Securing Job and Economic Certainty

     If allowing the Bush tax cuts to end was going to create an economic cliff and crippling uncertainty about hiring, why did wealthy people and corporations accept the tax cuts they did not need and their extensions under President Obama?  And why have both not saved and/or invested those tax savings for the time when the tax cuts would end?  When they were extended in 2010, neither expressed that there would still be uncertainty even if the country made significant progress toward recovery?  

     Businesses and Corporations have enough money to hire more workers, and workers work enough hours to share time with many who are unemployed.  Both would result in those helping to create more jobs sacrificing some income:  smaller pay checks for workers and smaller dividends going into retirement accounts and the pockets of share-holders.  But more people will have the certainty about working which means more certainty about people remaining able to buy goods and pay for services.  Because of greater job security, more people can be trusted to buy cars and homes which in turn will increase--or at least tend to sustain--the needs for the things working people make and the services they provide. 

     Government, business, workers, and consumers are the players in an economic system.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people are the umpires or referees who must decide what the rules of the game must be and when the game is being played fairly. and when both are too complicated to be understood even when they are transparent.

     Voter suppression is an example of those who control government attempting to restrict voting by people who have a stake in who is elected.  Everybody votes for his or her special interest.  Why should poor Americans who need government assistance not be able to vote for candidates who promise to help them?  Wealthy people do it.

     Businesses say they must have certainty about future profits before it can start hiring.  But consumers also will need certainty if we ever recover from this recession--possibly becoming a depression--before they will spend as they did in the past.  They will instead save more for rainy days and retirement since both employment and retirement benefits will continue be uncertain so long as businesses continue to wait on certainty.

     The way to return certainty to America's economy is to redistribute wealth opportunities by reassessing the value of different kinds of work in the workplace.

Presently, while inventors, innovators and decision-makers are critical to the success of businesses, workers play a more important part in that processes of making the products and providing the services than is too often reflected in their financial compensations for that work.  The fact that there are more people available to work on low level jobs should not account for the value of the contribution to the economy.

      If relative incomes at all levels a business was constant, it would produce levels of certainty that could sustain the economy even in tough times.  The citizens of the United States are like members of a family, a big family.  The children within a family aren't rewarded according to their scores on intelligence tests, grades or other achievements that may reflect differences in IQs levels or present levels of motivation among the children.  The quality and amount of  food they eat and  clothes they wear don't depend on differences in such attributes.  Now families could make it a rule to do so and could come up with reasons to do so.  But it would not be good for relationships within the family.  And it also would not work if the spouse who has the higher income feels that he or she should drive the more expensive car or wear more expensive clothes.

     When Karl Marx said that a society should expect from all members according to their abilities and provided to all members according to their needs, he was not saying that money should be taken from the wealthy and given to those who are less able.  He also was not saying that the poor should sit back and expect such redistributions.  The poor have abilities also, not as much as the most able but are expected to contribute their livelihood to the extent of their abilities.  

     Similarly for the most able among us, they have needs to succeed: to pursue professions, invent, create, establish businesses and otherwise pursue wealth- and job-creating opportunities.  They must be enabled to take advantages of opportunities--educational and otherwise--that fulfilling those aspirations not just possible but likely for both themselves and others within the society.

     But while the society should provide opportunities for people to become wealthy, it must limit the amount of wealth they can keep for themselves.  Part of the taxes on wealth must assist the most needy, but perhaps a larger part must provide the kinds of education that motivate, enable and maximize success at the lower end and middle of the wealth scale.  Both the most able and the less able will have received what they need to maximize their contributions to society.   But unless limits are  placed on the amount of wealth one family can accumulate, others in the society must be impoverished in order to feed an insatiable greed.

     Life-styles would not change--only images--by multi-billionaires becoming billionaires becoming multi-millionaires becoming millionaires becoming near or future millionaires?  Incomes of the working poor and middle class would increase commensurate with individual abilities and effort.  If these were phased in over ten years, there would be certainty about profits, incomes and consumption relative to the health of the economy.

     Unfortunately, if by the time this column is read, President Obama has not been elected and Democrats have not gained control of both houses of Congress with wide margins of victory, then regardless of which party succeeds, middle-class America will have defeated itself again, either by voting for its enemies or by not realizing it had survival reasons to vote.

Politicians Who Deceive Voters Must Be Punished

     If a person who starts out on a journey by automobile from Houston, TX to Los Angeles, CA calls home when he reaches El Paso, the person receiving the call does not report that the driver failed to reach Los Angeles.  Likewise, the journey out of a near depression, which became the responsibility of President Obama, is making progress toward a recovered economy.   Not having yet reached Los Angeles is not failure.   Mitt Romney calls such progress toward recovery failure, and, mysteriously, many Americans agree.      

     But the following don't sound like failures:  

    (1) Ending the war in Iraq;  signing a bill guaranteeing equal pay to women for equal work;  (2) Passing health care plan that insures all Americans; passing a stimulus package that saved millions of jobs of teachers, fire fighters, and police officers;  (3) Extending the Bush tax cuts during the low points of the present Great Recession; Finding and bring to justice Osama bin Laden;  (4) Reducing middle-class and small business tax cuts; extending unemployment benefits during the depth of the recession;  (5) Presenting a jobs bill, ignored by Congress, which would have further helped address the nation's critical infrastructure, clean energy and employment needs; (6) Wanting to introduce an immigration reform bill but not having able to get congressional support for such the bill;  (7) Preventing the interest on student loans from being increased; (8) Expanding money available for student loans by removing middle men and granting direct federal loans; (10) Initiating a "Race to the Top" program to increase the performances of America's schools; (11) Improving the image of the United States throughout the world;  (12) Ending the war in Iraq;  confirming the end of 2014 as the end of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan; (13) Having the American auto industry and banking system, thereby preventing the nation--and the world--from plunging into another depression; (14) Decreasing the monthly number of jobs being loss by American workers and gradually reversed the trend to an increasing number of jobs being created;   (15) Reducing the unemployment rate to 7.8% (under 8%), lower than what he inherited; (16) Protecting women's health and reproductive right, etc.   

     These are just some Obama successes on the journey toward fixing America's economy.     

     However, these successes have been referred to as failures by Romney without having to say what he would have done differently.  When asked such questions, he says he "would not have done what this president did."  When asked what he will do in the future, his answer is that he will "do better."  But is never asked to tell how many jobs he created as governor of  Massachusetts or since.

      The candidate we elect to the presidency should be one we can trust to mean what he/she says and seriously try to achieve what is promised during the campaign.  Whoever wins should be able to clearly identify the conditions or obstructions that may have prevented campaign promises from being achieved.  Many voters don't  remember--or never knew--Republicans in Congress did it.

     Unfortunately, poor schools produce poorly educated Americans who are more likely to be sufficiently uninformed about political and economic matters to be easily confused and deceived.  Being poorly educated and uninformed are not equivalent to being unintelligent.  Rather, they are the consequence of being deprived of opportunities to observe and engage in rational discussions about competing political and economic ideas, and to think about and propose better alternatives.  "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,"  Thomas Jefferson.  He says further that  "No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

     Who is the real Mitt  Romney?  Why would even informed people conclude that the most recent Mitt is the real and final one?  Why do people, despite his many reversals on issues, believe that he will keep his word about the reasons they have decided to vote for him?  More than eighty CEOs have asked Congress and the presidential candidates to cut spending and raise their taxes to address the national debt.  If that's true, then Romney could change his mind again--this time about cutting taxes--and promise taxes on the wealthy.  But, then, he could change his mind again after the election.

      This election is uniquely important because this could be the first presidential election where a candidate can be both publicly and frequently inconsistent and loose with the truth, and neither the candidate nor his party be politically punished  for it.   Mitt Romney (a former Mormon pastor, minister and bishop) despite being deceptive and often loose with the truth presently has at least an even chance to be elected President of the United States.  A nation is in trouble when supposed Christians no longer even pretend.  This places at risk the integrity of all American institutions.  

     Attempts to suppress voting by segments of the populations are discussed primarily by those who are targeted.  Polls suggest that most voters have no problem with the voter suppression efforts.   Rewarding those who benefit from voter suppression reflects on the character of those who have gained control of our economy and politics and on that of an uninformed or indifferent public.    Most troubling is the extent to which many religious leaders and religious communities are either supportive of or silent about these flaws in our nation's conscience.

     This election, therefore, becomes crucial, less because of who may be elected president and more because of (1) how it reflects on the kind of religious values and political and economic reasoning characterize the American electorate, (2) what it will do to world's confidence in the wisdom of America's economic and political leaders and (3) what will be modeled by Americans and passed on to our children: America's politicians, economists, clergy and voters of the future.  

     Placing the most powerful military the world has ever known back into the hands of some of the most mistrusted, war-loving political leaders of all times is scary.

Debates Count-- But How, for What, and for Whom?

     When an electorate is not sufficiently informed about the issues and the candidates positions and ideas related to those issues, presidential elections can be won based on the quality of performances during debates (on how well the speaker spoke and how convincing and presidential the speaker looked) rather than the quality of the candidate's ideas and veracity of his/her assertions.

     Because I had concluded how useless and maybe even counter-productive debates might be, I considered not listening to this year's Obama-Romney debates.  The media were communicating that positions and ideas expressed by candidates during the debates could nullify things already said either prior to or during the campaigns.   It was as if voters are being told to treat the pre-campaign dialogues as only training for the championship match, where the championship is unrelated to anything that transpired prior to the big match.  Past lies, inconsistencies and condescending remarks about fellow Americans no longer matter.  Everything needed to select a winner rests on what happens during the debates, making an etch-a-sketch strategy possibly a winning strategy when enough voters who are undecided because they are uninformed use the debates are their primary source of information. 

     Expressions such as convictions, passion, determination and sincerity can be inferred from a candidate's jesters or manners of speech, but they cannot be properly evaluated in the absence of the candidate's history because they can be learned performances.  Even such things as shaking one's head when the opponent says something that is persuasive but not true or conflicts with previous positions can arouse suspicion in the minds of less informed viewers about the opponent's veracity.  And because no fact-checker is present during the debates,   skeptical viewers might have reasons to seek out fact-checks in the future.     

     Unfortunately, many viewers will have already voted or will not seek any harder to become informed about the candidates after the debates than they did before the debates.  Debates especially don't equip voters to make wise decisions in choosing the candidate more likely to respond properly to that "3:00 call in the morning" and which one is more likely to keep promises.

      A better debate formate might be one which allows candidates to question each other on a list of predetermined issues.  All questions that need to be asked, especially the toughest ones, are more likely asked by the opposition.  Partisan interviewers, one or two from each party might be even better.   Chris Matthews and   Rachel Maddow  vs  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be a perfect contest.

     Despite everything that I thought was wrong about these debates, I decided to listen to the first one.  And at first, I thought Romney had won.  Romney threw a lot of punches.   But most of them missed.  Known lies and flip-flops are misses--unless the opponent gives good reasons for changing positions.  So I changed my mind: The debate was a draw.    The fact that Romney lied and flip-flopped so skillfully, allowed him to get points that he did not deserve.  But he gains points not only with style but by twice pointing out instances of wasteful investments by the President on failed clean-energy projects.  The result was consensus opinion that, despite lost points for lying and inconsistencies, Romney was the winner.  

     Obama got points for consistency and truthfulness, but he lost points for failing to challenge Romney's lies and flip-flops.   He also lost points for failing to criticize Romney about the reasons that caused Romney's falling polling numbers prior to the debates: Bain Capital, the "47%", refusing to submit more than two tax returns, lying about certain components of his health plan.  Romney was even allowed to pass himself off as the champion of the middle class, teachers and the poor.  But  when Obama lost points for failing to take advantage of the many opportunities to challenge Romney, those challengeable events also count against Romney.  So, in conclusion, Obama wins the overall debate--by a point.   Integrity counts, and flip-flops and lies are low blows.

      Responses by potential voters in several groups of undecided voters suggest that many people who are responding to the various polls after the debates are as uninformed about the positions and opinions of the candidates prior to the debate as are many of those in the focus groups.  The media have convinced voters that what candidates say during debates should tell more about who a candidate is than the candidate's history.  Even Obama supporters were caught up in Romney's performance, giving it more weight than Obama's honesty. 

     What and who a man is and what he believes are reflected in how he behaves and what he says when he is in the company of like-minded people, not in the impressions he rehearses in order to change public perceptions and expectations.  If a candidate changes his/her mind about his beliefs or positions on issues several times during a campaign or during his political career and is loose with the truth, how can voters believe anything he claims to believes and promises to do?  A Romney election would strongly suggest that America, by placing it faith in liars and flip-floppers, is becoming an increasingly dysfunctional government, with a decreasing ability to solve problems, provide creditable world leadership both toward effecting a world economic recovery and continuing to hinder terrorists ability to terrorize.

     Truthful or not, flip-flopper or not, undeserving or not, Mitt Romney may have convinced enough independents and borderline Republicans and Democrats that he has moved toward the ideological middle, enough to elect him president, regardless of how well the President and Vice President Biden perform in the next debates.  Romney's base won't mind; all they want is for Obama to be defeated.  

     This last debate, of course, was only round one of a four-round contest.  But the etch-a-sketch strategy, which we Democrats thought to be folly, is now being implemented, and it's no longer a laughing matter.  

      

Reforming Education Top to Bottom

     If a group of smart people, each with degrees in health, English, history, philosophy, or music were given hundred barrels of unrefined oil and given the challenge of making that oil usable to make a 2012 BMW run properly, many, if not most, of them would have a problem not only doing it, but within their existing training and experiences even finding a way to do it.   Many teachers are given such a responsibilities of taking 20-30 unrefined children and to drawing or otherwise separating out the ingredients that can make a society work.  But many, if not most, have had little training in making crude, unrefined children ready for service.  And the conclusion is too often drawn that doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, teachers, lawyers, business entrepreneurs and other refined products that are essential for a viable society are not there.

     Southeast Texas knows how to refine oil.   But at one time it had no oil, less on know how to refine it.  Then it had oil but didn't know what to do with it.  But when it finally was discovered what could be done with petroleum and what were the best ways to do it, everybody with oil either refined it that way or found somebody who could, and eventually oil all over the world came to be refined essentially the same way.  And because successful ways of extracting the products of petroleum was copied in different locations all over the world, we drive cars, fly planes, and run trains and trucks, and reap other benefits of that shared means of refinement.  No excuse is made for the fact that some oil is harder to refine than others, that some of it comes from undesirable places (coming from the "wrong" kinds of homes so to speak.)  They learned to make adjustments, so that both sweet and sour crude can be successfully refined, though not in exactly the same ways.

     This analogy could easily have been building bridges like the Golden Gate, sky scrapers like the Empire State Building, finding cure for dread diseases, or transplanting organs.  People learn to do what needs to be done by refusing to accept what other say cannot be done.  They say it can't be done, yet.   Children are told that they can solving the problems, yet, that they can't properly interpret passages, yet.  The message to their brains is never that it can't be done.  The message to your brain always should be "I can't do it yet."  Maybe after a few more minutes or hours or days of thinking about it, I'll get its.  And even if I don't solve this problem, my minds will be in better condition to solve the next one, simply because of the time spent exercising it by trying to solve the previous ones.

     Teaching is a problem-solving activity.  Some teachers, because of self-motivation to be successful or because of concern for the children they teach, learn on their own how to solve this problem of refining the curiosity, the skills-potentials, and the attitudes of the children they teach.  Other teachers learn how to do it by going to colleges and universities that teach them to do it.  Still other teachers learn it from fellow teachers, while other learn to do it from their instructional leaders within their schools or school districts who either teach or model for them how to do it.

     There are children who will learn well despite the teacher's method of teaching or attitudes toward the children they teach.  All some children need is the opportunity to learn and a reasonable effort by teachers to cause it to happen.  But just as there are established methods that can refine different types of petroleum and strategies for build bridges across different expanses of land or water, there are ways that can span the gaps in learning abilities and learning styles and make all children successful.  Maximum success for certain students may require small variations which may be different in dealing with different children.   Different strategies may be needed to motivate some children.  Some children may need boosts in confidence by first being exposed to learning opportunities that guarantee early success.  When time and effort result in success, that success breeds a desire for success and the confidence that time and effort will be rewarded.  It works for student and teacher.

     But every oil refinery can tell you or show you one paper or in picture from beginning to end how it produces its products, from the design, construction and operation of a cracking unit to quality control of the products the processes  generates.  

     Every construction company or engineer can show you its plan for building a bridge.  They can describe for you everything that will be done from preparing the ground to laying the foundations to laying the final slab.  Everyone who has the time and is interested enough can see on a daily basis the rise of a skyscraper, from the laying of pilings to the floor levels ascending skyward until the final brick is laid.  No one who is interested has to wonder if the bridge or sky scrapper is being built.

     Just as oil can be refined, bridges and buildings can be built by using the strategies and designs that have been successful used by others, and just as there are plans and evidence of progress, why can education in our schools do the same?  Or perhaps a better question is:  Why don't they or why won' t they do any better?

     For one thing, few schools or school districts to my have plans for educating children that can be shown and explained to patrons.  I'm talking about processes that are written on paper and demonstrated on video tape, showing how children are taught and evaluated, how instructional and testing procedures are evaluated and what changes have been made to fix recent deficiencies in what children are taught and how well they are learning.  

     Any board of education that cannot show patrons a detailed plan, developed by it and its superintendent, which describes how children are taught within the district and the roles, effectiveness and modes of evaluation of the board, the superintendent, assistant superintendents, supervisors, principals and teachers in the educational process isn't interested in the children if they are not continuously asking to see the plan and expecting credible evidence about how well the plan is working.

     Tax payers who care about the district's children also will want answers.

Debates Count: But How, for What and for Whom?

     When an electorate is not sufficiently informed about the issues and the candidates positions and ideas related to those issues, presidential elections can be won based on the quality of performances during debates (on how well the speaker spoke and how convincing and presidential the speaker looked) rather than the quality of the candidate's ideas and veracity of his/her assertions.

     Because I had concluded how useless and maybe even counter-productive debates might be, I considered not listening to this year's Obama-Romney debates.  The media were communicating that positions and ideas expressed by candidates during the debates could nullify things already said either prior to or during the campaigns.   It was as if voters are being told to treat the pre-campaign dialogues as only training for the championship match, where the championship is unrelated to anything that transpired prior to the big match.  Past lies, inconsistencies and condescending remarks about fellow Americans no longer matter.  Everything needed to select a winner rests on what happens during the debates, making an etch-a-sketch strategy possibly a winning strategy when enough voters who are undecided because they are uninformed use the debates are their primary source of information. 

     Expressions such as convictions, passion, determination and sincerity can be inferred from a candidate's jesters or manners of speech, but they cannot be properly evaluated in the absence of the candidate's history because they can be learned performances.  Even such things as shaking one's head when the opponent says something that is persuasive but not true or conflicts with previous positions can arouse suspicion in the minds less informed viewers about the opponent's veracity.  And because no fact-checker is present during the debates,   skeptical viewers might have reasons to seek out fact-checks in the future.     

     Unfortunately, many viewers will have already voted or will not seek any harder to become informed about the candidates any after the debates than they did before the debates.  Debates especially don't equip voters to make wise decisions in choosing the candidate more likely to respond properly to that "3:00 call in the morning" and which one is more likely to keep promises.

      A better debate formate might be one which allows candidates to question each other on a list of predetermined issues.  All questions that need to be asked, especially the toughest ones, are more likely asked by the opposition.  Partisan interviewers, one or two from each party might be even better.   Chris Matthews and   Rachel Maddow  vs  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be a perfect contest.

     Despite everything that I thought was wrong about these debates, I decided to listen to the first one.  And at first, I thought Romney had won.  Romney threw a lot of punches.   But most of them missed.  Known lies and flip-flops are misses--unless the opponent gives good reasons for changing positions.  So I changed my mind: The debate was a draw.    The fact that Romney lied and flip-flopped so skillfully, allowed his to get points that he did not deserve.  But he gains points not only with style but by twice pointing out instances of wasteful investments by the President on failed clean-energy projects.  The result was consensus opinion was that, despite lost points for lying and inconsistencies, Romney was the winner.  

     Obama, though, got points for consistency and truthfulness, he lost points for failing to challenge Romney's lies and flip-flops.   He also lost points for failing to criticize Romney about the reasons that caused Romney's falling polling numbers prior to the debates: Bain Capital, the "47%", refusing to submit more than two tax returns, lying about certain components of his health plan.  Romney was even allowed to pass himself off as the champion of the middle class, teachers and the poor.  But  when Obama lost points for failing to challenge Romney when he should have been challenged, it counts against Romney too.  So, in conclusion, Obama wins the overall debate--by a point.   Integrity counts--or should.

      Responses by voters in several focus groups of undecided voters that followed the debates and group interviews prior to the debate, suggest that many people who are responding to polls after the debates are as uninformed about the positions and opinions of the candidates prior to the debate as are many of those in the focus groups.  They are not aware of lies, contradictions and distortions.  The media have convinced voters that what candidates say during debates should tell more about who a candidate is than the candidate's history.  Too much weight is given to a good performance.  Even Obama supporters were caught up in Romney's performance, giving it more weight than than Obama's honesty. 

     What a man is and what he believes are reflected in how he behaves and what he says when he is in the company of like-minded people, not in the impressions he rehearses in order to change public perceptions and expectations.  If a candidate changes his/her mind about his beliefs or positions on issues several times during a campaign or during his political career and is loose with the truth, how can voters believe that he will not change his mind about the last things he says he believes and promises to do?  A Romney election would strongly suggest that America, by placing it faith in liars and flip-floppers, is becoming an increasingly dysfunctional government, with a decreasing ability to solve problems, provide creditable world leadership both toward effecting a world economic recovery and continue hindering terrorists ability to terrorize.

     Truthful or not, flip-flopper or not, undeserving or not, Mitt Romney may have convinced enough independents and borderline Republicans and Democrats that he has moved toward the ideological middle, enough to elect him president, regardless of how well the President and Vice President Biden perform in the next debates.  Romney's base won't mind; all they want is for Obama to be defeated.  

     This last debate was only round one of a four-round contest.  But the etch-a-sketch strategy, which we Democrats thought to be folly, is now being implemented, and it's no longer a laughing matter.  

      

     

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

U.S. Needs Honest, Agreeable GOP

    I haven't submitted a column for the past few weeks, not because I have not been listing, reading, thinking and writing, but because there have been so many things to write about that I found myself either starting to write another opinion before finishing the one I was on, or trying to incorporate disparate content in a single column.  At my age, ideas vanish rather quickly, so I have to write them down quickly.  Writing them down, however, triggers supporting ideas, and, soon, I'm writing another column.  All of these topics will remain timely until after the November elections, and likely will be fully developed before then.  

     There are people who believe that whatever they believe is right must be pursued even if traditional values suggest and most people believe both the ends and the means of pursuit are wrong.   Only recently has such deeds and dealings been welcomed into the America's value system.  Now, people don't seen to mind their politicians lying.  Some are happy because they benefit from the lies.  Others are happy just to have been on the winning side even if winning means they lose.  This expanded abandonment of traditional values of all kinds explains why Americans are growing increasingly tolerant of unkindly--and even immoral--actions toward more vulnerable Americans.

     Over the past several years television game shows such as Survivors and Big Brothers have reinforced the practices of lying, deceiving, conniving and double-crossing by rewarding them if they can be a used in a winning combination. it's supposedly all in fun but it softens society's moral resistance.  As in the real world, the winners are usually not only the best at deceit; they also have other attributes that enables them to effectively use lies .

     Prior to the Republican convention, the question had been asked among media talk-show hosts and guests:  What can Mitt Romney--and those who will speak in his behalf--say so the American people will really know who Mitt Romney is?  As if his past and present actions have not already revealed a lot toward answering that question.  If, during his youth, Romney actually threw a homosexual young man to the ground and cut his hair--which Romney apparently has not denied--that's who he is.  With a smile on his face, a disrespectful and insensitive Mitt Romney told the proud African American audience at the NAACP convention that the first thing he will do as president is get rid of Obamacare.  Tha't who Mitt Romney is.  When he falsely (evenly solemnly) claimed that he wanted Obama to be successful, that's who Mitt Romney is.  The man who has been distorting the words and effectiveness of the actions of the President every chance he gets, that's who Mitt Romney is.  The man who is constantly changing who he himself is reflects who Mitt Romney is.  Trying to remake Mitt Romney look good is like saying the only thing President Obama needs at the Democratic convention is for some people close to him say that the economy is doing much better than it appears, and that 92.7% of Americans who want to work and need to work have jobs.

     Marco Rubio said that America's greatest virtue is its faith in God.  He also quoted "from whom much is given much is expected."  It means that, from those who have had the good fortune to inherit wealth or acquire it on their own, there is the responsibility not to spread the wealth but to pay more taxes to help those who have not been so fortunate or so blessed.  Some people give more money to churches, charities, and government so that money can be used to pay the nation's bills and give necessary help to those in need.  The government services the same kinds of needs as churches and charities--just on a larger scale. 

      Government must help people who either don't  belong to a church, may not attend church, or don't belong to those churches whose members have enough wealth to assist members in need.  Government serves those who very often are not served by the charities to which wealthy people contribute.  It is hard to understand why wealthy people are able to make a distinguish between giving the money to government so it can both pay its bills and help those in need and similarly giving money to churches and charities so they can do the same things.  Inefficiencies exist in all organizations (churches, unions, charities, etc.) where contributions often flows through the hands of dishonest handlers, to unknown destinations for unintended purposes, which are determined by unknown and unethical decision-makers.  Neither of these has ever been a reason, however, to stop contributing when it is obvious that the organizations are putting much more money to good use than may subject to abuse by a few individuals.

     There is a Republican party out there that is not represented by those who are leading the party at this time.  There are Evangelicals within the Republican party who don't believe that politicians should be telling lies to those who they believe don't know any better and those they believe know better but don't care.  These Republican feel that if they must choose between liars and those who support abortions, they will choose liars as the lesser evil.  

     Democrats would seem to believe the contrary, that abortions are a lesser evil than lying.  That's because Democrats have failed to communicate the difference between women HAVING THE RIGHT to have abortions under certain conditions and their believing abortions ARE MORALLY RIGHT.  Similarily, saying that people have the right to marry someone of the same sex is not the same as saying that it is believed to be the right thing to do.  The Constitution and the Supreme Court Justices interpretation of the Constitution give people CERTAIN RIGHTS that they have regardless of how other people may feel about it.  

        America and Republicans need to resurrect the honest, big tent, creative and compromising GOP.  But they need Democratic victories this year to do it.   Republicans know that they didn't just let Obama fail; they hindered success.  A vote for Democrats this year would not be a vote for abortions and gay marriages.   It is a vote for bipartisanship.   Like most Republicans, most Democrats don't engage in nor do they necessarily condone every activity permitted by the Constitution.  In November, only God and the voters will be in the voting booths.  And if Sen. Rubio is right about our faith in God being America's greatest virtue, then, lying, misdeeds and evil intentions don't have a chance.

     

60 Years of Marriage and Still Not Tired

     Recently, my wonderful and still beautiful wife and I celebrated the 60th anniversary of a marriage which blessed us with five children, nine grandchildren, two step grandchildren, five great grandchildren and eight step-great grandchildren.  As they had done for our 50th anniversary, family members planned to make the celebration of this anniversary a special event, and special it was.  All members of the Annie L. and Ronald C. Spooner family took the time to be there. I had long hoped for a marriage made in Heaven.  But the girl who would make that possible stayed disturbingly absent for far too long.   

     Thoughts about her frequented my mind, even as I longed for the day of our meeting, thoughts of a beautiful young lady, walking alone a sidewalk of some large city.  I had had no luck back home, and was having no better luck during my first year at Wiley College.   Imaginations were all I had.  But he second quarter of my second year revealed a ray of hope. The gates of Heaven seemed on the verge of opening to release another angel.  

     A second-quarter dance was being held in the college gym for incoming freshmen.  I decided to attend and, from high up on one end of the bleachers, view to see if the girl of my dreams indeed had arrived. ( By now, it didn't even matter if she was from Texas.) There was one young lady with long hair that caught my eye, mainly because she danced so often.  All of the young men wanted to dance with her.  I hadn't noticed whether it was because of a shortage of young ladies--as she suggest to me later might have been the reason.  The only thing that mattered was that she looked like an angel to me.  

     I left the dance thinking this could be the one, but I didn't give her any further thought.  After all, I wasn't exactly in desperate need of a girlfriend.  I was a waiter in the cafeteria, and never even looked for her there.  I never even chanced to see her--at least, not to recognize her.

     But plans had been made for the special bus to carry Wiley students from Beaumont and Port Arthur home for the Christmas holidays.  And while waiting for that bus, we encountered each other--sort of.  She was standing alone when I arrived at the meeting site.  I spoke.  She said, "Hello."  But as I turned around to put my suitcase out of the way, she turned her back to me.  She wore a gray suit that fit her every curve.  When they started making Coca Cola bottles, she had been the mold.  She was good-looking even up close and in the dark.  She must have known I was looking and thought to herself if I weren't, I should have been.

     As I started to introduce myself, though, a couple of her friends arrived, leaving me only with hopes that there would be a vacant seat next to her on the bus--or that she would take one next to me.  But that was not to be.  And the only memories I had during the holidays was being obsessed by one song she danced to during that freshmen dance: "Any time, any place, any where."  

     When I returned from the holidays she no longer was going unnoticed.  I noticed, for example, that she was always the first one peering through the glass-paned door of the cafeteria at meal time.  My friends, who were also waiters, knew about my feelings.  One of them let only her in early.  She wondered why, but she soon found out:  Although we still had never met, I had my friends call her and pretend to be me.  (Okay, so I was in bad shape.)

     But one day, while in the chemistry laboratory with my friends, we needed  information from the library.  I volunteered to get it.  While leaving the building and proceeding toward to library, I noticed two young ladies approaching from an intersecting sidewalk.  One of them was this girl.  I was petrified.  If they had been closer, I perhaps would have spoken, and continued to the library.  If they had been farther away, I would have pretended not to have seen them.  But they were at this in-between distance.  I couldn't wave and continue to the library, because I didn't know them.  And I would have looked even more stupid if I said nothing after all the talk she had heard and telephone calls that she thought had been from me.  Not knowing what to do, I stopped and waited for them.  Her roommate walked on ahead.  And when this young lady reached me, I said, "Well, I guess you've been hearing a lot about me."  She said, "A little."  Without asking permission, I walked with her to her physical education class.  We shared a few bits of information about each other--nothing romantic.  

     But there was a basketball game that Friday night, and I asked if I could take her to the game.  She consented.  I had found out that both us were Baptists so I invited her to attend Sunday's service with me at a Baptist church with whichI had become affiliated  Again, she agreed.  We were learning enough about each other to feel comfortable and interested.  For me, I had found the girl of my dreams.  I was ready for marriage even then.  She was not a big-city girl of my imagination but had been reared on a farm, deep, deep in the back woods of Southeast Texas.  But none of that mattered.   What mattered was that she didn't smoke.  She didn't drink.  And she went to church. And I was in love.  (No, I did not say she did not use profanity if someone gave her reason to use it, and no, I did not say who that someone was.)

     During the following summer, we exchanged letters.  On Sundays, I would sit on the porch, hoping something had happened at the post office that would cause the mailman to deliver me a letter.  I was in love.  And while she did not love me quite so much, she loved the fact that I loved her so much.

     I not only believed that God had given me what I needed, but hoped He also was giving her what she needed.   And when you believe that God has given you something, you need to be careful how you treat it.  We have had sixty years of devoted, faithful and carefully-treated marriage.   Love, religion and commitment have made it easier.  And we still aren't tired of each other.  

     Recently, another wife, celebrating a 60th anniversary with her husband, was asked how she was able to find somebody willing to stay with her for sixty years.  She said in so many words that she looked got someone who was willing to put up with her.  That's what all married people hope they have found, including your spouse.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com  

Questions Related to the American Dream

     There are several questions that must be asked and answered before the American people can make in informed decision about the future of this country.

The guests on the various talk shows have opinions based on the economy they want to see in place and the people they want to benefit from that economy.

     When Mitt Romney and Romney supporters are asked questions such as:  What do you think should be done to create jobs?  The typical answer is something like, the American people need to elect a president who knows how to create jobs.  This is true.  But having created jobs incidental to making money is not the same as stimulating the economy to create enough jobs to put tens of billions people back to work with good-paying jobs.

      Speaker John Boehner is trying to convince voters who don't like Romney--or the kind of president he might become--to vote for him anyway just to get rid of Barack Obama.  I guess that means vote against Obama for whatever reason voters have not to like him--even if they belief the President was dealt a bad hand by President G. W. Bush and Republicans in Congress have limited his ability to play even that bad hand.  

     Talk show hosts need to ask questions that will give voters a chance to understand specifics of what the guests are talking about.  They should demand that guests answer questions or not come on the show.  Unfortunately, many will choose not to come.  

     One problem we have in our political and economic discourses is using terms such as socialism, communism and capitalism that have negative connotations.  What the words mean is often defined by the failed ways an economic system has been implemented in certain countries.  If we use that method of determining the merits of economic systems, democracy would be a bad word based on how it is beginning to be practiced in the United States.  Rather than labeling political and economic systems, we should be talking about what the system intends to do for the people.  That's more important than what the system is called.

     Karl Marx said that a society should expect from every person according to ability (that includes those near the lower end of the economic range) and provide to every person according to need.  Those words might easily have been spoken by Jesus.  Is it a concept whose practice is not limited to economic systems that are labeled communists?  Until recently, America taxed according to people's ability to pay and share the  wealth of the wealthy with less fortunate Americans according to needs.  Of course, there are those who say some of those in need are just lazy.   That is often true.  But should we punish all people who are in need and want jobs because some of them are just lazy?  (Come on churches, I need some help.)  What should be done with those who are lazy.  Now, let's not blame those who are in need because of the failure of schools.   Shouldn't there be some kind of second chances for them?

      I would like to hear or read political candidates' visions of America.  What do they want to see happening to, by and for the American people--all of us?  Can these things happen automatically? What must happen within the society to make sure these things happen?  Should people in the American democracy work as a team?  How can we do that?  What will be the evidence that the society is functioning as envisioned?  What would be evidence that an economic system is functioning properly?            

     Should a society provide jobs for every person who wants a job?  Businesses say they are not hiring because of uncertainty that people will buy their products.  But how can uncertainty be reduced if people don't have certainty about jobs that enable them to buy things?  I still don't understand why the work that does exist cannot be shared with the unemployed during recessions.  Why can't it be phased in over a time?  For every 15 workers that share one-half hour each day, a company could hire another worker for 7 1/2 hours per day.  Even promises to do it would get out more voters, and strengthen unions' ability to increase membership and negotiate fairer compensations for their labor. 

     A vision is needed of what an ideal America looks like in terms of what all Americans are doing; things such as being gainfully employed, being effectively educated, participating in the government and community affairs; what they have such as homes, stable families, secure retirements and health care; how they relate to each other in the workplace, within the home, within government, within and among organizations and institutions; and how they will seek, perpetuate and optimize the best of what is believed it should mean to be an American.    

     There does not seem to be anything conservative or liberal about these aspects of a vision of America.  I don't believe either liberals or conservatives want people to be poor and homeless.  Neither believes that only certain children should receive a quality education.  Neither believes that children should have parent who are too young or too poorly prepared to guide, protect, motivate and be good role models for them.  And neither believes that every American can be born a genius or have the talents, desires and opportunities to become wealthy.

     Conservative and liberal should practice their ideologies in determining how they will choose to love their individuals lives, who will be their friends, what organizations they will join, what religious faith they will follow, what political party they will support, where they will live, the kind of entertainment they enjoy, the kind of language they will use and other things they will choose to do.  But they should not seek to force their beliefs, behaviors and other choices on others.  What may be right and compatible with traditions and dispositions of one person or group may not fit well with other people.  

     Wanting to get more than one's fair share of a nation's wealth is neither liberal or conservative.  Both liberals and conservatives would like to be rich.  And there are poor people among both conservatives and liberals.  Our problem is getting from our present state in America to a mutually desired state.  And it requires the same kinds of thinking, attitudes and commitments that will be necessary to keep us there.  More questions and comments are needed that relate to these conclusions.

Jump Starting a Stalled Economy

     The hugh debt accumulation, which began under George W. Bush, continues to accumulate during the Obama presidency.  Bush started two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut taxes under the notion that the surplus revenues accumulating as a result of Clinton policies were the people's money, not the government's.  The costs of those unfunded wars and tax cuts still contribute to contribute  to the deficit, but Obama did not cause them.  Obama could not stop the wars and end the tax cuts at the beginning of his term and start over. But the debt  growth did start over.   Obama's responsibility for the debt is the present debt minus that which continue because of Bush policies which were still costing American money.

     The downgrade of our nation debt rating was not caused because by the size of the national debt but because of Republicans' unwillingness to work with Democrats to structure a meaningful debt-reduction strategy that involved both spending cuts and tax increases.  That is what worked between Democrats and Republicans during the 1990s.  Democrats paid a price, though, during the next election because taxes were raised with only Democrats' support, while spending was pursued safely for Republicans, after the election.  

     Polls continue to show that the American people want that kind of compromising again.  But many members of Congress remember those consequence for Democrats.  Next time, it has to be a balanced package of both spending cuts and increased revenues, something that places both parties at risk.  Democrats are ready.  But progress is held up by elements within each party which insist that all deficit reduction come as a result of either spending cuts or raising taxes.  Neither of those will happen.

     However, the main thing holding up progress in debt- reduction is the false contention by Republicans that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the number of job created.  "The relationship between income tax (reduction) and addiction is like being on heroine, once you start the more you need."  That's a quote I came across while trying to gain some historical perspective on the relationship between tax increases and job creation.  Because economics is not mathematics, economists vary widely on the potential outcomes of various economy options.  But the conclusions are clear:  Raising taxes increases the number of jobs.

     The question is constantly and justifiably being asked by Democrats:  If low taxes on the wealthy and large corporation produce jobs, where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts and their extensions?  Republicans won't answer.  But if lower taxes on the wealthy and large corporations produce jobs, zero taxes should reduce unemployment rate to near zero.  

     Let's pursue that idea that cutting taxes creates jobs, and extent that idea to the nth degree. That should produce an infinite number of jobs, which would be a win-win for everybody.  Enough jobs would be produced for every American who wants to work.  There would be more jobs than workers.  So businesses would have to become smaller and fewer.   But governments also would be small.  

     Government workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, mayors, governors, the president, member of legislatures, all would be either elected or selected volunteers who earn their income from other jobs.  Children would be home-schooled or taught after work or on weekends by qualified volunteer teachers.  The military would consist of volunteers who have other full-time jobs and train on weekends.  And Mitt Romney would help the working poor and middle class invest their tax savings so they, too, can move up the financial ladder.

     But seriously, there must be some points between 100% and zero tax rates that are fair levels for everyone.  But where are they?  Who should determine them?   And should there be ways to know and test whether they are the right points, even when there are needs to adjust them? There are certain things  within an economic system that are only possible when people don't perceive those with whom they sometimes disagree as being the enemy, but rather as people who, while pursuing the same goals, sometime have different ideas--not with evil intent--about how to reach them.  The best ideas are best determined when everybody knows who benefits most when particular options are pursued, and how everybody else will eventually benefit.  

     The character of the people eventually become the character of the country.  The integrity of government cannot exceed that of the people who elect it.  And the people can have no better character than are the teachings and practices of their religious faiths.      

     Let's look at our economy.  Businesses create and sell goods or services.  They hire people, who use some of their earnings to buy these goods and services and save the rest for retirement by investing in the businesses.  That cycle keeps the economic wheels turning.  But in an economic slow-down, when the engine either stalls or stops, which one of these must start the wheels turning?  The unemployed or underemployed cannot do it--they don't have the money with which to buy goods and services.   What certainty, then, is business waiting for?  They are the ones with the money.  In tough economic times, they are the batteries and starters of the U.S. economy.  

     But, if businesses are "uncertain," who else has either the money or access to the money (a power supply and set of cables, so to speak) that can be used to hire workers, promote spending, encourage employment and get the wheel turning?  The answer is a government that is big enough and respected enough to do it.  

 And who has the most to lose if the America's economic engine does not start or continues to stall?  The country does.  

     Just as individuals may have what they consider the right and good reasons to kill themselves,  Irrational members of Congress feel that they have both the right and good reason to assist in an American suicide--just so Obama becomes a one-term president.

     The polls continue to say that Americans want the parties to cooperate so the nation can survive.  But Irrational Republicans continue to say, "No."   And presidential polls suggest that Americans, in resignation, may be saying, "Okay, kill us."

    

Identifying Oneself in order to Be Identified

      If people do not have proper photo identifications so they can vote in November, what do they show--or whom do they bring with them--to prove to those who will provide the valid identification that they are who they say they are?  The proof that people are who they say they are can be no more conclusive than is the creditability of the proof they bring with them.  If whatever or whoever is used to confirm a person's identification is considered credible, why can't that basis of proof be sufficient identification at the polls?
     That's all for now.

The Chief Justice's Supreme Wisdom

 The Supreme Court  is the supreme decider on matters of constitutional legality.

When justices come to ideological conclusions after careful deliberation, that is what they are expected to do.  But when they reach conclusion on political basis, the Supreme Court decisions no longer reflect the wisdom but merely the prerogatives of the court.

     How does the "commerce clause" of the Constitution would impact the mandate within the Obamacare legislation? The various interpretations by former Supreme Court justices and legal experts who have offered opinions ever since the Constitution was ratified seem to preclude any certainty about what is permitted by the "commerce clause" other than it can mean whatever some "expert" in Constitutional law perceives it to mean, or what opponents of some legislation affirmed to be constitutional contend it does not mean.  Justice Roberts, realizing that there is no legal consensus nor any substantial precedence about what can or cannot be regulated by the "commerce clause," resolved the dilemma by calling the mandate a tax, which Congress can regulate.

     Justice Roberts also was right in pointing out that the job of the Supreme court was not to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was good policy--or even the moral thing to do--but to determine whether the legislation was legal based on the Constitution.  He substituted the word "tax" for "penalty" in order to remove any controversy about "commerce clause" implications.   By fixing the legislation rather than voting against it suggest that Roberts believed Obamacare was both good policy and good for the American people.  

     Conservatives are falsely claiming that Obamacare taxes will be the largest amount in history.    But William Shakespeare, speaking through Juliet, asks and answers the question:  "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell the same."  A penalty by any other name is still a penalty.  Calling the penalty a tax does not change what it is, which is defined by its purpose.  And the purpose is not to raise revenues.  Furthermore, if everybody who can afford insurance buys it, "penalaxes" will be zero.         

     You'll remember, Republicans objected to Obamacare as part of their strategy to make President Obama a "one-term president."  Making him look like a person who doesn't know what he is doing is part of the plan.  It didn't matter that his ideas were good for the American people--even rich people and those aspiring to become rich.  Most conservatives just want to believe that Barack Obama is the wrong person.  

     Republicans challenged Obamacare, at first, because of claims that their ideas were excluded.  Consequently, individual Republicans were afraid to acknowledge their contributions to Obamacare.  They refused to acknowledge secret compromises they offered in the formation of this still imperfect product.  They refused to acknowledge that the "mandate" was a Republican idea, that Mitt Romney implemented it as governor of  Massachusetts.  Even Romney won't take credit for instituting the successful health-care program.   Republicans also refused to accept the President's invitation to present malpractice options, choosing, instead, to criticize Obamacare later for not addressing their malpractice concerns.

     So they decided to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Presumably it was not only bad policy, it is illegal legislation.  Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court majority conceded that bad policy would not make it is not unconstitutional.  Now Republicans are back to their bad legislation argument.  But a health-care plan was not bad legislation in Massachusetts when Republican governor Romney presented it and and a bipartisan legislature passed it.        

     Despite objections by most Republicans, the Affordable Card Act that passed Congress was a legislative compromise that disappointed both liberals and conservatives.  Conservative claimed it was a bad plan, but they never submitted their own workable plan.  And if they couldn't come up with a plan during the time when health care was being debated, how can they come up with one now.  The fact is they didn't want a plan, certainly not before the November elections.

     Would there be a health-care plan developed under a Mitt Romney presidency.  It's possible.  The problem is not that Obama has been a poor president with a lot of bad ideas.  He has been a good president.  And if Mitt Romney is elected president, he likely would attempt many of the things Obama is being criticized for either having done or wanting to do.  

     But that was more likely before the Supreme Court made its decision.  The question still remains: Will most Americans trust effective health-care legislation, job creation, a quality education focus and chances for a robust economic recovery to the leadership of President Obama or a President Romney?         I have often referred to the words of former New York governor, Mario Cuomo, who when asked, after the 1988 election of George H. W. Bush, if he would seek the presidency in1992, responded, "I'm not sure.  I'll be pulling for President Bush to succeed."  This was Cuomo, hoping that the American people has made the right choice.  But Republicans don't want Obama for America even if he is the better choice.

     But Republicans are a poor choice for other reasons including their constant disparagement of Europe with words like not wanting "European-style health care" and "European-style Socialism" (and almost anything European).  These suggest that a Republican-led government would be increasingly anti-European, even if it means bringing the European economy down and the U.S. economy down with it.    They're now even trying to make one of their own champions, Chief Justice Roberts, down by trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.  

     I have seen deranged individuals before but never a deranged political party.  

Republicans are saying that the Supreme Court decision was a blessing in disguise.  Why, then, didn't they realize that before legally challenging Obamacare.  The logic of the Republican position suggests that, contrary to the impression they gave, they really were pulling for the Supreme Court to rule against them.  They are saying effectively that Roberts has given them reason to do what they have said they would do anyway.  "Repeal and replace"?  When have Washington Republicans ever attempted to pass health-care legislation to cover all Americans?  They wouldn't this time, either.

     They are becoming confused by their own nonsense, and are hoping confusion helps them with the American voters in November.

Rational Majorities Are Always Right

  In all effective democratic processes, the majority must be considered right--even when they may be wrong.   This is because, where the people on both sides of an issue make rational proposals and act reasonably in pursuit of the best options. even a united pursuit of the "wrong" position will yield better results when the status quo is not an option.

      But when smart and ethical people disagree on opposite sides in pursuit of the best options, there are several possibilities:  (1) Each option or position has the potential to be successful if proponents and opponents decide to cooperate to make the choice of the majority succeed.  (2) Both option can fail if those on the losing side commit to making the prevailing option fail.  But (3) it is also possible that neither option has the potential to succeed.  The solution may rest outside the box of perceived or permitted options.  In the most successful practices of democratic processes, the people in the group like each other.  (Otherwise, they likely would not be--or remain--part of the group.)  All join in to make the selected option succeed, with the same enthusiasm as had their preference prevailed.  The group acts as one body, much as single individuals do when having to choose from among several options, and must weigh the roads to success and the consequences of both success and failure.  Once all the options have been carefully considered and decisions made, individuals don't continually argue within themselves about the choice made.  The only debate is about how to best make the choice happen.  Therefore, when people within a group seek to sabotage the will of the majority, it is as if some aspect of an individual psyche is seeking to make the option, chosen after careful consideration, fail in order to direct attention to other rejected options.  This has been referred to as a house divided against itself, and It's bad if it happens in either individuals and groups.

    All groups and institutions work better together when members recognize and acknowledge good ideas that can contribute to the successful achievements of shared goals.  Most group goals have more than one route to success.  And most times success depends on the resources, skills, and knowledge of those who must lead the pursuit of those goals.  Unfortunately, too often, the debate is centered more on the process than on the desired outcomes.  Processes are easy to debate and criticize because there is nothing tangible to evaluate. Processes can only be evaluated based on whether or not the pursued goals have been achieved.

     What we need, therefore, is a vision for America which enables us to set goals for our economy and expectations of our politics that produce desired outcomes for the American people, outcome that are not beg achieved as increasing shares of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fewer and fewer families.  More and more people, as a consequence, are having to live with less than they need.   

     According to objective experts, the income and wealth gap began in the 1980's during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.   Many attribute his attacks on unions as the beginning of the decline of union strength and influence.   But even before then union money and union member votes often went in opposite directions.  

     It was certainly a time when the American people's attitudes about helping the "least among us" began to change from attitudes born with the elections of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson two decades earlier.  It became all right During the Reagan years to be selfish.

      But what caused this wealth gap to widen over the past thirty years?  Powerful and smarter people have always had the ability to take advantage of the rest of us.  But why in the 1980s? Certainly weakened unions was a factor.  Has it been good for the American economy?  Will the trend end on its own?  If so, what will cause the gap to stop widening

      Smart people have opposing positions about the wealth gap, the economy and about the merits government size.  But I never hear a description of  government that is just right,  Why?  These people who are disagreeing among themselves are smart people whom we expect and hope are giving us their best, unbiased opinions on issues and options.  Of course, if some of these smart experts know that their arguments are flawed but espouse them for political reasons, then voters must make their decisions based on other sources of information.  But what and where will they get it?  Presently,  the people's watch dogs seem to have lost their freedoms of speech and press.

     The principle of the majority's being right usually holds within political parties but, in the present political climate, does not hold for decisions that require agreements between the parties.  Compromise, call it give and take or flipping a coin, is the only way to reach a "right" solution.  After Republicans have defined and described small government and how it best achieves the needs of all Americans and Democrats have done the same for big government, they then should be able to reach middle-ground that is not only "just right' for all Americans.

There is nothing sacred or honorable about economic or social ideologies that they would cause members of Congress to refuse to compromise.  The principles of integrity, truthfulness, trustworthiness, honesty and fairness are principles that should not be--and are not expected by most voters to be--compromised.  But these are not ideologies..

     We must always remember that despite people classifying themselves as liberals, moderates and conservatives or Democrats, Republican and independents, all of us are members of the one nation.  We are one body.  Consequently, most Americans want Republicans and Democrats to compromise, to assume that the majority is "right."  But big money, including those feeding at the upper end of the income gap, says, "NO."   

     In November, voters will determine if that is a winning strategy.

Teaching Students How to "Fish"

     There is a saying that, if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.  (And you'll have to give him a fish everyday the rest of his life.)  But If you teach him to fish, he'll feed himself for the rest of his life.  Few people will argue with the truth of that statement.  Therefore, the implication by Republicans that our welfare system gives fishes to people who should be fishing has merit--if we were really committed to teaching them how to fish.

     Let's not fail to realize that there are Americans who must be given fish every day of their lives.  We know who they are and we should do it.  We have members of our American family who are mentally or physically challenged.  America is able to take care of them.  But we cannot do it adequately when money is being given to able-bodied people who have the capacity to provide for themselves but not the ability.

     The problem is that many able-bodied people also need help.  Able-bodied children who come from a non-inspiring, non-encouraging, non-challenging homes, and without proper role models can "learn to fish" if that child attends schools where teachers know how to teach them to fish.  And if there are teachers who cannot do it, there should be people within school systems who can teach the teachers how to teach students to fish.  If such people are not within the school system, there must be somebody somewhere where of both teachers and their superiors can go to learn how to teach children to fish.

     Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that if students are given a fishing pole, some hooks and bait, and take them where the fish are that they have been provided opportunities to learn to fish.  Granted, some children may be able to learn to fish by watching other children fish.  But most teachers want student to "fish" independently, and most students are not in classes with the good "fisherman."  There is no doubt that students learn to "fish" much more easily when teachers teach them to fish.  

     Presently, too many colleges and universities are not enabling educational leaders in our school systems to help local educators teach children how to fish. many institutions which have staffs capable of challenging educators don't do so because local educators have options to attend other institutions where standards are lower.   Also, educator-training institutes with such highly qualified staffs likely must charge higher tuitions to pay the salaries of such staffs or lose them to the business.  

     Hence, the need for a government financed Education Academy with high academic standards.  Those who say this is another example of government being too big are wrong.  Government must be as small as it can be but as big as it needs to be, big enough to provide the nation's children with the kind of education both they and the nation need.

     The children themselves are factors in this equation.  And if children don't have the kinds of parents at home that schools think they should have, why aren't schools teaching students how to become better parents than than the ones they have.  Even teach those parents who are willing to learn.  These efforts could generate community-wide awareness, and efforts on the parts of those community institutions and organizations that can support these efforts and impact children lives within that community.  

     Secondly, schools should teach students how to be become better students by teaching them how to learn the subjects teachers teach.  Not all student know how to study and how to learn.  Many don't know when they don't understand or what it means to understand.  Conservatives are right:  People should know "how to fish."  But they are short on expressing the need to "teach them to fish."  Democrats, on the other hand want to feed them until they are taught how to fish, not just given hooks, bait and poles.  

     Conservatives act as if they don' t really want intellectually hungry children to be able to fish.  It's as if they would rather expand the welfare state to reduce the number of children prepared to compete for good jobs.  It's as if they would rather give them a fish every now and then or keep them fishing in shallow waters rather than prepare these children to go into the deep waters of academic achievement where they fish are bountiful and the opportunities for tremendous catches are great. 

      Some of that may have been true. 

      But, essentially, African American are now in control of their own destiny in educating black children.  But Black educational leaders cannot lead young people to levels of excellence in achievement and performance.that they themselves have not achieved.  I was always concerned as a teacher that my ability to challenge my students was limited by my knowledge of what was possible by my students.  I did not assign physics problems that I could not work without first referring to the teacher's manual.  One year, I assigned them and some students solved them.

Teachers of at-risk students have a very difficult task because "at risk" does not mean "can't learn."  And those needing to challenge children at the highest level have an even greater challenge because knowledge of the content to be taught is not the same as knowing how to enable students to learn that content at levels of challenge commensurate with the students abilities. 

     Consequently, schools should provide study halls specifically for science, mathematics, and language arts, where students can enroll as needed.  They would be manned by teachers who are inspiring and trained in remediation.  Some students, as a consequence, would take fewer courses per semester or per year and require one or two years longer to graduate but they would graduate ready to fish. 

     Even though this column has been a "fish" story or sorts, poor education is not the fault of children and parents who don't know what needs to be done to improve the condition.  It's the fault of those who do know what is wrong--or choose not to find out--but still get paid as if most graduates have learned to fish.

         

Many Religions but Only One God

     Through His teachings and example, Jesus attempted to add His own divine knowledge or revelations to the Biblical teachings of Judaism--as had many who spoke on behalf of God before Him.   Although, He was rejected by most Jews, He and his teachings laid foundations for what would become Christianity.

     I believe every holy book contains words that were either spoken or revealed by God.  They were spoken or revealed to people who were either inspired or predisposed to hear, remember and communicate them.   Each holy book is holy to those who believe in it, are inspired by it, and attempt to live their lives according to its teachings.   All of the great religious teachers throughout the ages may have been communicating with specific groups, but their messages had worldwide implications.  The actual messages from God reside in what all such messages, revelations, gospels, and commandments have in common--the Golden Rule being one otfthem.     

     Abraham was the father of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish faith, and likely many other religious faiths.  Different peoples either found or was found by God through  experiences that were unique to them, and through the words of men who claim to have communicated with The Creator.  But God is father--and likely mother--of all people.  How God reveals Himself to us and how our faith assimilates His presence into our lives may be unique to our individual or cultural nature and to our needs and circumstances.  Nevertheless, they are there. 

     When God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, He was not sending a message applicable only to Jews, with no thought of people in other parts of the world.  There was only one god, who is God.  So there is no such thing as Jews having their god, and other peoples having theirs. 

      Likewise, when Jesus told His disciples to "teach all nations…to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you."  He likely was not talking about expanding Judaism--or even the religion for which His teachings eventually would become the foundation: He was talking about spreading to all peoples God's formula for living together peacefully, productively and joyfully.   Jesus summed up all commandments up into two commandments:  Love the Lord our God with all our mind, body, soul and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves--love that is often beyond our ability to feel, but always within our ability to demonstrate. 

     Other people through the ages have made images to represent God, giving themselves something tangible to see, and maybe even to touch.  These people did not believe the images were God.  After all, they had made them or seen them made.  Likely, they simply believed (or perhaps hoped) that God would meet them at the images--and we have no way of knowing that He didn't.

     But there seems to be a need for some people to believe that everything which is like or associated with themselves must be better or superior to person, things or experiences that characterize others.  That kind of thinking makes it easy for some people to attribute to "radical Islam" terrorism by certain residents of countries where Islam is the dominant religion.  If a similar group of aggrieved or misled people from the United States carried out acts of terror in Europe--or even within the United States, the same people would not label the group as "radical Christianity."   The United States was attacked on 9/11 by Al Queda, not "radical Islam."  Credit or blame should be placed where it is due.  Just as not every person who attends or belongs to a church congregation is a Christian in thought and action, neither is everyone who bows at a mosque to the Muslim faith.  

     Jesus made it clear (regardless of the religion):  He said, "by their fruit you shall know them."  He said that because here are people in most religions who seek out within their holy books, not sources of truth and guidelines for living, but translations, impressions and interpretations that validate their desire to live and act counter to the basic teachings of the religion.   

     I don't know why it is that some people want God to care more about them than His other creations.  They want it so much that, if God doesn't show that He cares more for them, they will take matters into their own hands, and make it appear that He does:  Their accumulation of wealth at expense of others becomes, for them, examples of God's blessings.  They will break commandments and still be able to convince many people that wealth and political power are evidence of their being favored and more blessed by God.

     Religious tolerance is the ability to permit and live peacefully with those who practice religious faiths with which one disagrees.  Tolerance acknowledges the right of Americans to practice religion according to the dictates of their hearts so long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others.  Consequently, people can be tolerant of other religious and yet believe that their religion and holy book are connecting them with The Almighty.  The problem is when they believe on theirs connect with The Almighty.   Can we remain true to our own faiths and be more than just tolerant toward other religious faiths?  

     It seems that those of us in the pews tend to be more liberal in our acceptance of the legitimacy of other religious faiths than are the leaders of the various faiths.   Many of these leaders merely choose not to admit that other religions also may be litigate.  Jesus told his disciples that He had "other sheep who are not of this fold."   Who were these other sheep?  Jesus said these sheep know his voice and did whatsoever He commanded.  One might conclude that sheep anywhere who did as Jesus commanded--regardless of the holy book that contained the teachings--were His.  

     Sometimes people who are not religious leaders have been inspired with truth.   Long before Jesus lived, Confucius stated that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us".  And although they were contemporaries, neither did the philosopher Socrates ever meet the prophet Jeremiah--as some religious scholars suggest must have happened--to account for Socrates' profound faith in God and belief in life after death.

     Almighty God is creator and sustainer of both the realized and unrealized.