A Belated “Thank You” (In Jest?)

This is meant to be a belated (facetious) “thank you” to the overwhelming numbers of Independents and Seniors who helped elect the substantial number of Republican/Conservative/Tea Party candidates to the House and the Senate.  You have enabled us to “take back” our failing government and to set this country on its proper course toward smaller and less interventionist government.  And, to think it was so easy to do (especially with all that money that flowed into the Party’s coffers, and that “soft” (often outsider) money that ended up in districts where we needed a bit of help defeating those nasty Democrats).

You have become, perhaps unwittingly, part of a Master Plan to revolutionize this country’s government, and more especially its economy.  This Master Plan has been worked on for years now, going all the way back to that American hero, Ronald Reagan.  It was tested in several countries before being unleashed here with a vengeance during George W’s wonderful tenure.  Some of those countries were in South America, others in the Middle East, and still others in Africa, but perhaps most determinately, in Iraq.

One of the basic requirements for realizing this Master Plan is some sort of shock to a country’s operating systems, through which people’s fears can be exploited.  In this country, some shocks that could qualify would be: 9/11; Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Hurricane Katrina; the BP oil spill; attempted terrorist attacks like the Christmas bomber.  All of these probably had some effect upon your vote because all have been exploited, not necessarily to get you to vote one way or another, but to raise your fears about government intervention, and government inadequacy, and to help the economy along at the same time by building up large businesses and consulting firms around each of these events and their aftermath.

By now you might be asking: what is this Master Plan?  Good question; it deserves an answer. That answer goes all the way back to the New Deal under FDR’s administration, in the sense that this Master Plan is essentially a counter-revolution to all that comprised the New Deal, especially government control of the economy, the restrictions placed on corporations, and the re-distribution of wealth  through corporate taxes and workers’ salaries.  What was needed was a return to a pre-New Deal form of capitalism even less regulated than before the Depression.  The single-minded message was that with the New Deal everything went wrong; the country got off on the wrong track.  To get back what had been lost, a book titled Capitalism and Freedom became the global free-market rulebook, and would eventually form the economic agenda for the neo-conservative movement so evident in the Reagan and Bush years.

The book, by Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago’s Economics Department, laid out a Master Plan for that needed return to economic (capitalistic) freedom.  It is well-summarized in the book, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein:

“First, governments must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of the accumulation of profits.  Second, they should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit.  And third,  they should dramatically cut back funding of social programs.  Within the three-part formula of deregulation, privatization and cutbacks, Friedman had plenty of specifics.  Taxes, when they must exist, should be low, and rich and poor should be taxed at the same flat rate.  Corporations should be free to sell their products anywhere in the world, , and governments should make no effort to protect local industries or local ownership.  All prices, including the price of labor, should be determined by the market.  There should be no minimum wage.  For privatization, Friedman offered up health care, the post office, education, retirement pensions, even national parks…. Friedman’s vision coincided precisely with the interests of large multinationals, which by nature hunger for vast new unregulated markets…. Friedman’s war on the “welfare state” and ‘big government” held out the promise of a new font of rapid riches-- only this time, rather than conquering new territory, the state itself would be the new frontier, its public services and assets auctioned off for far less than they were worth.”

If any of this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because this is exactly the Plan that holds sway amongst the newly elected conservative Republicans and Tea Party congresspersons to “take back” our government and to enrich the economic standing of our multinational corporations.  And, dear Independent and Senior Citizen, YOU helped make it happen by your votes.  Thanks again.
And by the way, your votes have done something that is precedent-setting for these United States: not only are the multinational corporations a virtual fourth branch of government (as the New York Times asserted), but they are now the government itself, represented by the majority of millionaires in the legislative branch and the  Supreme Court (the Executive branch has been run by millionaires for decades); the Court that recently gave the corporations carte blanch in terms of funding our elections.  Not only that, but the facile transfer of billions more of taxpayer money into the hands of the large corporations, and large “consulting firms,” through lucrative non-competitive contracts with few if any restrictions, is now assured.

Thus, the diversionary propaganda of WMD in Iraq, of socialism in the Executive branch, of government takeover of health care, of  tax increases if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, of the harm to small businesses if the tax cuts are not made permanent, of the transfer of taxpayer money to the welfare state are all a part of the bamboozling of the electorate to draw attention away from what is actually happening: the control of government by the rich, the enriching of multinationals, the contracting of government services to the very men and women who are actually running the government (or were recently in power).
 
Independents and Seniors: YOU have helped all this to happen, and we cannot thank you enough.  Who would have thought that it would be this easy to enact our Master Plan and to take control of the very entity that will enhance and protect our profits.  Thanks to you the New Deal and the welfare state are on their last legs.  We will not let you down; our goal is clear.

WE ARE NOW A “PLUTOCRACY”

YOU DON’T GET IT, if you don’t realize that our Federal Government can no longer be fairly characterized as a “representative democracy”.  After this last election, we now have what can only be characterized as a “Plutocracy“: control of government by the wealthy.  The Presidency has long been controlled by millionaires, the Supreme Court is made up mostly of millionaires and now our Legislative branch is in the hands of the wealthy; they have seized legislative power.  Probably over 50% of the new 112th Congress will be millionaires (counting all their assets, not just what they must disclose), members of  the 1% in this country who can claim that distinction.  Everything the new Congress does will be based to a significant degree on that fact.

And YOU thought you were voting for change?  That’s exactly what you’ll get: the small CHANGE that’s left over after they take their cut!  The first act of the new Congress will be to try to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on a permanent basis; the second act will be to take away what little the middle class can count on by cutting discretionary programs, including the new health care reform benefits; the third act will be an attempt to privatize Social Security and Medicare; the final act will be to get rid of all regulations that restrict or control large corporations, and you will again be the fall guy who pays for their excesses. 

In this last election,large percentages of Independents and Seniors helped make this situation happen by voting against their own best interests.  Now, we can all sit back and watch our resources slowly dwindle as the Plutocrats funnel government tax cuts, incentives and contracts to their wealthy partners.  At the same time, we’ll be left to enjoy inflation, stagnation, and health care denigration as our own assets become the fodder for the Plutocratic “revolution”.  The old depression era slogan may become ours again: “Brother, can you spare a dime?”

And to think Independents and Seniors largely voted for these Plutocrats because you thought they would “reform” our government by taking it back for “US”.  How wrong can you be?  They took it back all right, but not for the 98% of us who are below - way below in most cases - the income level of $250,000 per year.  As you pay your taxes this year, think about numerous large houses of gigantic proportions, of luxury cars, of yachts, of lavish parties, of trips abroad, of luxurious clothes and sparkling diamonds, housekeepers and gardeners and much, much more.  Not yours -- theirs!  You will be sending your tax dollars to the care of these Plutocrats who will surely spend it in the pursuit of all these accoutrements.  (Oh sure, there are some who are relatively good public servants touting their concern for the middle classes, but why do we still have homelessness, poverty, inadequate care for returning soldiers, inadequate public schools, home foreclosures, high unemployment, health care costs that bankrupt many, right along with the highest profits and largest bonuses for the big corporations, insurance companies, wall street brokers?  Because those “good” public servants still know on which side their bread is buttered!). 

Finally, don’t be misled by the (largely) Republican cover story that the tax cuts for the 2% should be made permanent because this number includes small business owners and job creators!  As Pearlstein of the Washington Post put it:  “This is simply hogwash, as a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded.  For starters, the job-creating prowess of small business is largely a political myth - particularly so in the recent downturn in which small businesses have accounted for a disproportionate share of the job losses.  More significantly, any firm that has taxable profits of over $1 million is unlikely to be a struggling small business so starved for cash that a modest increase in tax rates would prevent or discourage it from hiring a profit-producing new employee.”  And the same goes for the “job creators” -- the millionaires who run larger firms: they are not going to resist hiring and job creation if it adds to their bottom line!  Besides, a substantial number of the 1% of millionaires and billionaires are no longer in the job-creating sector: they make their millions through investments (like Warren Buffett0. 

So, stop being bamboozled by rhetoric.  The wealthy are in charge.  The voters put them there and now will have to pay for their own voter folly!  Our government has been taken back; BUT not by the average citizen.  It is now totally in the hands of millionaires - Plutocrats - who have little in-depth regard for the needs of the vast 98% of us.  Old Ben Franklin must be spinning in his grave: he thought we could have a representative democracy of shopkeepers and farmers and printers, and artisans and deep thinkers.  Because of our lack of vigilance, and our reluctance to change the current election system, we have created a plutocratic monster that no longer resembles Ben’s dream.  Pray to God we haven’t lost it forever!

One Man’s Initial Attempt to Define the Purpose of Public Education

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?”  We have also mentioned the necessity of emphasis on teaching and learning as two critical parts of educating.  In addition, we have mentioned the importance of the involvement of more citizens in this process, with schools becoming centers of lifelong dynamic learning.  Without further ado, let me introduce what could, at the very least, be a basis for discussion of a general Purpose for our public education system:

“To involve an entire community of learners (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, art, technology); at the same time drawing out experiential learnings  and discovering talents, concepts, beliefs, values and facts (some that may have been lost, concealed, suppressed or forgotten) in order to produce responsible and accomplished individuals, informed citizens, critical and independent thinkers, lifetime learners, cultural literates, world-class workers and competitors,  and compassionate human beings willing to advocate for the welfare of the human family.”

If we had such a common Purpose for all public education, what could we reasonably propose as strategies for accomplishing such a purpose?

First:  we would have to hope that States and local school boards would be encouraged to set goals and strategies based on such a Purpose for their local systems, according to what each could reasonably accomplish, and fund!
Second: it would make sense to emphasize the community nature of teaching/learning by involving each teacher-learner in the development of an Individual Education Plan (with input from fellow teacher-learners) that would serve as the basis for a commitment to lifelong learning and discovery.
Third:  work on development of public and chartered specialized centers of teaching/learning that will provide a wide variety of school choice for students and parents; in fact, student-learners might even attend different schools for specified periods of time, depending on his or her individual goals and needs;
Fourth:   develop teaching and learning centers that will be beehives of citizen activity for the community, involving parents, mentors, volunteers and community “teachers” who will provide actual examples of experience, skill and talent as “experience teachers”;
Fifth:   bring teacher-learners to the community and the community to the teacher-learners so that all persons involved will become concerned citizens.  This must be expanded to on-the-job training, internships; learning about work places; plus having workers and executives involved in sharing expertise and personal experience with the teacher-learners.
Sixth:  involve “students” in teaching other teacher-learners;  everyone must be seen as having something to offer others; this is where self-esteem is built.  We all have a stake in teaching and learning; “dropping out” of school must be seen as a loss not only to the individual, but to all of society, particularly to the teaching/learning community. 

What would a new teaching/learning paradigm class look like?
First: it might be in a schoolroom, but just as likely in a community setting like a museum, business, religious center, library, college, park, conference center, all depending on the learning that is being sought.
Second: there will be ergonomic furniture that is adaptable to various configurations, depending on the mode of teaching or learning that is involved;
Third: there will be more people in the room than just students and teachers: mentors, tutors, aides, learning supervisors, parents, and guests might be interacting with each other and with students
Fourth:  lecturing or Socratic questioning will be used only when either can contribute to learning; methods of imparting knowledge or drawing out learnings will vary, and the lead facilitator (formerly known as “teacher”)  will bear responsibility for developing a team methodology and input that will lead to group as well as individual learning based on IEPs.
Fifth:  learning will be a mutual endeavor:  all will be teachers and all will be learners; therefore communications between others in the room will reflect this mutual endeavor: it may be noisy (requiring sound-deadening material in walls and ceilings).
Sixth: there may be diverse stations or learning kiosks throughout the room, so that research and teamwork, and special projects may be done in a particular space; some learners may be out of the classroom in other areas (library, media room, computer room, etc), and, in order to build personal responsibility and integrity, there will be no passes needed; however, there will be a responsibility to the classroom community to sign-out or sign-in just to learn to use time responsibly and to determine where people are in case they are needed.  But let’s get rid of forced dependence and conformity; we need responsible independence and inner integrity to dictate actions.
Seven:  testing and grading are always difficult concepts to change, but change they must.  In a teaching/learning community, testing must be based on IEPs, not on a standard set by someone outside the teacher-learner.  Grading must be a community exercise: teacher-learners must grade themselves based on their own IEP and their own goals; then the community teacher-learners need to give their input based on how they see the progress being made.  IEPs then need to be adjusted to reflect whatever changes, advances, goals and challenges are needed.
Eighth:  bullying from anyone toward anyone else cannot be tolerated; it is a destructive denial of the importance and uniqueness of each member of the teaching/learning community;   
Ninth: in case it is still unrecognized from all of this, let me emphasize that such a Purpose changes almost everything; especially current ways of doing education because it calls for new attitudes and questioning of established ideas and concepts.  Indeed, I can’t even begin to list all of the changes that might potentially happen if such a Purpose were to be adopted nation-wide!

Searching for an Educational Purpose Statement

 

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?” A similar concern is expressed by Walt Kelly who wrote  “Common Sense, A New Conversation About Public Education” to focus public attention on what he believed to be a crisis in our society:

“Is the operating purpose of public education today still a workable premise?  We are caught in a flurry of tactics and never question the premise.  What is the purpose of public education today?  Almost all of the education reforms that the experts propose have some merit.  Yet our public education is still failing our children and our society because today’s purpose of public education is outdated.
The educational model of today evolved with the Industrial Revolution and was designed to produce a new kind of worker: patriotic, civic minded, and obedient to authority.  It is demonstrably not working.  What’s more, it cannot work again in the future.  The entire context for learning is radically different than it was in the 1830’s when our current purpose for public education was born.  We cannot solve this crisis with remedial actions based upon our old map of reality.  We must develop a new and national purpose of public education…that would again produce schools that offer hope and opportunity to their children and communities.”

What follows is one man’s attempt to find the elements that might inform such a Purpose.

From an article titled “School: the story of Public Education in America” on PBS.org, we find a beginning statement of some goals that have been held over time for public education:

To prepare children for citizenship
To cultivate a skilled workforce
To teach cultural literacy
To prepare students for college
To help students become critical thinkers
To help students compete in a global marketplace

In my humble opinion, these various goals make an assumption which may be part of the problem with public education:  all of them assume that students can only be taught.  There seems to be no part for the student to take in his/her own education or learning.  That, it seems to me, is a problem; a problem that needs to be addressed as part of any purpose for public education.  A student writer expressed it this way:
“The heart of the problem is something much more fundamental – that is, the roles of students and teachers. The common belief seems to be that schools should be like a factory. The teachers are the workers, and the students are the products. Ideally students are supposed to sit down, shut up, and absorb whatever the teacher pours into their heads. The idea is to produce as many contributing members of society as possible – a noble goal, but a horrendously misguided approach.
Why not create a system where students are partners with teachers in their own education? Where they are not supervised at all times? Where they can have some measure of control over their own education, and the responsibility that comes along with it?  Many students today correctly view education as something that is forced upon them, which is why so many react poorly to it. Were students truly given a stake in their own education, I believe that they would rise to the occasion.
I know firsthand that students are capable of so much more than school expects of us, yet many of us are not capable of what they do expect of us – unquestioning obedience, dependent thinking, and conformity. If we are ever to see any improvements in education, the bar must be set higher, for both student and teacher alike.”

Dictionary definitions of “education” concentrate on a similar process of imparting something: 1)  the process of training and developing the knowledge, mind, character, etc., especially by formal schooling; teaching; training; 2)  knowledge, ability, etc., thus developed; 3)  a) formal schooling at an institution of learning b) a stage of this (a high school education)  4) systematic study of the methods and theories of teaching and learning.  The basis of the word educate is ‘educare’ from the Latin to bring up, rear or train; but ‘educere’ from the Latin also means to lead or draw out or bring out. So apparently there is another process involved in education which is the drawing out or bringing forth of something.  Another definition of educate is to form and develop (one’s taste, etc.).  Possibly, there is more than one process involved in education: teaching or training, and drawing out.

Perhaps, we need to look beyond “education” to the word “learn” or “learning.” One definition is “to get knowledge” by study, experience, instruction, etc.  Another is to come to know (to learn what happened).  For synonyms, the word “ascertain” implies a finding out with certainty or careful inquiry; experimentation; research, etc.; “determine” stresses the intent to establish facts exactly to resolve doubt;  “discovery” implies a finding out by chance, exploration, etc. of something already existing; “unearth” implies a bringing to light of something, by diligent search, that has been concealed, lost, or forgotten.

Have we, in some sense, been bamboozled by the forces in favor of educating children only by “teaching” “instructing” “training” because anything else is too “messy”?  Have we given in to the forces of order, discipline, obedience, conformity and dependence, thereby avoiding the issues involved in also emphasizing self-discipline, constructive criticism and questioning,  non-conformity and independence; in other words, avoiding a balance in our educational system between teaching and learning?  I firmly believe that to be the case.

Thus, in my opinion, we must offer some additions to the purpose listing from PBS, above.

-To encourage, nurture and enhance the natural talents, skills and dispositions of all learners
-To provide the atmosphere in which students can develop their own educational aims and goals with input from internal and external resources
-To develop a milieu in which all in public educators (administrators, teachers and students) are considered learners for a lifetime
-To provide a spectrum of educational choices to every learner so that “schooling” will meet their individual aims and goals

Adding these to the PBS list, we have what amounts to a multi-purpose statement.  On the one hand, we must teach (input, instill, inculcate, etc) the basic building-blocks of our heritage: math, language arts, history, civics, etc. so that our young people can be given the knowledge they need to do all those necessary things for themselves and their country:  prepare for a good job, be a good citizen, become critical thinkers, be able to compete in a global workplace, become culturally literate.  On the other hand, we must learn how to learn and how to make learning the basis for a new paradigm:  drawing out talents and skills, research, experimentation, chance, discovery, lifetime learning, and full participation must all be part of our national education purpose.

Then the question becomes:  Can we do all of this?  And, the answer is: not under the current circumstances; not with the current mindset; not with the current funding formulas; not with the current buildings; not with the current 19th  & 20th century models, methods and materials. And yet, all of those are the obstacles that we keep funding and keep touting and keep tweaking! 

So, with all that in mind, what can we do to bring about a new purpose, a new paradigm, for our public education system?  In our next blog, we will try to define such a purpose with some ideas as to how to  implement that purpose.

TIME TO TALK EDUCATION

With the media beginning to hold forums, and with the Obama administration’s attention to a reform movement called “Race to the Top”, it’s time to turn our attention to one of the most critical public issues that we as a democratic society must face squarely with all the vigor and thoughtful debate that we can muster.  I speak, of course, of an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as informed citizens of a democratic republic: public education.

But we need to start much further back than many politicians or proponents of change and reform seem willing to go.  In my humble opinion, the question of education reform should NOT start with whether the legislation that goes by the laughable nickname of “No Child Left Behind” needs to be amended or discarded, or kept intact.  We need to get much more basic about this particular reform movement. 

We are in deep trouble as to our standing in the education arena.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked as follows in 2003 in several areas of education:

The U.S. ranks 18th in reading
Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.

The U.S. ranks 6th in college students aged 20-24 
Slovenia ranks first, with 46.1% of all 20 to 24 year old residents enrolled in college.

The U.S. ranks 28th in three year old students
Belgium ranks first, with 99.6% of all three year old children enrolled in school.

The U.S. ranks 4th in money spent per student on secondary education
Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.

The U.S. ranks 8th in expenditure on education
Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.

The U.S. ranks 12th in college faculty to student ratio
Sweden ranks first, with 114.2 teaching staff for every 1,000 college students.

CBS News had some interesting comments on these rankings:

“(AP) The United States is losing ground in education, as peers across the globe zoom by with bigger gains in student achievement and school graduations, a study shows.
Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree.
By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago, said Barry McGaw, director of education for the Paris-based Organization for Cooperation  and Development,  said that the United States remains atop the ‘knowledge economy,’ one that uses information to produce economic benefits. But, he said, ‘education's contribution to that economy is weakening, and you ought to be worrying.’
The report bases its conclusions about achievement mainly on international test scores, and top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.
Given what the United States spends on education, its relatively low student achievement through high school shows its school system is ‘clearly inefficient,’ McGaw said.
In all levels of education, the United States spends $11,152 per student. That's the second highest amount, behind the $11,334 spent by Switzerland.
The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,‘ McGaw said.
‘But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions — and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough’.”

John Stoessel of ABC News gave us this more recent assessment in January, 2006:

“A recent Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.  Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, ‘They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that.’
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, ‘We need to spend more money on our schools,’ there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of ‘Education Myths,’ points out that ‘If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.’
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey. We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them ‘stupid.’

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, ‘I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.’
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said,  ‘Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom‘.”

It is not an exaggeration to say, then, that the news about our education system is not good, and is getting worse.  To throw more money at the problems – and call that “reform” - without a thorough analysis and debate would be in some sense a criminal act.

So, where do we begin?  In my opinion, we must decide what the national PURPOSE of public education is in our Country.  I challenge you to try to find any such statement that exists as an overarching statement at this moment.  There is a purpose statement for the Department of Education, but that’s different.  To what end do we have public education?  Why have public education at all?  What reason or reasons are behind our immense system of education in this country?  How can we know what our system requires if we don’t even know why we have it in the first place?

It would help to know what other countries say as to the purpose of their educational systems, especially in those countries that lead in certain categories of comparison.  We also need to hold regional conferences all over this country to give ordinary citizens, teachers, pupils, parents, administrators, etc., an opportunity to develop PURPOSE statements that might be used to feed into a national (White House?) conference which could perhaps develop a national Statement of Purpose, a Mission Statement, plus a set of goals and objectives that could lead us to a real reform of the current system.

Yes, this would take time -- a fair amount of time -- but it’s been done before, particularly as preparation for the White House Conference on Aging held in 1981, and it worked!  Yes, it took a better part of a year to hold all the regional Conferences, but the results were solid, and produced some important recommendations and subsequent legislative enactments that are still benefiting senior citizens. 

We have a choice: keep going along as we are (holding to the status quo in education); throwing money down a dark hole, not knowing for what reason or purpose we are spending that money, and all the time losing the global race to have the best educated citizenry;
OR: we can act deliberatively and deliberately to bring about real reform by deciding, first of all, why we have public education; what it’s outcomes are meant to be; what goals we need to set; what objectives and actions we need to fund to accomplish our educational Purpose and our Mission, and to meet the goals that have been set.

ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH TO FORGET WHAT’S IMPORTANT?

Apparently, there is a lot of anger abounding out there.

*  Some are angry about unemployment
*  Some are angry about housing foreclosures
*  Some are angry about government size
*  Some are angry about deficit spending
*  Some are angry about illegal immigration
*  Some are angry about government intervention
*  Many are angry about political party dithering
*  Many are angry about the failures of institutions - both public and private
*  Many are angry at Wall Street and BP
*  Many are angry about government’s inability to solve societal problems and needs:  jobs, poverty, better education, dependence on oil, climate change, etc.

There is nothing wrong with anger in itself.  It is a valid emotion.  What really matters is how we use our anger.  Anger can be the path to destruction, or a stimulus to newness, or something that ends up creating immobilization and inability to act.

Just how angry are you?  Angry enough to jettison all reason, to do something stupid just to make a point, or to get back at the “powers that be”, or to “throw the bums out.”   It’s time to address this question because soon it will be time for elections, and elections are a mechanism for expressing opinions, and needs, and desires.  However, just expressing anger through one’s vote is probably not very useful.  Think about it. 

For instance, are you angry enough to throw out all incumbents?  The real question is: what do you get in their place?  Unfortunately, you immediately get another incumbent!  Someone who may be more power-hungry, greedy, and unresponsive than the last “incumbent”. To vote against someone is not as responsible as voting for someone who demonstrates an ability to make a difference in your life and the life of your community.  We must, above all, take the measure of the abilities of each candidate, and not simply be led to vote for anyone out of anger - yours or theirs.  We must question their views and not just accept slogans and “talking points” and negative campaign techniques.  What does each candidate offer in depth toward the solutions to the problems that affect you the most?  Voting for what you think they might do once in office cannot substitute for making them indicate clearly what they want to do, expect to do, and know that they can do. 

Are you angry enough to vote simply to throw out a particular Party in order to balance and check the power of another party? It rarely works, but often leads to worse inaction and gridlock.  One of the things you must know in order to vote responsibly is to what principles are candidates committed because of their Party affiliation?!!  Why?  Because once in office, those same candidates who ran “against Washington” or “against Albany” or “against the establishment”, are going to become an integral part of that establishment, and their Party leaders will not only be expecting them to adhere to party ideology and principles, but to vote the Party line more often than not. 

The concept of the political “maverick” is pretty much a myth.  John McCain is proving it right now, Scott Brown is not doing much better, and the newly elected Governor of Virginia already has his problems because he expressed some negative aspects of his party’s views.   Politicians have declared their “independence” at times, but remain “team players” even though they may not always vote with their Party.   Watch out when you vote for Party mavericks or independents-- you will get outcomes that you didn’t expect because they will mainly uphold their Party’s principles once in office.  Therefore, be sure of the “brand” for which you are voting:  will they pretty much support Wall Street and breaks for Big Business, or for the Middle class and Labor Union issues?  Will they be supporting privatization of government programs, or programs under government control and administration?  Will they support tax cuts for the richest members of society, or targeted tax cuts and incentives for the middle class?  Will they favor private entities to solve societal problems like poverty or need for jobs, or will they favor government programs to do that?  Will they support war as a major way of solving problems with other nations, or support other less bellicose means like negotiations and alliances?  Check the “brand” carefully before voting. 

And finally, be careful to know who is supporting each candidate.  Where is their financing coming from?  To whom are they beholden?  Who wants their ear for their own ends and not yours?  Who has supported their third party ads?  These are sometimes the most telling questions because the answers are very revealing as to what they will do as office-holders, and whose “agenda” they will support once in office.  Campaign financing is often the “dirty little secret” that tells an unwelcome truth about a candidate: for whom she or he may be the mouthpiece, the puppet, the surrogate.

So, tune out the rhetoric; forget the negative ads; eschew the empty slogans, and use your anger in a constructive way.  Examine the “brand” (party ideology) represented by each candidate; find out what changes they will support in office; make sure to discover who gives them financial support.  Then vote responsibly! 

Meeting Expectations

 

Some people just can’t help themselves.  Richard Hanna is one of them.  He is meeting my expectations just as I thought he would.  That’s right -- Richard Hanna has run a campaign of misdirection and generalities, just as I expected he would!  He has come out in favor of saying “No” to everything that the Republican leadership wishes -- like the extension of unemployment benefits to 2.5 million people while at the same time supported extending tax cuts for the richest 2% (without any indication of how to pay for that extension).  That certainly met my expectations.  Then, of course, I have searched and searched for anything comparable to an actual Hanna plan for reducing spending and supporting jobs for the middle class.  There is none.  I found only vague references to these problems but no specific measures for solving them.  Again, he more than met my expectations.

I more than sympathize with the gentleman who wrote in the Observer-Dispatch-D recently that the voters of this area need to put their faith in the Republican party and its candidates.  I got the distinct impression that this poor man is living in a world that has passed him by -- a world in which moderate and progressive Republicans existed, like Sherwood Boehlert and Jacob Javits.  That brand of Republican is gone, gone, gone, as is their moderate approach to solving the nation’s problems.  The neo-conservatives who came to power with the Reagan administration have effectively destroyed that brand of Republicanism.  So, if you have the same expectations for Richard Hanna that you might have had for a Sherwood Boehlert -- forget it -- it’s not going to happen.  Richard Hanna, as a freshman Congressman, would be beholden to the Republican leadership of the Congress -- radical Right-wingers like John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- for committee assignments, getting bills considered, consideration for his district.  In other words, he would have to go along to get along; unfortunately that means cow-towing to the radical Right.  Hanna knows it, and Voters need to know it too!

If your expectations extend to: improvement of the economy and more job opportunities (not favored treatment for the very banks, wall street firms, insurance companies and businesses that are holding back on creating jobs while their profits increase), new and creative opportunities for Central New York like high-speed rail, reasoned alternative energy and environmental improvements (not the vague improvements touted by Republicans), then you need to vote to re-elect the progressive moderate in this race: Congressman Michael Arcuri, who has already proven that he can deliver all this and more for the people of Central New York, and has even been named “Legislator of the Year” for the bills he has written or co-sponsored.  

CONSERVATIVES and the CHOSEN FEW

 

What is “conservative“?  It depends on whom you ask, but  the New World Dictionary defines it this way: “tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.”

Just what are they trying to preserve?  What do these conservatives want and is this what most of us want, or is it what will benefit just a chosen few?

Foremost, they apparently want to cut taxes and limit spending.  This may sound familiar because it’s been touted by every Republican administration and Republican-controlled Congress for the last 60 years (and probably longer). 

This is what they really mean by “Cutting Taxes“:
--  cutting the “death tax”, (i.e. the inheritance or estate tax), so that those who are rich can pass on to their heirs what they have garnered without having to pay for it; 
--    cutting the “capital gains” tax, so that the few who make their money through major investments can continue to escape the burden of paying adequately for what they have accumulated for themselves;
--    substantial cutting at the upper level of the “income tax” rates so those who should be paying more can actually get away with spending less;
--    providing “tax loopholes” so that those with substantial incomes can continue not to have to pay their fair share (just ask Warren Buffet, who said one year that he paid less in income taxes than his receptionist!); 
--    granting special “tax incentives” to big and small businesses so that those who want to escape certain costs (labor, health insurance, workers’ comp, etc.) can do so.  All of these incentives are “corporate welfare” from the government so the robber barons can invest more, make more, buy more, charge more -- and in the end can continue to compensate their political benefactors through large campaign contributions.

“Limiting spending” to the Conservatives means several different things as well:
--    limit spending on “social” and “welfare” programs and anything that smells of government lending a helping hand to people they think should make do with what they have or who, they believe, should earn their own way; 
--    Cut “entitlements” so that Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, health care do not have to be supported by the rich (but don’t ever touch over-blown defense contracts!);
--    Say “no” to extending unemployment insurance benefits for millions of people during a major recession (but, at the same time, support extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% without indicating how to pay for it!);
--    Finally, “cut the deficit.”  In fact, in the last 60 years (since Eisenhower), every Republican administration oversaw increased deficits during their time in office!  It seems that they like to spend, spend, spend once they get into office -- not on those they call the “lesser” people, but on the rich and the military-industrial complex where the big money is!  Only President Clinton-- a Democrat-- actually reduced the deficit he inherited!

So, apparently conservatives often mean something quite different than the words they use to solicit your support.  Being a Conservative means keeping things the way they are and opposing real change; keeping a certain class in power and others “in their place“; helping those who are “in the bucks” and barely helping anyone else.  All of it contributes to the maintenance of the status quo which happens to favor  Big Oil, Wall Street, Banks, Insurance Companies and them, not YOU! 

And YOU, Dear Voter, are the greatest asset to those who want no change -- because you keep voting for them thinking they will somehow benefit you!!  It will never happen because that is not who they are or why they exist.  To them, you are a joke: the “lesser people.”  They laugh at you behind your back, because YOU help them maintain all that favors the rich and privileged, and enable them to deny entitlements and protections to deserving citizens.  You have a real choice this fall.  Say NO to going backward to the same old failed, trickle-down, self-serving conservative agenda touted by Republicans and tea partiers -- which does not favor 98% of us!!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS –the only way to real reform!

It’s time to get serious about amending the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America” agrees with that to some extent!  And - surprise, surprise - I agree with them, to some extent!  Unfortunately, we probably don’t agree on the wording or intent of the needed amendments.

One of the myths we must get beyond is the idea that the Constitution is sacrosanct.  It’s not and never has been.  Yes, the writers - the founding fathers - did a great job in turning out an instrument that contained unique and even revolutionary concepts.  We should always honor that.  However, we have to admit when the Constitution is inadequate, and it is becoming clear that it is inadequate to speak to some of the issues that have come to the forefront in the 20th and 21st centuries, such as campaign finance, earmarks, balanced budget, use of federal funds, term limits, etc.  All of these, and others, are inadequately addressed in the Constitution as presently constructed.  Instead of hoping for the best, or believing that Congress will legislate campaign reforms that actually threaten their livelihoods, we must take the plunge and begin to propose actual constitutional amendments to deal with these unresolved issues.  A movement (organization) called Common Cause was formed to deal specifically with the  issue of campaign finance.  After 40 years, they have brought little change that can said to be revolutionary, although they have influenced some reforms.  It is not something that can be addressed adequately by piecemeal legislation but must be written into the fabric of our democratic system by an amendment to our Constitution.

Of course, the language I have proposed for each amendment is my own.  It has not been “vetted” by any lawyer, nor has anyone else contributed their ideas.  With that in mind, I concede that some wording may be poorly done for an amendment to our Constitution.  Some wording may also lead to “loopholes” that I did not foresee but which might be taken advantage of by some who are always seeking for a way around the law so they can profit in some manner.  But, in all cases, I have at least made clear my intent through the comments attached to each proposed amendment.

All of my proposed amendments are in CAPITAL letters, and all of my comments are in Italics.  So, let’s get started, and let the chips fall where they may.

Article I, Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every THIRD 
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each 
State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF TWELVE YEARS.

Comment: three years gives representatives space to work on legislating rather than always raising money and campaigning.  A limit of 4 such terms seems reasonable for the representatives in the “people’s” House.  Let more ordinary citizens have a chance at service; we don’t need “professional” representatives who have had little experience in other fields.

Article I, Section 3
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.  NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF SENATOR FOR MORE THAN THREE FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF18 YEARS.

Comment: Senators should continue to have longer terms than representatives, because they do generally reflect a more deliberative body, and a more experienced background in the legislative and political process.  Nonetheless, they should not be able to mount a career in politics at the expense, often, of the people.  Eighteen years in the Senate is a reasonable limit and should prevent the kind of stagnation that has often occurred with “Senators for Life”.

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
ALL CAMPAIGNS FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE SHALL BE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY FUNDS DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW, AND BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT MAY NOT BE FUNDED BY ANY CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED ENTITY.  CONGRESS SHALL SET PRUDENT AND REASONABLE LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL     CONTRIBUTIONS, AND SHALL PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR EXPENDITURES ALLOWED FOR EACH CONTESTED OFFICE.  ALL STATE GOVERNMENTS SHALL MAKE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR    GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN     SUPPORT FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, EXCLUDING CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED CONTRIBUTIONS IN ANY FORM, AND SETTING MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR     EXPENDITURES FOR EACH CONTEST.

Comment: we must limit the control exercised by corporations and unions over our elections; we must also undo the outrageous decision by the Supreme Court to introduce the concept of protected “political speech” rights for corporations and organized groups who already unduly influence our elections.  It is past time to enforce limited government funding and individual citizen contributions in our electoral process.  We must also get rid of the concept of PACs which was simply a way to get around public financing.  Citizenship must be meaningful, and the electoral process is one way in which citizenship is enhanced.  We cannot continue to let organized special-interest entities rob us of our right to fair and just elections.

Article I, Section 5
NEITHER HOUSE SHALL MAKE ANY RULE OR PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR OTHER THAN A MAJORITY VOTE ON LAWS, RULES OF ORDER, PROCEEDINGS, OR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.

Comment: the cloture rule, and the Senate provision for filibustering, are abominations; they tie up the legislative process, too often exploit it for political gain,  for personal aggrandizement, or for the killing of legislation that should instead be thoroughly debated and voted up or down by majority vote. It is time to over-throw these ill-conceived rules that give tyrannical rights to a minority.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO PROVISION IN ANY BILL THAT APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO AN INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZED ENTITY, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OR STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF 2/3s OF EACH HOUSE.

Comment: earmarks, and other budgetary maneuverings that seek tax-payer dollars for limited and many non-essential projects in one district or state, are not appropriate without strong support in both houses; support that is equal to the vote needed to over-ride a presidential veto.  We have managed to overlook this perverted pork-barrel process for too long, even though it has brought us to a situation where our dollars are being spent frivolously and with little regard to budgetary debt or deficit.  It has to stop.   

Article I, Section 6
NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL, FOR THE DURATION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER LEAVING ELECTIVE OFFICE, BE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT A PAID POSITION WITH, OR BE ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION FOR, ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, UNION, OR OTHER ENTITY WITH WHICH THE OFFICE-HOLDER HAD A PRIOR LEGISLATIVE RELATIONSHIP OR MUTUAL AREA OF INTEREST.  THIS RESTRICTION SHALL EXTEND IN FULL TO ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT.  

Comment: the “revolving door” that professional politicians use to line their pockets after their political careers are over, needs to be controlled. Representatives,or Executive appointees, who take jobs or positions with employers who were previously beholden to them for “helpful” legislation or attention should have to find other means of support for a period of time like any citizen who changes jobs. Special Privileges or Rewards for legislators and bureaucrats after they are rejected by voters, or leave of their own accord, is not appropriate for our representative democracy. 

NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ACCEPT OR RECEIVE COMPENSATION,     SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, EMOLUMENT, GIFT OR ANY FORM OF CONTRIBUTION FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION OR SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITY THAT COULD DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, OF AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, OR OF A COMMITTEE PROCESS.

Comment: it is time to outlaw all contributions to legislators from corporate entities that seek to influence legislation.  No matter how used, it is “dirty” money meant to influence legislation that is favorable to one group or another without regard to the effects on other citizens or groups.  This is a form of privilege, for it gives access to legislators that not all citizens possess.  It must be stopped in its tracks now, or our democratic system will be in serious jeopardy.

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises 
shall be uniform throughout the United States; PROVIDING, THAT ALL NEW TAXES SHALL REQUIRE A 2/3s VOTE OF EACH HOUSE TO BECOME LAW

Comments: the tea party “Contract From America” has a point here, I think.  Taxes are so important to the operations of our government that new taxes should not be levied without strong support in each house.  Taxes are so burdensome now that this is incredibly timely.  Control of this process is long overdue.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  HOWEVER, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS THAT EXEMPT CONGRESS OR ITS MEMBERS FROM APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY AND ALL SUCH LAWS. 

Comments: the concept of no special privilege for any of our leaders is embedded in our constitution for a very good reason: the founding fathers wanted a more equalitarian system that would not set up privileged classes similar to those that were prevalent in England.  We have to be particularly sensitive to the concept of privilege because we have inherited a system of government that has kept alive the concepts of fairness, of equality, of justice, of freedom for all; often kept alive with the sacrifice of lives and fortunes of patriots and warriors and ordinary citizens.  We must attack privilege-making wherever we suspect its harmful intent.  Congress has no right to set itself up as a privileged few exempt from laws that apply to the rest of the people.

Article I, Section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of  Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the  Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
to time,
INCLUDING THE AUDITING OR EVALUATION BY GROUPS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS     APPOINTED JOINTLY BY THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS CONTRACTED, GRANTED, APPROPRIATED, OR LOANED TO ANY AGENCY, ORGANIZATION, CONTRACTOR, STATE OR COUNTRY.  THE RESULTING ACCOUNTING OF EXPENDITURES SHALL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OR AGAINST CONTINUED FUNDING.

Comment: In their “Contract From America,” the tea partiers speak of an audit of federal funds.  I agree that we need it, but I take it a lot further, I think, in allowing for an evaluation by an outside group, and by calling for auditing of funds, however they are let out to groups, or countries, along with recommendations for future funding based on the audit.  It is far past time to stop the free handouts, and to demand accountability when federal dollars (taxpayer money) are given out to any entity.  On a personal note, as a former project director of a federally-funded program, I was responsible for how funds (that were meager in comparison with large government contracts) were expended in specific categories, for quarterly reporting of actions taken to meet goals and objectives connected to that money, and for an annual assessment of program progress that was done by a volunteer member Advisory Council; all of which were considered in relation to the next year’s funding.  I resent the fact that there are recipients of much greater sums of federal money who have no such obligation or accountability process.  It’s time that all recipients of citizen taxes had to account for their actions and outcomes or lose their funding.

Article II, Section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, of the United 
States (at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible 
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Comments: this is a nation of immigrants, and part of our strength is related to that fact.  Allowing only native-born citizens to hold this office sets up a special privilege that is not appropriate in a nation that prides itself on being a democracy and an example to other nations.

Article III, Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, BUT SHALL NOT SERVE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS

Comments: I find little merit in a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court or to inferior courts.  This is a form of special privilege that does not particularly enhance this branch of government.  Since most justices receive appointment after some experience, either on the bench, or in related occupation, it makes sense that the wisdom of age or experience is not at issue here.  But a justice appointed at say age 60, should be able to influence the Court to some degree in the 20 years allowed here.  In fact, this could be the most valuable 20 years that person has to offer.  New opinions, new views, new experiences, are valuable and should be sought from others once a person has served this many years.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, OR ON PETITION OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified

Comments: amendment by the Congress and the calling of a constitutional convention by application from the States is provided for, but the calling of such a convention by the people is ignored.  It is time to make provision for this important branch of government to have an equal say in this process, particularly since the average citizen has much more education and political experience and involvement than at any other time in our history.  In fact, many citizens have more ability, life experience, and education than do some of those who claim to represent us in the Congress!   

FARCE TAKES OVER!

 

The political scene is fast becoming farcical!  Can you imagine that?  Now we have the very same people who rail against the federal government -- for being too big, ineffective (“can’t run anything right, especially health care!”) and interventionist -- now calling for the federal government to solve the Gulf oil spill disaster!!  It’s unbelievable!

Further, many of the very same people who LOVE big oil corporations and who want them left alone (“don’t interfere; de-regulate“, “leave the market alone“), are now mistrusting of the very people they so glaringly support.  That is, BP is now being said not to have the ability to manage this problem; instead, they say, the federal government needs to take over the sealing of the well AND the clean-up.  Oh brother, it’s amazing how the uber-right wing can tilt with the political winds.

Finally, here are the very same people who made sure that BP and all the BIG OIL corporations were able to write their own ticket; who invited them into the V-P’s office (remember Cheney) to make sure that the Bush administration gave them everything they needed to DO BUSINESS.  Now who’s complaining because the regulators didn’t have regulations in place to stop this kind of oil spill from happening in the first place?  You guessed it -- the same people who believe so strongly in de-regulation; the same people who support the excesses of wall street and the robber baron corporations, the same people who believe in the privatizing of government functions, and the “leave us alone” philosophy!

Why don’t we send the uber-right-wing privatizers down to the Gulf and let them come up with the solution to the problems that this spill will create for thousands of people?  And, let Rush Limbaugh lead them (who said, in essence -- not to worry: the ocean will take care of the spill!).  Farcical?  You betcha’.

Come To The Cabaret

A few days ago, I saw a revival performance of the musical “Cabaret”.  It brought to my mind the insidious takeover of government by a “militia group” (the Brown Shirts; Nazis), and the contrast that existed between the world of the Cabaret (seemingly insulated and oblivious), and what was happening in the world of politics.  Are we living in a similar time, with much of the population oblivious to, or ignorant of, what is happening around us?  With that in mind, let us explore some areas that may give clues to some of what is happening now that may have disturbing parallels to what happened then.

“Obama is a socialist - he’s taken over private enterprise and he advocates government takeover of our health-care system”  “Obama and the Democrats want to take away our guns”  “Obama is really a Muslim”  “The government is our enemy; it wants to take away our rights.”  “Hollywood and the media are nothing but a bunch of liberals trying to destroy our values” 
Do we hear in these phrases the possibility that some group feels that there is a CONSPIRACY or PLOT against ordinary citizens?

“There’s no such thing as global warming”  “We want Creationism taught in our schools; there’s no such thing as evolution” “Lock and load” “Defend your rights”  “I want the right to carry a gun to a political rally; to church; wherever I want to”
Is there a climate of anti-intellectualism and anti-science; does a certain group want us to believe that ACTION is what matters, not deliberative thought or reasoning?

“Obama and the Democrats are soft on terrorism; don’t they understand we’re at war” “Let’s nuke those bastards” “We can’t ever take the nuclear option off the table” “Pre-emptive war is a successful strategy” “Blast those scarf-heads”  “Let’s blow their factories up before they can develop atomic bombs” “Those peaceniks are anti-American” “The Congress needs to be investigated to find those members who are un-American”
Is there a group out there that always needs to be defining someone as ‘the ENEMY’ and that sees WAR as inevitable; or, that views diplomacy, negotiation, and other peaceful measures to be anti-American and even traitorous?

“Obama wasn’t born in this country so he’s not eligible to be President.”  “We must seal our borders” “Keep those criminals out of our country” “No amnesty” “Build that fence”  “Arizona has the right idea” “Stop illegal immigration now” “Those people are taking jobs from Americans” “They’ve ruined this town, state, country” “Profiling is very necessary”
Is there already a large group of Americans supporting the concept that there is a group of immigrants or FOREIGNERS that are at the root of our problems? Is there an appeal to a frustrated middle class that targets a lower class as the ENEMY?

“I’m not going to pay for your health care”  “Don’t ask for a hand-out; take some initiative” “Welfare Queen” “Stand on your own two feet; get a job” “You Retard” “We’re spending too much on entitlements” Do you remember the video of the well-dressed man taunting the seated man with cerebral palsy berating him and saying he wouldn’t pay for his health care?
Is there a group, or groups, out there who are targeting the WEAK in order to enhance their image as the STRONG?   

“Talking points” “Slogans” “Irrational tirades” “Attacks on liberals”
Is there already a media blitz of lies, distortions, banal slogans, diversionary speech, etc. which is the base of a “newspeak” that encourages IRRATIONALITY rather than critical reasoning; that encourages groups that are associated with all of the above?

To conclude, let me simply quote from a piece that may give us food for further thought:

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempted to list general properties of fascist ideology. He claims that it is not possible to organize these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it".
His proposed features of fascism are as follows:
+"The Cult of Tradition", combining differing cultural beliefs with a rejection of modernism.
+"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
+"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
+"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
+"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
+"Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
+"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" -     there must always be an enemy to fight.     
+"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
+"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
+"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Are you being bamboozled by forces already committed to concepts that could damage our democratic Republic, our freedoms, our real values?  Don’t be too quick to judge, or too facile in your deliberation.  There are elements of fascism and governmental takeover in the Tea Party and militia movements that cannot be ignored (and some Republicans have supported these elements).  In the 1920s and 30s, that fringe element was ignored and look what it got us!    

Give Them What They Ask For

It’s difficult to believe the tea bagger groups when they say, “All we want is for government to leave us alone.”  Wow, what a simplistic statement.

I really think government should give them exactly what they ask for:  cut off their Medicare, their postal service and VA services for those who are vets.  Take away police protection and first responders.  Get rid of the national guard in their areas so they won’t have any help during an emergency or natural disaster.  Don’t let them have access to hospitals who receive federal funds of any kind.  And, how about cutting out those border guards so that illegal immigrants can pour over the borders where some of these tea baggers live.  Oh, and don’t let the FDA give any approvals on any drugs or treatments or foods, or the National Institutes of Health provide any support for scientific research.  In fact, remove all the government control and oversight agencies so that private enterprise can do whatever it wishes. Privatize the armed forces, so that they won’t have to deal with any government-provided defense. Yes, let’s give them what they ask for:  get government out of their lives.

Now ask:  what will they have left?  Why, private enterprise, of course.  They will have all those profit-seeking entities that actually seek every day to control them, manipulate them, fleece them, and to take away any semblance of control they think they have.  Without the checks and regulations of government, these private entities will go wild trying to squeeze out all that remains in the lives of these teabag radicals. Prices will rise without reason, loan rates will skyrocket, services will be slashed, jobs will be reserved for those who can bribe their way in; con-men will run amuck, rents will escalate, travel and health care will be available only to those who can pay for it on-the-spot; food, water, energy and other resources will be available to the rich, and tremendously limited for the rest of us; tax breaks for the rich will bankrupt many of the tea baggers and the rest of us.   Profiteers run amuck is not a pretty sight!
 
When simple concepts like: “get government out of our lives” become banal slogans, watch out!  You are being bamboozled, and you will pay the consequences: no services, no controls, no assistance, no protection, no defense, no fairness and no justice!

WHO’s in CHARGE?

BAMBOOZLED -- that’s the old word for being misled; scammed; fooled; lied to.  A perfect word to describe what the Republicans in Congress did with healthcare reform.

Their radical agenda is not in favor of healthcare reform or any other governmental “help” for anyone who may need a helping hand.  These extremists believe that nothing can be done well by government and that reform of anything can only be done by private entities like insurance companies, drug companies, banks, contractors, big corporations, etc., with the requisite help from  government to give them robust tax cuts, special privileges, tax breaks, lucrative contracts, and de-regulation so they can bilk the public every which way. 

So, are you being bamboozled?  Of course you are!  Consider this: the extremist Republicans have spent the last 30 years at least (and a whole lot longer actually) trying to divert your attention away from the real robber-barons, the real gougers, the real power-brokers, the real controllers of your lives.  By making “big government” the bogey-man and the nexus of control, they are clearly attempting to mislead us into believing that they are right about privatizing everything possible. 

But hold on a minute… have you forgotten the following:

• The health insurance companies that controlled you through provisions disallowing coverage if you had a pre-existing condition or got sick; that raised your premiums and co-pays every time you turned around; that made millions off the restrictions they imposed?
• The Wall Street firms that have forgotten whom they serve - the public - and have served up cooked-up investment instruments that have taken you to the cleaners, while they pay their employees and CEOs outrageous salary enhancements and bonuses?
  
• And while we’re on that subject, who in Congress is trying to prevent legislation that will curb Wall Street abuses of power?  That’s right - the extremist Republicans who want their friends on Wall Street to prosper (at your expense) so they can reap the rewards in their campaign coffers.  Oh-- and who helped them to do that very thing? - oh yes: the Supreme Court led by the right-wing justices who care nothing for the power of, by and for the people.
  
• Did you get Madoffed?  Bernied that is.  Well, lots of people did, and there are more Madoffs out there just waiting to feed on your gullibility and vulnerability.  Will right-wing Republicans protect you against them?  Not on your life.  They want you to believe instead that all the bad guys work in the federal bureaucracy!
  
• Carrying a credit card debt are you?  Gosh, another way for big banks to get your money with their outrageous charges and high interest rates, and their “minimum payment” scam.  Who did it take to pass legislation to take some control of these buzzards?  Democrats, not Republicans.
  
• Dealt with any big corporations lately?  After you get through the phone maze,  do they solve your problems?  How about car manufacturers?  Ever had a problem with a car - like a stuck accelerator - where the first response is to blame your way of driving?
  

We could go on like this, but let’s conclude with a pseudo-tribute to the huge lobbying contingent on Capitol Hill and in every capital city in this country.  Who’s in charge: the legislators?  OR, those who pay them, court them, manage their legislation?  The extremists desperately want you to believe that government is the problem instead of the solution, but right here we have the real story of power. 

While you are being distracted (bamboozled) by the Republican extremists to look to government as the problem, as the usurper of power and rights, here are the real culprits that the radical right profits from repeatedly.  They don’t want you to understand that too many of the banks, the corporations, the insurance companies, the brokers on Wall Street -- all of whom are represented by lobbyists in Washington (and elsewhere) - are the core of perverted power who are not in business for the good of society, but for their corporate and individual welfare.  These are the people in charge, and you don’t have a chance against them, unless that government you are being asked to despise, privatize and destroy acts to protect you through legislation, regulation, and policies that support “we the people.”
If you think I’m off the beam here, then ask yourself this question: when is the last time YOU were asked by a legislator what you wanted in a piece of legislation, like Mitch McConnell just did with wall street mucky-mucks?  Who’s really in charge?  Who’s protecting you? The Tea Party maybe?  As the blog Think Progress reported: "Despite… attempts to make the 'movement' appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks ‘Americans for Prosperity’ and ‘FreedomWorks.’ The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded."

Stop being misled.  Stop being diverted.  Stop being bamboozled.  Choose to vote against those extremist Republicans, Tea partiers and Conservatives who want to blind you to the real takeover of your freedoms, your rights, and your power by the private sector robber-barons and their well-paid lobbyists.

I.M. PUBLIUS II

Moderate or Radical?

Are you a moderate or a radical?  Strange question?  Yes, but very revealing, especially in our present-day politicized environment.  Most of you would answer “moderate”, I’m willing to bet, but are you really?  Would you, as a moderate vote for someone who:

-- wants to gut Social Security for all those under age 55
-- will vote to allow private investment accounts for social security benefits
-- wants to privatize, promote vouchers, or completely change Medicare benefits
-- wants to get rid of Medicaid for the poor
-- wants to continue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until we can be “victorious,” and wants a new war with Iran to be our primary response to them
-- opposes government-run programs and therefore, to be consistent, must work to privatize (out-source by contract) the Post Office, Border Guards, our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, first responders, prison guards, national institutes of health, etc., etc. (all government-run)
-- will vote to stop tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, and work to give them bigger tax breaks than ever before
-- supports the ability of corporate entities to control all aspects of our society and government (recently enhanced by the Supreme Court)
-- enables terrorism’s recruiting by favoring torture
-- believes that government cannot help to create jobs; that only the private sector can

These are all radical ideas either proposed by Republicans, conservatives, or Tea baggers.  If you are a true moderate, be careful!  The Republican Radicals are out to bamboozle you, because these are the radical ideas that are already being proposed in actual legislation, in the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America,” and in other “contracts” and proposals from these same non-moderates.  Your votes have consequences:  you will reap all of these radical changes if you vote for radicals who masquerade as moderates and independents!

Government and Private Sectors Need Each Other

Recently, I read an opinion letter in my local newspaper that suggested one might think that Washington has given up on America.  The author alleged that government spending cannot fix our economic woes, only private enterprise, private investment and private industry jobs can fix the recession. No more tax and spend;  he opined, “ If a measure increases the government’s budget, vote it down.” A-a-ah, simplicity itself!
Does this mean we should oppose all measures that increase government jobs -- like those of military personnel, police and firemen, and how about all those Doctors and Nurses in the VA system, post office workers, or border guards?  Has the author forgotten that governments, from the federal to the local level, are major employers, and without their support, we would be in dire straits, because sometimes government must take the lead to solve national problems or to provide extensive services?
This problem of recovery is not that simple, unfortunately.  First of all, government can definitely help to create a supportive environment for the creation of private enterprise, investment and new jobs.  In my opinion, that is what has happened through the auspices of President Obama and supportive Democrats (and a few Republicans) in Congress who have created an environment in which small businesses and larger enterprises have the opportunity to create a lasting recovery.  And guess what?  To a great extent, recovery is already evident.   Unfortunately, many private sector banks aren’t cooperating in this recovery effort by increased lending, and thus the private sector is not hiring as it should.  In this case,  government is less of a problem than certain avaricious big banks! 
Secondly, some of the most effective programs and measures are those that combine the resources of government and the private sector.  For example, many government programs that utilize and encourage volunteerism in various areas of need -- like Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Vista, Older American Programs, Teacher Corps, Health Corps, and more -- have proven beyond a doubt that both government funding and private enterprise can cooperate to tackle problems of health, jobs, education, special needs of children--all at minimal expense for the U.S. Treasury. 
Third, putting all responsibility in the hands of private enterprise and private industry makes the same mistake as those who believe that government can solve all our problems alone.  Neither sector has all the answers; neither sector has enough resources on its own; neither sector can be fully trusted to act in a way that serves all the people who need service or help.  Simply saying that private enterprise will solve our problems is to forget that the private sector has another overriding interest: the profit motive.  Corporations like Enron, Halliburton and Toyota,  some banks and investment firms,  health insurers like Anthem Blue Cross in California do not necessarily have consumers’ interests at heart, and will not invest or initiate anything unless it pays off for them.  For instance, some have no compunction about taking tax-break or recovery money and raising rates, paying outrageous bonuses, hiring part-time workers with no health benefits, or making inferior products in order to save money and make more profit. 
We don’t need any more simplistic views of government and private enterprise.  We don’t need any more banal slogans and labeling that push simplicity into simplistic ideas.  We do need realistic and effective ways to assure that government and private enterprise work together for the benefit of our people and our society, and to make sure that both sectors are strongly challenged to initiate effective and efficient ways to solve problems and to provide services without overburdening our taxpayers and consumers.

Who Is PUBLIUS?

Publius, of course, as many of you know, is the pseudonym that the writers of the Federalist Papers used when writing to the people of New York State initially (and a broader audience later) explaining and defending the provisions of the new Constitution of the United States of America (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation). 
It was not unusual for essayists in the 18th century to use a well-chosen pen name (often having associations with the Roman Republic) in order to gain a hearing and readership for their views.  It also provided a convenient cover against potential charges of libel, and provided an extra meaning which extended and expanded the writer’s explicit arguments.
When the Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, resolved on September 28, 1787 to refer the proposed new Constitution to the states to be voted on in convention, there began one of the greatest debates in American history.  It basically lasted from 1787-1788 and was of brief duration in some states, but it certainly produced speeches and writings that had unique importance to the future of our country.
Probably the most remarkable of the writings were those that appeared as a long series of letters in the New York newspapers between October 27, 1787 and April 4, 1788, under the pen name of Publius, a pseudonym used by the authors: Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.  By March 22, 1788, the essays that had appeared to that point were published as a single volume and by May 28th a second volume followed which incorporated essays 78-85 which had not appeared before this.  The title given the volumes was, of course, The Federalist Papers which rankled those who remained loyal to the Articles of Confederation and to the idea that the states were the core of power and that a confederated government was essentially the agent of the states.  In contrast, the Publius writers argued for a stronger central government and a stronger union than was apparent in a confederation or groupings of small confederations of states.

In an essay titled “The Paradox of Democracy” written for the  2008 National Paideia Conference, Terry Roberts gave us as good an answer as any to the question: who was the original Publius?

 
“Publius Valerius Publicola (died 503 BC) was a Roman consul, who with Lucius Junius Brutus governed Rome in 509 BC, traditionally considered the first year of the Roman Republic. According to Livy and Plutarch, the death of Brutus left Publius the sole consul of the new Republic, and the people feared that he was preparing to seize monarchical power. To calm the populace, Publius ceased construction on his new, ostentatious home and introduced two laws to protect their liberties: one providing citizens with the right of appeal when condemned in a court of law, and the second enacting that whosoever should attempt to make himself a king might be slain by any man at any time (this the law that would eventually be used to justify the assassination of Julius Caesar).  Like Washington, who would resist the temptation of absolute power in our own country, Publius was a founding leader who refused the role of Caesar and, in so doing, proved that the government could function without one.
“In part, then, Hamilton chose Publius as the Federalist pen name, intending to disarm those who would accuse him and his conspirators of the personal consolidation of power. But he also chose it because the Roman’s last name, “Publicola,” famously meant “of the people,” something that a surprising number of the original readers of the Federalist Papers would have known. Thus, we might legitimately say that in 1788 Hamilton and Madison intended the shadowy Publius to mean the man—or mind—of the people.”

Without being presumptuous, the first aim of this blog is to speak as though “I am Publius too” (I.M. Publius II).  That is, to bring to the people, as much as possible, those concerns and issues that are "of the people,” affecting the people and the commonweal of this society.

Two concerns dealt with in the Federalist Papers are of primary effect upon some of the issues and concerns that I plan to present and upon which I shall endeavor to comment.
The first has to do with the fact that the first forty-six letters, more than half of the total essays, are concerned with the need for a strong central government.  That is what the new Constitution brought to the table, and that is what the writers mostly defended in their attempt to secure support for the ratification of the new Constitution.  For the writers, a more perfect union, that is to say, a stronger union could be counted on to secure internal tranquility, stability and order, and to provide for the common defense.  In other words, at the same time that the sovereignty of the people was preserved, a stronger union (or central federal government) was an important step toward a society in which Americans could hope to lead a free and secure life.

Thus, one of the themes that will re-occur throughout the posts on this blog is that a strong central federal government should not constantly be demeaned by those who favor private enterprise and states’ rights as an alternative to what they like to call “government bureaucracy.”  A strong central government (which for the Publius writers generally meant the legislative branch, but included the Executive and the Judiciary) is often essential to the solving of national problems, and indeed is called for explicitly in terms of certain functions:
“To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States; 

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts; 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

To raise and support Armies, To provide and maintain a Navy; 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

 
That latter paragraph gives to that oft-demeaned “federal bureaucracy” the same power and authority as any part of the central government.  Those who deplore a strong central federal government must struggle with their apparent anti-constitutional viewpoint.

The second emphasis from the Federalist authors should give pause to those who advocate laissez-faire or unregulated power to corporate entities, other groups and organizations, including both the public and private sectors of society.  I am speaking of the authors’ view of the nature of human beings. The following discussion is based on the very helpful Editor’s Introduction to a 1961 edition of the Federalist written by Benjamin Fletcher Wright, long a professor at University of Texas-Austin.

 
There are scores of references in The Federalist to the motives that cause men to act as they do, and a variety of terms express this, including: springs, impulses, inclinations, inducements, dispositions, propensities, humours.  While Publius does not seem to believe that all these motives always lead to actions that are evil or harmful, he seems to assume that in the nature of man “antagonistic and immediate interests  have greater efficacy than true interests and motives of reason and virtue.” 

In other words, man’s motives seem to be related to passion versus reason and virtue, and to selfish immediate interests versus true or long-term interests.  While not accepting of the supposition of universal venality in human nature, he says in number 76 that “the acceptance of universal rectitude” is equally in error.
The greater part of his arguments about human nature in politics comes down to an evident conviction from history that there is more force in the passions and interests that tend toward antagonism and self-seeking than in those that make for friendly relations and the common good.  In the earlier letters, Publius reiterates that the reason for a strong union (central government) is that” man is not calmly rational or abounding with unfailing generous love for his fellow beings, but is rather passionate, jealous, and selfish”, which in terms of certain national and international issues, can lead to struggles, and even to war.

While there are some exceptions, the general principle or belief that supports the form and structure of the proposed plan of government, with its built-in checks and balances, is that no man can be trusted with unlimited power.
In various essays to come on this blog, it will be evident that this view of human nature will inform many of the arguments made for appropriate trust and mistrust, effective regulation and pragmatic de-regulation, as well as enlightened cooperation between the private and public sectors of society, in terms of their handling of power and societal problem-solving.
My first post on this blog is, in fact, an appeal to a more realistic view of both the public governmental sector and of the private sector that some, in my opinion, would err in trusting more implicitly.