PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENTS ARE GUIDED BY EXPECTATIONS

     In every human activity, where expected outcomes become serious goals that are considered important to the continued progress of a society, a business or an organization, expectations--be they visions or goals--guide activity, establish desired qualities of performance and assesses to determine the products' levels of quality:  The refining of oil, evolution of smart telephones, break-throughs in medical science, improved performances of automobiles, development of renewable energy sources and the development of the most potent military force the world has ever known are examples of expectations guiding the monitoring and assessing of both the quality and feasibility of processes

     However, despite these examples of expectations setting in motion the kinds of activities that spawn new ideas that sometimes challenge and sometimes support established thoughts about matters having implications for the American people, these best practices have not been evident in attempts to address the problems facing those schools which are drowning in the seas of what in many cases appear to be "designed" poor performance.  School boards of too many districts have no strategic plans--that they can share with the community--for educating children within their schools.  No written expectations are written for superintendents in terms of performance expectation of subordinates and subsequent teacher and student performances.  These boards have no written instruments for periodic evaluations of neither itself, the superintendent, assistant superintendents, principals, supervisors, teachers or students.  They communicate no meaningful vision and goals, and no strategies for their achievement.  Consistent with board and superintendent expectations, boards seem to have no ways to evaluate and modify implemented strategies.      

     Representative board members never sit in on superintendent staff meetings with district administrators so they can hear discussions about expectations, strategic successes, failures and adjustments and followups--or they never report when they do.  There seem to be no attention to academic performances by students and instruction performance by down line instructional leaders.  Problem-solving seems to be absent.  Focus and follow-ups on problems at all levels seems absent or rarely discussed.     Representative board members and the superintendent similarly should sit in on principal faculty meetings.  Some visitations should be announced and some unannounced.  Everyone is more likely to perform better and seek help trying to perform better when they are expected to discuss demonstrate evidence or either proficient or improved performance.

     The best and most interested parental and community representation should have access to academic and performance expectations at all levels of teaching and supervision.  Frequent assessments of student performances should corroborate findings concerning administrator and teacher performances and the recommendations that grow out of those performances.  Teachers should expose student to the kinds of questions students will face on state assessments.  Sample question should be provided by the state.  These would provide models for teachers and other instructional leaders who are responsible for developing such effective tests.

      To the extent that increased monitoring brings expectations about student performances into better focus, it should not result in unnecessary or unreasonably increased tensions on educators at any level.  What would be intended is discovering shortcomings and establishing practical levels of awareness and rectification at each level of instructional leadership and various levels of student performance.

     One board meeting each month should be devoted to communicating instructional initiatives and outcome in terms of student performances.  The discussions should validate district academic goals or redirect the distric'ts attention to better ways to achieve goals that are going unmet, and the need to clarify goals or establish new ones.  Feed-back from previous meetings should provide the foundation to identify educator and student goals for the following--or remainder of current--school year.  The community should have opportunities to provide input into the process to supplement the board's  and superintendent's ideas or provide ideas  concerning additional goals that should be pursued.   The goals ultimately should give rise to visions for the district which may give rise to more appropriate goals.  Goal-identification, pursuit and assessments become part of a culture of professional renewal in an environment of high expectations, cooperation and professional gratification.

     A reasonable time-line should be established for the board, superintendent and subordinate administrators to develop plans detailing how they will help their subordinates improve their levels of performance in carrying out the expectations of their job descriptions.  An ombudsman, who could never become superintendent--who will attend all meeting--participate in all meetings and would seek to synchronize the efforts of all levels of supervision.  His or her opinion would weigh heavily in determining who will be promoted to higher levels of administration or who should be demoted to lower levels before again seeking higher positions.

     An auto dealer would not be able to get away with simply blaming the poor performance of a car he sold on the quality of the gasoline the car owner bought.  Similarly, the poor academic performances by students is not always--or ever entirely due to--poor parenting by parents.

Can schools ever perform a efficiently as an oil refinery. or the latest high-performance auto?  How can we know if we don't try?  And can we ever blame students and parents if we fail to try our hardest?  This discourse is an attempt to garner a community commitment to seriously efforts to make all of our schools the best they can be by making our children and our educators the best they can be.

     Industry can help the process by lending its expertise about quality control to schools by serving on school boards and providing employment opportunities to district students and, thereby, providing additional incentives for students to aim for academic excellence.  Tax abatements for industry should be tied to academic performances and levels of employment of local youth and their parents by such businesses.

     But unfortunately none of these can happen, not because they are impossible but because a culture of mediocrity has become accepted within the communities that have  failing schools.    Low expectations breed low performances by both educators and students.  Those within the community who could provide leadership are often among those who have "overcome" and choose not to chance jeopardize their "connections" by trying to change the status quo.

     It is hard to understand how one of the nation's oldest profession--that of educating children--which has been around in America for hundreds of years, can show so little progress toward providing opportunities for all American children to have at least as much access to a high quality education as they have to a quality automobile or telephone.  How children are motivated to learn should be common place by now.  Expecting, providing, administering and properly supervising quality education should be showing the same kinds of progress as have other pursuits within the American culture.  Why steady progress in education has not been forthcoming in America is yet another issue about which serious national conversations should be had on a continual basis.

Expectations Guide Performance and Assessments

Identify, Model and Reward High Quality Educators

     Cars, telephones, computers, airplanes, medical practice and many other human activities are increasing in quality on a continuing basis.  Why not education?  Because, too often, educators must produce a better quality student using raw material that resist being improved.  But the fact is the materials scientists and engineers manipulate to produce better quality products, when they are not dealt with properly, also resist being transformed.   The problem, then, is that many educators have not learned how to deal properly with their resources: students and other educators. Effective teaching is the hardest job; that is, (1) if educators are expected to be successful in the education of children, and (2) if school districts fail to have proper perspectives about what kinds and levels of expectations constitute success.

     Quality education is a product of quality teaching.  But exactly what is meant by quality education?  And how can it be accomplished?  In most schools there are quality teachers who could be model teachers.  Some learned what it means to be model teacher--and how to become model teachers--in teaching-training classes devoted to instilling such knowledge.  Some taught themselves over years of thoughtful trial and error.  Some quality teachers learned through thoughtful consideration of factors which cause students to gain, retain or lose interest in learning the courses these teachers teach.  

     Why are students more successful under certain teachers?  What is happening at all professional levels of education within states and school districts that create better and more creative educators?

     One of the first things I heard, during those trying years of getting my feet wet in the teaching profession, was that a "good" principal must first have been a "good" teacher.  One must conclude that a "good" superintendent--who hopefully also was once a good principal--must also have been a good teacher and therefore knows what kinds of things should be going on down the chain of command that leads to successful students.  If principals were not good teachers, are they able to communicate appropriate expectations to their teachers?  What expectations would superintendents communicate to their assistant superintendents, principals and other instructional leaders?  Unless principals had once been "good" teachers--and superintendents, good principals--how can they know (or recognize) when expectations are reasonable, when they are being achieved by subordinates,  and what to suggest to assist subordinates who really want to become "good" at what they do?

   Teachers will differ in their abilities to be creative in developing effective teaching strategies they toward fulfilling their responsibility and desires to be quality teachers.  But even those who are not so creative in developing effective strategies can implement effective strategies if they know what they are, what the performance expectations are, and are helped--or taught how--to Implement the strategies.  Teachers who know what things to do and why they are done will better understand and identify with the teaching and learning processes they are expected to use.  What is true of teachers also applies to every other educator within the district.  

     How, then, can model educators be produced and made available at all administrative and instructional levels?

     Enabling educators to become "good" at all levels requires that school boards become knowledgeable about expectations at all levels within the chain of command, recognizing and communicating expectations, and monitoring executions at all levels.  This means school board must be educated, not only by their interactions teachers and administrators, but also with community leaders, parents and even students: We can seek the benefits of student ingenuity while students are in public schools--before they go off to make "big bucks," pursuing various wealth-building opportunities in the business world, not in education.

     But something can be done about that.

     Education will never keep up with the progress and demands of technology and medicine--nor with the needs of a society because of that progress and those demands--without the kinds of education that born of the same levels of intelligence and financial rewards.  Levels of economic and political empowerment are related to levels of educational knowledge and achievement.  Average people cannot become outstanding educators without being self-motivated to pursue a path of (or at least toward) excellence or unless they, themselves, have high quality teachers either as models or as teacher-training instructors, at all levels of education: in colleges and universities whose professors teach and train public school educators. 

     Does genius that solves problems on a technological nature lend itself to creative pursuits in education?  In other words, can talent only pursue innovations consistent with some innate qualities when money activates initiatives or can talent be directed in directions of need, where needs motivates rather than predisposition.

     Well, all of this prelude is intended the set the framework for raising the quality of teaching in all schools to the same high levels of quality.  If students are required to master the same curriculum, students should have the same levels and qualities of instruction by teachers who use methods that are equally effective.  How do we do that?  One way may be by using the ideas suggested in this column as a basis for beginning in-school, in-school district and in-community discussions and problem-solving initiatives related to educating children.  Using the best educators as role models and making video tapes of their use of effective strategies should be available to teachers and administrators according to their need for assistance.  These model ducators should be paid consistent with the success they have displayed in their own teaching and in improving the skills of less proficient  teachers and administrators, consistent with district definition of what it means to be a high-quality educator.

     If we assume that more intelligent people make better problem solvers, then education must attract a larger percentage of our most intelligent students into the teaching profession, and we must enable them to earn what they could earn in other professions.  What can cause these to happen?  parents and patrons who are committed to making sure (1) that those who are elected to school boards are the most competent and caring members available, and (2) that those who are qualified are not hindered in their efforts to improve the quality of education the district's expectations.  

     The consequence of not choosing quality leadership for school boards is that qualified people stop seeking school board positions.  Voters don't know for whom they should be voting--and why--because community leaders, including many church leaders, don't cooperate and keep their memberships sufficiently informed and involved about elections that effect the futures of their children and grandchildren.  Too often, even essential community leaders and their organizations for various reasons remain silent, uninvolved and, foo often, uninvited. 

     How can processes that provide quality education for all children be started?  Only if the community of parents, businesses, and organizations are disturbed enough about inferior education to say on behalf of the district's children,  "(We're) mad as hell, and (we're) not going to take it anymore."   But a community must care enough about its children before it can become mad enough.  For the African American community, such failure to care enough reflects a degree of self-rejection.  But these are recipes for familial, educational, financial failure and communal extinction.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blotspot.com

     

Redefining What It Means to "March"

     On March 18, 2013, the nation observed and commemorated the 50th anniversary of the March, 1963 march on Washington.  The rhythm of Dr. king's speech still causes

 chills to run up my spine.  The changes about which Dr. King dreamed were shown to be well on the road to reality with the 2008 election of Barack Obama to the American presidency.   Unfortunately, that event, which was the crowning achievement of the nation's march toward equality--though still short on justice and jobs for thousands of Americans who needed and wanted work--became rallying points for those determined to turned back the clock on change and assure that the dream remained only a wish.  "Yes, we can" has given way to a "No, you can't" response by many conservative Republicans, unmoved by change, and yearning for the good ole' days. Nevertheless, the march on Washington had coalesced visions of equality and justice.  It gave rise to new levels of hope, dignity and possibilities.  

     But it was much like the earlier million-men march led by Minister Louis Farrakhan,  where black men, too, were inspired by the importance, even the serenity, of a momentous moment,  but were also sent home without a strategy for using the emotion of the moment as a stimulus for moving forward, and, hence, without the ability to build on what was a momentous gathering of men.

     Every year, marches are conducted across the nation, commemorating past marches, extolling the achievements of Dr. KIng, and, on the 19th of June, celebration of the emancipation of black people from slavery.  But there seems to never be community-wide themes that reminded the black community that the "dream" has not yet been realized, that the quality of education in predominately black schools is still inferior and, partly as a consequence, opportunities for meaningful employment is far from being equal.  One might conclude that black people had overcome these realities, with nothing left to do but march for fun, recall precious memories and act as if there were not many black people who still had not overcome.  

     This is not to belittle the efforts of those who lead these efforts each year.  They serve purposes that have places worthy of recognition in the quest of black people to overcome the educational and economic gaps that are pervasive in Black America.  They just don't help black people overcome those conditions which can only be overcome by activities that directly impact the problems, activities that no one who is not black should be expected to provide. 

     In his speech during the commemoration of the King marches, President Obama talked about another kind of "march," marches not limited to walking the streets and waving signs.  He talked about businesses that are creating jobs that hire unemployed but qualified black people also march.  That new kind of "marching" means that parents who are seeing to it that their children spend adequate time at home reading, studying, solving problems and otherwise doing homework are also marching.  Children who welcome and heed their parent attempts to help them prepare for a better futures "march," not only in the streets, but in the classrooms.  Black educators also "march" who go back to college, when necessary, to broaden their knowledge of the courses they teach, to sharpen their teaching strategies and to broaden their instructional options so they can enable their students to maximize learning.  He was talking about marches and marchers who don't expect other people to do for black people what only black people can do for ourselves.

     One black leader said during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, "No one can save us for us but us."  For the past fifty years that statement, which should have been the rallying cry for a greater effort toward self-determination and self-actualization by black people, instead has become more of a forecast of doom, as we have not pursued an agenda of black pride, black-motivation, black encouragement, and development of positive self-images deserving of self-love, commitments to valuing oneself, striving for self-improvement and learning to love ourselves because we have reason to do so.  

     Another black man, the late William Raspberry, had said it another way when he wrote in a column that black people who choice to place their futures in the hands of people, many of whom they fear don't like them, is like placing their "salvation in the hands of the devil."  

     The Congress that President Obama has had to deal with is not the same kind of Congress that President Lyndon Johnson had.  But what black people need is a whole lot more than what is being provided by our black institutions and organizations.  'Marching" has to be more than what is happening within our black churches, more than is happening in many, if not most, of our public schools, especially those predominately African American schools where expectations for student performance are low.  And it is happening because in too many homes of black families, many just don't know what to do, and don't know how to find out.  Too often black leaders are "marching" either to the beat of strange drummers or simply "marching" to the wrong beat.

     It will be interesting to see what those who attended this 50th anniversary of the Dr. king's "I have a dream" speech--or followed it on television--did after they got back home in terms of pursuing the dream, about how each black community will begin proceedings to do its part toward making the Dr. King's dream for us come true.  We can't continue to expect other people to do more for us and care more about us than we do for ourselves.  People who don't place much value on their own lives can't be expected to place much value of the lives of other people who look like themselves.  Liking ourselves require not only a different kind of "march" but a different kind of walk and a different kind of talk.

     Affirmation Action, for example, was not just for those individuals who benefitted directly at the time:  It was also for the generations of offsprings that would follow the initial beneficiaries:  Children who are reluctant about studying would be cautioned about that time in the future when affirmation might no longer be the law, when people would be hired to high-paying jobs or be admitted to high-demand Universities based on qualities other than past denials of equal opportunities because of racial discrimination.    Affirmative action not only gave black men and women opportunities to better prepare themselves: It put them in positions to be better family providers, better role models and mentors for their children, as their children and future generations were enabled to have more productive and satisfying futures.

       So marches, be they the new kinds of "marches" or like those effective marches of the mid sixties, they must keep black people mindful that  "the dream" is not dead, that it's just not yet fully realized, and that its full realization will depend more on what black people do for ourselves than what other people can be do for us.  Our only hope is that other people--if they aren't going to help--

 will not deliberately set up road and stumbling blocks that hinder the dreamers' journey.

     A new year presents opportunities for new resolutions by black people to redefine what it means to march.   But one crucial question continues to linger about this new "march" toward realizing "The "Dream":  To what drummers and drumbeats will black leaders and  black organizations "march"?

          

EMail:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Governing with What We have and Who We Are

    President Obama, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans must do what is best for the United States at this time.  Democrats wish they had congressional Republicans like Tip O'neil had, and Republican wish they had congressional Democrats like Ronald Reagan had.  But that is not the kind of congress we have.  It not the kind of congress most Americans thought they they elected but apparently it's the kind of candidates they voted for.  If voters believe they have made a mistake, they have the next election to make it right.

     President Obama is a principled person who wants to do the right thing and not set precedents for future presidents that are detrimental to the stability and proper functioning of freedom and the ultimate will of the people in the American democracy.  But he must deal with today's Congress, and let future presidents deal with the circumstances and expectations of future voters and members of Congress.   Because Obama capitulates to some demands of Republicans today does not mean that future congressional politicians will successfully use future threats to make unreasonable political and economic demands nor does it mean that future Presidents will be required to capitulate with unreasonable politican demands during their times.

     The President not only are the times different, but he is different.  He is a black president.  And while that is considered a good thing and a proud achievement for most Americans, skin color was not something that Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan had to deal with.  Unless Obama deal properly with present-day circumstances, it may be a long time before a person of color is elected to the presidency, not because the American people will not want one but because of fear that the politician climate not accommodating such diversity.

     President Obama must make decisions that are appropriate to these times and rest assured that future presidents and congresses will make decisions deemed appropriate for their times.  If the people want universal health care, voters will place control of the presidency and Congress in the hands of Democrats.  If a majority of voters don't want it,  they will elect Republicans to lead the government, and Obamacare may be overturned.  

    What the people choose, whether for better or worse, will always represent who Americans--and the people they choose to represent them--are at that time.

Sometimes Political "Blinking" Is a Good Thing

     There was a time when it was believed that when congressional pollticians got together to solve a problem that involved compromising that the meetings needed to occur in secret so politicians would not be afraid to make statements or vote for positions that might be objectionable back home.  They could decide on what they thought  was right for the country.  But that is no longer the case:  They are meeting behind closed doors but not reaching a compromises or solutions.

     Both parties should  be required to discuss the contested issues on C-span.  The people need to know (1) what the issues being discussed, (2) what solutions are being proposed by each parties and party members, (3) what are the arguments are favoring each proposal,  (4) what the argument are against each proposal, (5) what compromises are being proposed, (6) what examples or expert opinions support each position taken opposing or favoring contested ideas.  (Have the experts present during debates to contest and correct incorrect information or statements.

     The parties pick only an uneven number of experts with whom they agree.  And let the experts debate and vote.  Agree to accept the decision of the experts.

     As a last resort, develop a way to resolve deadlocks.  Examples: (1) Flip a coin on each contended item.  Or (2) Where appropriate, have each party prioritized a list of preferences related to each controversial issue.  Flip a coin to determine who gets the first choice.  The loser gets topic its second and third choices, the winner the fourth and fifth choices, etc., with the loser getting the final pick.

     Each party should have a publicly-expressed strategy for settling congressional deadlocks.  Voters might be asked to vote for they one they prefer and expect the parties to follow.

Are you willing to compromise? and will you compromise where possible and necessary?  These are questions every candidate for public office should be required to answer either yes or no

     Listing to answers to questions raised during the Sunday talk shows, I conclude that Democrats are almost as guilty as Republicans in contributing to the present deadlock.  Both sides say that want to "have a conversation".  Democrats say they are "willing to discuss anything."  But when Democrats are asked about making adjustment to entitlements, Democrats say that is not on the table.  When Republicans are asked about raising revenues, Republicans say revenues are not one the table.  Each side wants to have a discussion but just not consider what the other side considers important.

     A Republican senator from Wyoming said that we are spending too much money on people who   aren't able to take care of themselves.  He suggested that their conditions are primarily their own fault.  He used used the analog of making people who are doing well financially are being punished by have to pull a wagon which is getting heavier with an increasingly large load of passengers and a decreasing number of people able to pull the wagons due to increased in their taxes.  There is some merit to that argument.  But poor education increases the number of people in the wagon, and it reduces the number of people who could be pulling the wagon.  Also promoting job creation would increase the number of people pulling the wagon and reduce the number of people who are riding.

     Finally, extending the debt-limit deadline will not merely "kick the can down the road."  That time could be used to reach compromises on all of the controversial issues.  Each side should submit a publicly released plan for compromise.  If there is still deadlock over the issues at that time, we will be no worse off than where we are now.  But the issues will have been discussed, any possibility for compromise dismissed, and voters will have a better barometer for deciding how to vote next year.

     There eventually comes a time when the right combination of event and people cause a disaster.  Trains will wreck.  Car tires will blow-out.  Buses will run off cliffs.  Airplanes will crash.  In each case the reason for the accident can be determined, but it will not make that driver more attentive, or those tires stronger, or the airplane malfunction or whatever the cause may be.  What we are witnessing in Congress appears to be an avoidable disaster.  But we may have a collection of congress members whose dispositions will not allow the members change their actions anymore than the bus driver could stay awake or the trains could avoid being on the same section of tracK at the same time.  The difference is that this wreck has not yet happened.  We've been warned sufficiently in advance that two trains are headed for a collision.   The wreck can be averted, just not by these two train engineers and conductors.  Something is missing within America's political and economic conflicts that seem to occur despite there being obvious solution options.  What can be done?

      President Obama, as a Nobel Peace Award laureate, must be the nation's leader and world's hero by "caving in."   He was elected because his desire and promise to end deadlocks.  If his party won't help him, he must make the decision himself and let his party--and the Republicans--whether or not to follow him.  His position within the Democratically controlled Senate is no different from that John Boehner in the Republican controlled House, except that, as president, Obama has the greater responsibility.

     "Blinking" and "caving in" can be a good thing.

Ronald 

Orama's Moderation Not Appreciated

    Barack Obama ran for the presidency promising to reach across the isle to seek bipartisanship and end congressional deadlocks.   He said the people wanted an end to political gridlock.  Ending deadlocks meant both Democrats and Republicans must consent to compromise, and must seek and find contentment in common ground.  Even though Americans which helped him become President of the United States knew that Obama was not elected king--and, therefore, would not be able to bring an end to congressional gridlock all by himself--there was to be increased voter frustration with Obama's failure settle gridlocks by decree. 

     The voters seemed to recognize that the president would need congressional help when they gave him the necessary congressional support by giving Democrats control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  But the majority in the Senate was not sufficient to overcome the reluctance of conservative Democrats--and one contrary liberal Democrat--to solidify Democratic congressional leadership and control.   Nevertheless,  voters made a good attempt: They gave Obama a good start.  However, despite the political successes under Democratic control, these successes were for the most achieved without the support of Republican politicians.  The potential for deadlock was still there.  And the enthusiasm which brought American voters (especially Democratic voters) to the polls during the presidential election of 2008 was not there in for midterm elections of 2012, when members of congress were vying for congressional positions. 

      Without the enthusiasm which accompanies elections when the president is on the ticket, Democrats lost the House of Representatives.  Democrats were the blame for not giving the midterm elections the same amount of attention, and not communicating to voters the importance of their returning to the polls to strengthen the Democrats' control of congress--and as it turns out, the need to strengthen Democratic influence in state governments.  I'm not aware of the number of Republicans who voted for Democrats during the 2008 and 2012 elections.  But polls have indicated that Americans of all political persuasions opposed congressional gridlock.  Most Republicans also believed in compromise.  Unfortunately, Republican members of Congress made their goal making Obama a one-term president.  No matter how important or good his ideas were, they would vote against them.  It was obvious who were the stumbling blocks, but Republican voters chose candidates who were committed to promoting exactly what the wanted President Obama to help end.  Their politics became more important than what they believed was in the best interest of the country and themselves.  People who wanted an end to gridlock essentially voted to continue it--in fact to extent it to the point of crippling government's ability to government.

     So, itt's gridlock time again in Washington.  Republicans are so sure the American Obamacare is a bad ideas for the American people that they are willing to shut down the government--and punish fellow Americans--in order to punish President Obama for trying to help people who need access to affordable health care, and for trying to cut the cost of health care in the United States.  Republicans say the don't want to shut down the government; they only want to delay the funding of Obamacare until appropriate changes can be made.  But what do Republicans want to change and what would they replace those element changed with?  Is that to be determined later?  Indefinitely later?  Gridlock is still here.  But Obama is not to blame.  

     Republican had input into the development of Obamacare.  They had chances to make suggestions for change before the final instrument was voted into law.  They refused to accept compromise by demanding changes which the President was not disposed to accept.  Establishing the Affordable Care Act was the idea of Democrats.  Hillary Clinton made an attempt during the Clinton presidency, and she a Barack Obama debated the issue during the 2008 presidential primaries.  Hillary had argued for a mandate that would force young people to participate in purchasing insurance.  Obama argued that they will buy health care insurance if it is cheap enough.  As president, Obama agreed with Hillary Clinton--and past Republicans--that the mandate was the better idea, and necessary to keep the insurance affordable for most Americans.  But because President Obama is now for the mandate, a reach across the isle, Republicans are no longer for it. 

      Democrats have opposed the President's desire to compromise with Republicans about entitlements reforms in exchange for Republican concessions about raising taxes on wealthy people.  That was another attempt to reach across the isle.  So whether its health care, Syria, attempts to grow jobs, increase middle class incomes, or fix Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Obama has reached across the isle--and angered the leadership of both parties.  But it has become no longer a debate about the merits of positions on issues, but about some politicians' having their own way or fulfilling promises not to cooperate, not to compromise.

     The American people got what they say they wanted in a president.  They have to decide if the people they are sending to Washington and to our state governments to represent them have gotten the message.  The problem is that the people voters would like to represent them too often either won't run or aren't permitted to run. 

     When history should ever record how The United States of America became the late United States--and the world was cast into economic chaos--it likely will record that it began in 2013, an evidently bad-luck year, when congressional politicians refused to compromise on either on balancing spending and taxing or adjusting the Affordable Care Act,  the only areas where common ground exist and can be found.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner     

Washington, Jefferson and Einstein: Messages to Americans

October 7, 2013

To:  The Editor

     "Be what you is, cause if you be what you ain't, then you ain't what you is."  One of my college education professors gave that quote in class one day--I forget specifically what he reference it to. 

But it made some sense.  I believe Allan Ritter was a Democrat because of who he was.  He later switched to become a Republican, quite likely because of where he lived: He tried to become what he ain't.  Now, he is says that he is retiring from politics because he is about to become a grandfather for the fourth time.  But here was a time in American politics--and hence in the character of the American people--when those four grandchildren would have been four good reasons for good men like Allan Ritter NOT to quit.  

     Allan Ritter is an example of the kind of Democrat and Republican that voters might want to vote for, as alternatives to tea-party candidates who are inflexible and uncompromising in their approach to government and governing.  He is the kind of politician I recently suggested might give voters  choices other than tea-party candidates.  But for whatever reasons, the kinds of Democrats and Republicans straight thinking Americans might take the time to go to the polls to elect, especially in times like these, may not be either willing or allowed to run.

     Recently, I either heard or read that the Democrats and Republican stalemate that has shut down the government is an example of why the nation's first president, General George Washington, thought a two-party system would be a threat to the union, that eventually one of the parties would seek to bring the other down and risk bringing the nation down.  Political despots would emerge to  divide and conquer, in the "name of individual liberty."  (Reader might want to check out Google or Yahoo to review Washington's views about political parties)

     During the same time-frame, Thomas Jefferson was warning that a nation cannot poorly educate it people and remain free:  Poorly educated people cannot elect good governments because they are most likely to be either poorly informed or poorly equipped to evaluation information.   Poor education, job shortages and low pay provide access to an army of young people which few other choices for their economic futures than the military.  And we have members of this Congress who appear to be prime candidates to become the first Ruler (and commander in chief) of the United States.  (Remember how Castro criticized and overthrew Cuban dictator Batista before becoming Cuba's dictator himself.) 

     However, one also might want to read Albert Einstein's "Essay on Socialism."  He talks about what capitalism will eventually permit those who have access to great wealth to become and where that will lead the nation.  George Washington and Albert Einstein two of the wisest and smartest giants of the nations history has predicted what is on the threshold of happening within the United States.  Great wealth can buy a nation of voters which believes it is not happening and cannot happen.

     What kind of people are we becoming?  What kind of children are we teaching and role-modeling for our children to become?  What kind of country, what kind of government, will they inherit?  What will their roles be within that society?  What kinds of relationships with other people are we preparing them to have?  What about people of other races or religions?  Are the religious teachings to have no relevance to political behavior?  Are the only functions of religious institutions to give members respectability, conduct wedding ceremonies and funeralize the dead?  Will this provide a better world for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren than we have?  And can having more money, with less integrity and no compassion be sufficient for happiness?  Will they even be able to live with each other ?

     "Be what you us."  What are you?  Unfortunately, "Be what you is" is also a message to those who may choose to be the villains of society if they take that advice.  Should not religion be the instrument that changes hearts and minds, that gives people who are less inclined to love their neighbors reason to do so?  Is Heaven the only reward for practicing the teachings of Jesus?  Are there no earthly benefits, no benefits within family relationships.  Is there no inner peace, no outer sense of purpose that faith accrues?

      "Be what you is" seems to be the prevailing or driving force of human behavior.  There is increased social, political and peer pressure to resist trying to "be what (we) ain't"  If it corresponds with the old moral codes, with the old ways of thinking.  There is also a feeling among many that what use to be wrong is not right and what use to be right is not wrong.  

     I talked in a previous opinion about Democrats and Republicans being on the opposite sides of what is right and wrong: Republicans are for children before they are born but act as if they don't care about them after they are born.  Democrats seem to care more about children after they are born but less about them before they are born.  It seems to be that being on the opposite of most important issue is the only reason to have more than one political party. Voter, they seem to believe, must be given a choice.   That means that each party must claim that what the other party wants to do--or has done--is wrong.  And recently they have resorted to lying about the others intent as many time as is needed for lies begin to sound like the truth.  These are among the reason why George Washington did not want more than one politics party.

      What does it say when good men cannot remain in government because governing is hard on the conscience.  I don't know if this is the reason for an area Republican state representative, Allan Ritter, retiring, but I know that there are many Republicans who are increasingly having to fight unwanted battles with their consciences in order to stay in public office.  It is a battle that good men can't continue to win, and it's a battle that conscience can't continue to lose.

     The decision of Speaker Boehner to not have a vote of the House of Representatives to determine whether to continue the funding of the government because he claims there are not enough votes to approve it makes no sense.  If the votes are not there, permitting the vote would, at worst, leave the shutdown in place as it is.  But if the vote are actually there, the shutdown will end and government will have resumed working at intended.  After all, the Speaker is speaker of the entire House, not Speaker of the Republicans.

     The Speaker says further that there must be conversations between Democrats and Republicans that result in reduced spending--primarily on entitlements--but does not raise more revenues through tax increases.  But he says further that revenues will not be raised.  What, then, is there to talk about?  This is another kind of internal contradictions that are rotting the party.  Remember, too, the sequester which was supposed to be so sever that Congress would not be stupid enough to allow it to actually happen has happened.  And this is the same Congress that is now making important decisions about whether keep the government open and raise the debt limit.  The hope that Congress would somehow become smarter by decision-making time has proven to be just that: "hope."  "Be who you is"?  Congressional members, especially most tea-party Republicans and their Speaker, are still simply being who they were.

     If Washington, Jefferson, and Einstein are right, they may be bells tolled for the United States that are incapable of being unrung.

(I need more followers on Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:    ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Tweet: Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Can DEMS & GOP Establish Common Ground

     By chance I tuned onto C-SPAN at the beginning of a women's' conference.   Patty Murray, senator for the state of Washington, was the special guest.  She answered questions, first by msnbc's Karen Finney,  then from the audience, following her and Ms Finney's introductions.  

     The questions dealt mainly with women issues and those related with the inability of Democrats and Republicans to reach common ground on so many issues critical to our economy and the proper functioning of our form of government, including the result of the current deadlock leading to  the latest shutdown of the government.

      Most interesting to me, among the questions asked, was one by a lady who identified herself as representing an organization which was nonpartisan.  Her question related to the fact that not all Democrats agree of all social issues.  She pointed out that not all Democrats, for example, agree on the party's position on gay marriages.  (She might also have added that not all Democrats agree on the Democratic party's positions on abortions and prayers in school.)  She asked why the Democratic party does not attempt to find common ground within the party between progressive and conservative Democrats, such as on issues related to religion.   The response was not a serious attempt to answer that question.

     For serious people of faith, anything that conflicts with foundations and teachings of their religious faith cannot become bases for common ground.  However, such opposition to gay marriages does not necessarily equate to opposition to the condition of gayness.  But President Obama's eventual evolution from believing that civil unions were not a sufficient common ground for gays and lesbians and straights to a belief that they had Constitutional rights that superseded any conflict with the teaching of the Christian-Judaic faith. That belief that such marriage was appropriate is at the heart of conservative opposition to President Obama, along with several other things..

     Now, how many within the Republican Party don't like either Obama, Obamacare or both?  Probably not that many.  Most who don't like Obamacare don't understand it.  Most, if they knew and understood what the law provides--would like it, and will when the law is fully implemented and they become familiar with it.  Those who don't like Obamacare include (1) those who just don't like President Obama because they believe the many negative things that have been said falsely about him, (2) those who just don't like minorities (especially African Americans), (3) those who have deep-seated religious faith which Democrats seem to take less seriously, and (4) those who have just been persuaded that the tea party movement is the right thing what ever they do or persue.

     Of course, the best way to make one's religious faith attractive to others is to let lights of faith shine so that others see what faith does for you, how it cause you to feel about other, and what it causes you to do for others.  You can't impose religion on others by using religious motives to hurt others, to oppress others, to deny others their rights and opportunities.  Love is promoted by loving.  Punishing the poor as a means of making the poor productive does not promote the teachings of religious faith.   The common ground that Democrats and Republican seek rest in the common ground they have at the core of their religious mututal faith.  But their problem is that both have staked out certain positions that are contrary to their faith while also taking positions that are consistent with their faith but not consistent with the practices or beliefs of the other party.

      Resolving this problem of right and wrong is perhaps a long-term task.  

      But resolution of the present shutdown of government rests, I believe, in the President blinking first, and  establishing a bipartisan commission to identify flaws in the ACA and implement them into legislation as flaws are identified and means of rectification them are developed.  

     The commission should consist of four conservative Democrats and four liberal Democrats, four tea party Republicans and four moderate Republicans.  There should be two of each from the Senate and two of each from the House of Representatives.  Each ideological group within the Senate and the House should select its own commission representatives.l Two weeks of deliberations would be provided for problems already recognized by Democrats and Republican to be pointed out for attention and rectified or resolved.

     In exchange for allowing the bipartisan commission this opportunity to suggest immediate changes to provisions of Obamacare guidelines, Republicans--specifically Speaker John Boehner-- will allow the full House of Representative to vote on both the continuing resolution and extension of the debt limit during the same session.  Failure to resolve differences will result in the law being imprimented as written, with revisions made later on a continuing basis as needed.  All discussions during these deliberations should be conducted on C-SPAN

     In conclusion, not all Republicans in Republican-gerrymandered districts are tea-party Republicans; hence; regular or moderate Republicans are free to vote either Republican or Democrat.  Also, whatever number of Democrats there are within these gerrymandered districts, they  can vote either Democratic or for whom they consider to be the right Republican.  Moderate Republicans who voice their opposition to shutting down of the government will not necessarily lose their jobs during the next election for doing what most people in both parties know to be the right thing to do for the country.

Ronald

        

      

When Economic Math Gets Fuzzy

     During one of the debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore, then-President Bush coined the term "fuzzy math."  Well, Democrats seem to be using "fuzzy math" on the American people by trying to make the case for more tax increases on the wealthy, as a means of heading off the sequester, which they claim along with Republicans will have dire consequences for many Americans if it is allowed to happen.

     The January "fiscal cliff" was avoided because Republicans joined Democrats ti allow the Bush tax cuts to remain in place for middle-class Americans who earn less than $450,000.00.  President Obama had campaigned on allowing them to expire only for those earning less than $250,000.00 a year.  The President and Democrats agree to the $450,000.00 figure as a concession to Republicans if the taxes were allowed not rise of the those he previously defined as middle class.

     Republicans made a big concession because presumably the political backlash of such tax increases on the middle class would have forced them to agree to cut middle-class cuts in January.  Whatever the reasons, Democrats had the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the middle class and taxes-cuts were allowed to expire (or taxes were allowed to be raised) on the wealthy--and on some of those making  than $450,000.00 a year who may or may not be wealthy.

     Democrats took great joy in gloating over Republicans being between a political rock and a hard place, being on the defensive and forced to agree to a compromise.  But Democrats eventually may be perceived by the American people to be over-playing their hand.  It is certainly looking that way to me.

     President Obama wants even more tax cuts imposed on the wealthy by disallowing to them certain tax exemptions such as mortgages interest and state taxes.  Certainly there are people who are wealthy enough to not be significantly disadvantaged by such new taxes.  However, that probably should not reach down to those earning $450,000.00.  The middle class got their part of the deal when the Bush tax cuts were not allow to expire for them.   

     Americans must be willing to take our medicine when it comes to making adjustments that are necessary to bring the national debt under control and keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social  Security solvent for the coming generations.  I have recommended over the past twenty years of more that Medicare and Social Security should be means-tested.  I thought that, at some level of income, Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits, except in cases of catastrophic illnesses, should be discontinued.  The recommendation was that  these might be phased out.  

     How to best means-test is still something to be debated, but the main thing is that something has to be done to address the increasing number of high income people who are entering retirements and the increasing number of low income workers who are taking their places.  There will come a time when the baby-boomers will have passed on and there will be less demands on Social Security and Medicare.  But until then adjustment must be made to address the present nature of the American population and status of our economy.  Republicans keep saying the President needs to lead.  But when he leads they don't follow.  Maybe they mean he needs to lead his own party.  But it is just as likely that Democrats don't want to be lead either.  Nevertheless, Democrats must be willing to give some on entitlement reforms since that is where most knowledgeable people are say significant dents in the deficit can be made.  Boomers are living longer and end-of-life expenses are increasing, as ways of keeping terminally ill people experiencing ends of life that are lasting longer and making health-care costs increase, perhaps indefinitely.

     My understanding is that the ratio of the national debt to the nation's gross domestic product has been in a steady recent decline as a result of actions taken by President Obama during his presidency.   But how that positive trend should impact the need to address the debt in a more direct manner is less certain.  It becomes part of the fuzzy math of debt reduction.

     Republicans on the far right may be wrong for being unwilling to compromise, but despite being right from their own point of view about taxes and size of government, they become of no consequence when compromises can be shown to be a fair ratio of spending cuts to increased revenues and can attract the support of more broadminded Republicans.  As was shown in addressing the fiscal cliff standoff, there is still the possible of a compromise that can head-off the sequester.  President has on several occasions said that entitlements must be on the table.  That's what Republican say they want.  The sequester does not achieve that.  

     But American politics may be more fuzzy than the debt figures they debate.  Republicans say they want President Obama to lead.  Assuming they may really mean lead them too, maybe he should do so by submitting a plan that is "right" for the times bad Republican even if the average American voter may not understand why.  People have their own opinions, but at some point people expect their leaders to do "the right thing," much as President Obama is asking Republicans to do, despite opposition from their bases.   

     President Obama was elected to be President of the United States for the next four years, to lead the country and the Democratic party not to be led by them.  Unless Democrats get behind their president and give Republicans more of what they want this time, Democrats will be no more deserving of the people's votes in 2014 than the Republican--and there is no third choice.  The House coalition that averted the fiscal cliff can also avert the sequester if Democrats make it possible.

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.