a dose of real, aggressive and factual criticisms. 

  

It's time to spread the message against abusive, fanatical parents like Amy Chua!

It's time to spread the message against abusive, fanatical parents who verbally abuse their kids who make mistakes in sports games. 

It's time to spread the message against abusive, fanatical parents who have unrealistic expectations for their kids!





Kids need to learn to be independent thinkers.  You can't get one with an Amy Chua style of parenting.



Abusive spouses don't want independent thinkers. Pimps don't want independent thinkers. Absuive bosses don't want independent thinkers. Religious fanatics don't want independent thinkers. Dictators don't want independent thinkers!



It's time to stop providing those punks an easy supply of overly-compliant victims.




Be more like Lenore Skenazy and less like Amy Chua!

myself 2 decades ago

What do you tell a bunch of elementary school students that are about to transition to middle school?

Would you sugar-coat it and act as if everything will be OK?

Would you tell them nothing but horror stories as if nothing will be OK?

Or would you just say nothing and let them figure it out themselves?

The reason I am asking these questions is because 20 years ago, I was one of those students transitioning from elementary to middle school.

Time to tell it like it is.


1) Elementary School

The first half of 1992, I was completing my final year in elementary school as a 5th grader at Lanakila Elementary School.

It was my favorite year at that school!

Unlike earlier school years, I didn't have much problems with my classmates.

Even though there was still cliques amongst us, there was still a sense of brotherhood among us.

The guys who used to pick on me were now guys who I got along with.


And still remember when I was sitting in the back of my homeroom, next to Oscar and Jeff. Me and Oscar used to tease Jeff the previous year, but in 5th grade, we were all friends.  We had fun times talking to each other, one of the funnest times in my life!

I also remember winning the school's Geography Bee (though another student came a close 2nd).

I also remembered the cop from as the DARE program, and the field trip to Camp Pupukea.  Fun times.

While the teachers were usually impressed with my academic side, they were irritated by the ridiculous things I would occasionally say in class. 




2) My brother's warnings

I would occasionally tell my older brother some of the silly stuff I would say in school.

My brother warned me straight up, that this would also get me in trouble as I get older.

He told me that the way I acted was "more likely to get people laughing AT me, INSTEAD of laughing with me."

My brother also warned me that I better learn how to fight, because the other students will rather watch a fight instead of stop the fight.

I brushed it off with a "whatevers attitude"

Little did I know how right my brother was.




3) Entering middle school

The second half of 1992, I entered Kawananakoa Middle School!



[side note: middle schools were called "intermediate schools" back then. Around 1997, those schools officially became "middle schools"]



Once you enter middle school, you are in a whole new world.


Sure you might make a few friends (some I still talk to this very day).

But you WILL get some new enemies as well.

I know that from experience.

The stuff that my brother warned me about......... was WAY MORE TRUE than I could ever imagine.

For one thing, I started middle school with same crazy sense of humor, saying inappropriate things as I did back in elementary school. WRONG MOVE!

Little did I understand the same humor that worked in elementary school did NOT work in middle school.  All it did was earn a few enemies.


I might've gotten away with my earlier silliness if I was one of the tough guys.

I wasn't!


After a while, I just learned to shut up in class, especially if you don't have any friends in that class.

Ironically, that got people who just me asking "why are you so quiet?"

But as the quote goes -- "It's better to be quiet and be thought as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."


----

Another reason why I think my brother was right, was that going from elementary to middle school, was that the new students you meet are not used to the way you are.

I mean, back in 5th grade at Lanakila, pretty much everyone was already "used to" the way I was.

But the new ones in middle school weren't.  

And going from one school to another, kids usually tried to test each other, either through physical or verbal intimidation.

Well, I rarely passed their tests!

It was only after I was done with 8th grade and ready to go on to high school, that I got so tired of being "tested" by others, that I finally started to take aikido classes and started weight training.

Well, though it hasn't made me into an MMA champ, those things did build some confidence that I became less intimidated by others. And got "tested" less.

Too bad I didn't take those lessons from my brother to heart much earlier.

----

It is this "testing" that cause some kids to either join a gang, become a "lone wolf" who goes all crazy, or become suicidal.

There was the gangsta element in my community.  But I wasn't into this drinking or weed smoking stuff. And I was too much of an academic to really fit in that crowd.

But I do look back and I'm still amazed that I didn't become that "lone wolf gone crazy".   I guess my optimistic side of me saved my life!


I do put a "brave face" out there, and  I don't really like to talk about my personal problems in social settings. While that makes me a much more enjoyable person to be around, it does give others a mistaken impression that "nothing bad happens to that guy"


Some people are different, they want to talk about their personal dramas in conversations.  Too much of that drives me crazy.

But yeah, I do understand where those folks are coming from.

You can only hold things in for so long.

Which was why I wrote the controversial blog post "Exposed to the Light" http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/03/exposed-to-light.html


There's more stories to tell from my battlefield in middle school (and other phases of life as well)

But this is all I feel like saying now. Stay tuned for future stories.


----------

PS: to answer the earlier questions, yes tell the  kids transitioning from elementary to middle school THE TRUTH!  Share my blog post with them, that might wake a few of them up before it's too late!