America Needs Education Academy (Final Edit)

     For the past 50 years, Americans have pursued quality education--especially in mathematics and the sciences--for all American children.  Many attempts have been made by some very smart people--and with considerable success.  But while these programs were often successful, the courses often were too difficult for the teachers assigned to teach them.  

     Most of those who developed these courses were either scientists, mathematicians, or university professors.  This was good.  But the efforts were wasted because little attempt was made to recruit teachers, who not only were familiar with and masters of the content, but knew how to teach that content in a manner that allows all student to succeed.  That means enabling students to master content at levels commensurate with their abilities, interest and willingness to devote reasonable time maximizing their learning. 

      Maximizing the learning of every child is the responsibility of every school, teacher, principal and superintendent.  But the job of differentiating instruction in manners that allow students to learn a their rates is not easy.  And because there are too few strategies for doing so that are known to teachers, use of the strategy should not be limited to teachers who take it upon themselves either to develop  strategies that works for them, or use strategies developed by other teachers.

     So let's assume that effective teaching strategies are possible--or better still, exist--which would enable schools to succeed with all children.  How would these strategies be placed in the hands and heads of teachers?  It is a disgrace that in fifty years we still don't have such strategies available.  Is it that teachers who have mastered the strategy of differentiating instruction are compensated too well by becoming consultants?  Or do they earn more attractive salaries by going to school districts--or even colleges and universities--which reward them handsomely for their knowledge?  For some reasons, differentiating instruction is not making it to our many failing schools.  

     Chicago is in the process of closing failing schools.  Parents, students, teacher unions and community leaders are concerned but unsure about the reasons.  Are the concerned about the closing of schools or about the reasons why the schools are being closed?  

     Suggestions are being made that schools are being closed because they are in minority neighborhoods, that somebody does not want minority children to receive an education.   Others suggest that these schools are being closed because of poor academic performances by the students, that the students are being transferred to schools where students are performing well and, hopefully, that students from closed schools might be able do the same.  Some parents believe other schools do better because they have better teachers and resources.  It  appears, though, that strategies that make one district or city school successful  are not shared with other teachers and schools throughout the schools and school systems.  

     Are good teachers reluctant to share good ideas with other teachers?

And are successful teachers justified in that reluctance?  Maybe they are more successful because they have joined more professional organizations, read more professional literature, attended more challenging colleges and universities, continued their college or university training at night or during summers, worked longer hour preparing to be successful and other things to extend their knowledge and teaching skills.  Whatever motivates or equips some teachers to perform better than other teachers should be made available to all teacher.  But how?  

     Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are differences both among students and among educators concerning their abilities to learn; their motivations, interests, backgrounds, ethnicities, colleagues and peers; and concern for students.  Teachers have preferred teaching styles, and students have preferred learning styles.  There are many successful teaching styles and strategies.  The problem is matching teaching and learning styles.  

     Such matches of optimum teaching and learning styles are less likely to be found--or even pursued--in low priority schools.  Identifying teachers instructional needs and students learning needs are time-consuming responsibilities, and are usually beyond both the interest of school boards and the expertise of school administrations.  And both fail to fulfill these responsibilities because school patrons don't know what to expect of either of them.  

     But there is a solution:  America has trained young people to become the best military in the world.  She has landed men on the moon and safely return them to Earth.  That America also can fix her schools.   But how?  

     Just as the government has military academies to train its military leaders, it needs an Education Academy to train educational leaders who can head state departments of education--for states that want them--and provide leadership for and communicate academic and administrative expectations to local school districts.  These educators will have explored all factors that contribute to success in schools serving all kinds and combinations of children.  

     The academy would also develop national curricula--again, for states choosing to use them.  It would train instructors for positions at teacher-training college and universities, teaching them to differentiate instruction (mastery teach) for all students commensurate with students abilities and willingness to learn.  Academy students would graduate within in six-eight years with a cross-discipline PhD.   The goal always would be to produce, through research and experimentation with different kinds of students and diverse circumstances, educators who are much better teachers than their own academy professors.   

     Many believe that education is as important as the military to the future security of America.  If that true, then let's turn our best minds loose in solving the nation's education problems, and spread educational expertise throughout the country.

Ronald

EMail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Gradual Routes to Compromise (Edited)

      President Obama needs a comprehensive plan for the economic future of America, including a strategy that achieves a $5-6 trillion debt-reduction package over the next 10 years.  

    The most likely way to achieve that goal and greater confidence might be to set goals that are phased in over a 10-year period.  A phased approach allows everyone who will be impacted to adjust their life styles and budgets to accommodate the changes.  If an effective debt-reduction plan must require sacrifices by everybody, appropriate levels of change and phase-in periods will be necessary.

     Justifications for entitlement revision have not changed over the years: People who have acquired certain level of wealth should have their Social Security and Medicare benefits reduced to reflect that wealth.  Social Security and Medicare are safety-nets designed to serve those who for various reasons may needs for such financial assistance.  They are like buying home, auto, sick and accident, and term-life insurance to protect against occurrences which encumber expenses that the insured might not otherwise be able to afford.

     But if the house is not damaged by fire or wind, if the car is not severely damaged, and if the insured does not get sick or die within the insured period, the insured does not expect to get any money.  Protection was bought.  Economic sanity demands that--at least for the foreseeable future--the same apply to Social Security and Medicare.  Warren Buffet does not need Social Security and Medicare coverage--at this time.  

     And just as people who buy various other types of insurance make every attempt not to receive benefits, the goal of every employee should be to never need Social Security and Medicare.  Just as people are happy when they don't have benefit from the various forms of insurance they have purchased, those who paid into SS and MC should be glad when their wealth makes such benefits unnecessary.

      Social Security and Medicare could be phased out according to such income-benefit schedule as the following:  Income, $50,000--benefits, 100%,  $60,000-96%,  $70,000-92%…….$280,000-4%,  $300,000-0.  Each benefit-income level might be phased in over five years.  Beyond $300,000 of income, people who are 65 years of age will have earned enough--and accumulated sufficient wealth--to insure themselves.    Medicare would still cover catastrophic illnesses. 

     The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would end on December 31, 2012.  Those for the middle class and working poor would be phased out over a 5-10 year period.    After ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,  gradually increase their maximum tax rates to the Clinton rate of 39% over the next ten years.  The Wealthy will have less money to invest, but the middle class will make up the difference by having more of it to invest. 

     Wealthy Americans obviously are in better financial condition to adjust to the changes in taxation than are the middle class and working poor;  hence, there would need to be a phase-in period.  Americans at all income levels would have the remainder of 2012 to begin anticipating--and hopefully making--any adjustments to their budgets that will make the transitions painless or less painful.    

     The contributions of business to the economic recovery is indispensable and must be present with the same vigor that they give to the success of their company.  They have a crucial role to play in providing employment opportunities, but they have perhaps greater responsibility to help better educate America's children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they need. 

     The contributions of business to the recovery of the American economy is indispensable.  Businesses  provide employment opportunities.  But they also should help address the problem of better educating American children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they have.  Businesses must indicate not only the areas of need but the number of openings available.  Then, they must hire and, along with governmental assistance, finance the education that qualifies local students for these positions.  

     Students will not pursue skilled areas if they don't have confidence that there will be job when they become certified.  Therefore, businesses should target interested and qualified students in the eighth grade from which some determined number of students will selected for apprenticeships and employment.   Financial aid would be for students who would not otherwise be financially able to receive such education.  Announcements of such opportunities in the early years would be motivational for all students to perform better--even those not eventually selected.

     If unions and workers are serious about jobs and job security, there would be agreements among union workers to share hours in economic down turns.  No workers should be laid off.  Hours would be shared, allowing worker skill-levels to be retained.  The degree of sharing would depend on business needs to cut back on hours worked.  Workers would save during good times to make up for lost income when they must share hours. 

     All wages and salaries would be tied to the salaries of the CEO of the business, with a fixed rate.  The importance of CEOs relative to that of other executives and workers remains essentially the same: More proficient CEOs produce more proficient employees.

     Finally, there may also be needs to phase pensions out for the wealthy and phase them down for the middle class.  It would be better, especially for the working poor and middle class, to eliminate even the possibility of having to cut salaries, benefits and services by 25% or more all at once as is now the case with Greece.  Where appropriate, benefits would be phased back as dictated by economic conditions and outlook.

     These ideas need be discussed on c-span by a committee from businesses, unions, education, legislatures; all races, all political and religious persuasions: include Allan Simpson and Erskine Bowles; and be chaired by President Obama.  

     Americans and peoples of the world should be able to see an example of how economic and social problems can be resolved--and perhaps, in the future, prevented.

On Doing the Right Things

February 13, 2012

To:  The Editor

     President Obama has extended his religious compromise in order to accommodate those in the Catholic church who feel, much as do fellow Republicans, that, because of their principles, they cannot compromise with Democrats.  These leaders of the Catholic faith feel, similarly, that they should not compromise with the President because of their consciences.  And I agree with sticking with one principles and the dictates of one's conscience.  

     But when principles of people who must work together clash, what's to be done?  You compromise.  One principle cannot be consider superior to another:  Neither church nor state trumps the other.

     The fact that the Catholic faith believes that contraction is wrong does not give it the right to impede those benefits to those who might not believe that.  If those who are using contraceptive means are committing sinful acts and choose to do so, that's  between them and God.   The fact that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptions does not justify obstructing contraceptive use by employees who either don't share that belief, or who, while sharing that belief, encounter circumstances which dictate that they act contrary to those beliefs.

     When Catholic institutions, like many other employers, pay for their employees insurance, they pay for insurance in lieu of paying employees higher wages which would enable employees to buy their own insurance.  Catholic institutions, therefore, have no more right to restrict the insurance coverages of contraceptive services when they pay insurance premiums than they would have it they paid employees enough to buy their own insurance.

     The Catholic institutions owe President Obama and all of the policy holders of the insurance who must have their premiums increased to pay for contraceptive services that the Catholic church institutions refuse to cover.  The Church in effect passes over to other policy holders the responsibilities of paying for services which the church believes to be sinful. 

     Which, therefore, should give in when the expectations of the Catholic church conflicts with what its members rights are determined to be under the Constitution?  It is my opinion that the Catholic church has no authority over how the government will operate, except for the right of its members to determine at the ballot boxes who and what will constitute that government.  Only the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress should control the government--not politicians of the Catholic faith.  

     The government, on the other hand, does have authority to impose laws that impact what the Catholic church and its members can and cannot do related to matters outside of the authority and teachings of the church.  The church can teach what it believes to be the will of God.  But it cannot control the behavior of individuals, be they Catholics or non-Catholics, just because what those individuals do conflicts with the consciences of church leaders or some of its members in politics.

     If there is a conflict between the teachings of the church and rights of its members under the federal law, the people rights under the law take precedence--on earth.  Teachers of religious doctrine will have fulfilled their calling when they teach what the behaviors of the followers should be.

     One of the church bishops says that  the President's policy change is "a good first step."  I say it was  one step too far because if a Catholic institution has the right  to deny employees insurance coverage for contraceptive services, they can fire employees who have the services performed regardless of what insurance pays for it. 

     The President has said in the past something to the effect that it is better to do "the right thing" than be reelected by not doing it.  Of course, its easier to say that when election time is not imminent.  The "right thing" was what he decided before he changed his mind.  If that's not satisfactory to Catholic voters and Catholic leaders, and they believe a bette American rest with Republican, let them vote Republican.

     If President Obama's latest concession to the Catholic church was "a good first step,"  The "right thing" would be for Catholic institutions is to take the second good step of increasing wages of employees by an amount that enables them to buy their own  insurance.   The church need not even know which insurance they bought. 

     Certainly the Catholic church and its institutions would not want other policy holders to pay the cost of  insuring their employees.

     And further exploring this matter of the President's changing his mind and doing the "right thing" with respect to Catholic institutions and contraceptions, he should change his mind about establishing  super PACs for receiving hidden campaign contributions from corporations and do the "right thing" by giving the people a chance to vote against there being too much money in politics, especially secret corporate money.  

     While it is understandable that the President would want to "play on a level playing field by the rules of the game and be temped to "fight fire with fire," this may be one of those times when "how you play the game" again is allowed to matter, and fire will be fought--with water.

     If November's elections will indeed be battles for the "soul of America," Americans with genuine religious faith already know which side they're on.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Rendering unto Caesar (Edited)

     Concerning the desire of certain Catholic institutions for further exemptions from the new health-care law, the following are ideas that provide other perspectives on this latest controversy. 

     First, having a religious institution send its employees to another insurance company that will pay for contraceptive services at a non-catholic hospital would cause another hospital to do what the Catholic church believe is wrong.  If it is wrong for Catholics, it is wrong for non-Catholics, whether or not these non-Catholics believe it.  Both Catholics and non-Catholics serve and expect to be judged by the same God.

     The conflict might be somewhat analogous to a person thinking that he (or she) has reason to murder someone.  But believing it would be wrong to do so, hires or encourages someone else to do it.  Wouldn't the first person still be wrong for making arrangements for someone else to do something that he (or she) believed to be wrong?

    Catholic universities and hospitals should not encourage non-Catholics to do something they themselves believe is sinful.  And that being the case, the Hawaii plan would not be the answer for Hawaiians either.

    Paying for employee insurance that covers contraceptive services is not the same a performing or condoning whatever contraceptive services may be performed.  Catholic hospitals and universities can pay for the insurance of non-Catholic employees, even as they recommend against their use of the service, but recognize the employee's rights under existing law--a sort of "rendering unto Caesar."

    Also, Catholic universities and hospitals don't generally teach their employees about Catholic dogma or religious doctrine, primarily (I guess) because many of their employees are non-Catholic.  The Catholic Church does the teaching.  So this conflict between conscience and deed, and between whatever minimal Catholic religious teaching these institutions may provide and the contraceptive services the insurance will buy seem not to warrant further exceptions to the health-care law.

    The exemption of the Catholic church and any other Catholic institution which hires and insures only member of the Catholic faith makes sense.  The employees who follow the church's teachings won't want need contraceptive services.  

     But what about those who would?  Again, it would be wrong to help Catholic  members to find other sources of insurance that would cover services which the Catholic church believes is unforgivably sinful.

     Some "wrongs" may be appropriate if they achieve a greater good.   Many people must work on the Sabbath in order to keep their jobs.  Even many religious institutions hire--and require--workers both of the faith and not of the faith to do various kinds of work on the Sabbath.  Many people of faith go to war and kill other people who also would rather not being there, but are there either because they are forced to be there or in order to achieve a greater good.

     A religious institution's buying employee insurance which also permits contraceptive services also achieves a greater good by providing services to both Catholic and non-Catholic employees who much more often than not have medical needs unrelated to contraceptions.

      To the extent that doing something that may be "wrong," It, too,may be "forgivable" when the action achieves a greater good, and President Obama made the right decision.  For the President to have ruled otherwise would mean that all Catholic institutions might have to be exempted from all aspects of the law dealing with insuring contraceptive services.  That would be unfair to Catholic patrons who might want and need the services, and it would open the door to all kinds of requests by others for exemptions, even those unrelated to religion and contraception.

     As for the politics of the matter, the Catholic church--and Catholics members and organizations--must decide whether it wants to be responsible for the failure of Obamacare, and by doing so deny Americans who need universal health care and the benefits the law provides.  The disagreement, therefore, does not seem to warrant those of the Catholic faith who otherwise support his agenda abandoning President Obama in his reelection bid.  The President made the best decision possible, given the circumstances.  He just finds himself in a position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

     Which leads one to wonder, what decision a white Republican president of the Catholic faith would have made concerning this matter, and how the Catholic community would have reacted to that decision.  I have concluded that both the decision and the reactions would have been the same.

               

Religion, Rights and Societal Responsibility (Edited)

     There is a widely held perception that problems within the American economy is due to problems in the nation's politics.  That perception is incorrect.  The problem is within the American people.  There are conflicts within and among our religious faiths, our rights and our sense of societal responsibility.

     Never before in my lifetime have I heard those who either hold or seek political positions pitting themselves--and those with wealth and power--against those who are the least fortunate within our society for reasons beyond their control.  Were it left to these conservatives, handicapped American would again be begging in the public square, and Republican politicians would be demanding that they pay taxes on the alms they receive.   Too many preachers have become so wealthy themselves that they have forgotten who sent them to preach, they have forgotten Jesus' saying that whatsoever is done to the "least of these"  being done to Him. 

     The Bible teaches that people cannot learn the ways of Christianity without preachers who have been sent, Rom 10:11-14.  But preachers don't preach anymore about the rich man, the camel and the eye of the needle.  And because they no longer preach an uncompromising gospel, greed and corruption not only flourish but are perceived to be all right.   

     Churches have become more likely than not to be aligned with liars and cheats.  And when Christians, liars and deceivers become teammates, and the church no longer criticizes the rich for robbing the poor, our politics can't improve, and America becomes a model for mistreating the powerless.  Were it left to some conservative politicians, blind and the handicapped Americans would be back on the streets begging for handouts, and forced to pay taxes on their alms. They have less confidence in a Democratic president who is a Christian than in a Republican one who may not be.  It's hard to be sure why or when this corruption of the American spirit began, but the following likely have been contributing factors.

     Blue laws were established to prevent competitors of Christian businesses from being able to sell while Christians businesses were observing the Sabbath.  However, the Blue laws allowed Christians to work on the Sabbath of Jews and muslims, which is Saturday.  Overturning the Blue laws was the right thing to do.  The problem is the likely effect on the attitudes of Christians toward the significance of the Sabbath.  When a significant number of people of the dominant religion of any nation loses respect for some symbols associated with their faith, there is a greater tendency for them to lose respect for similar symbols and behaviors as well.  

     Consequently, we have seen substantially less emphasis on Christmas and more on holidays, in justified recognition of other celebrations that also occur during the Christmas season.  But concurrent celebrations do not necessitate ignoring the religious significance of the season.  Doing so, though, desensitizes Christians to the significance of the birth and life of Jesus, and reduces the impact of faith on moral judgement and personal behavior, which along with the pursuit of wealth and political power are the two things that exercise the most influence of personal behavior within a society.  

     Religion influences both personal behavior and individual attitudes concerning wealth, power and economic fairness.  The desire for as much wealth and power as possible too often proceed along paths that are contrary to the fundamental teaching of most religions.   

     The general acceptance of obscenity in literature and entertainment as "free speech" is hardly what the Framers of the Constitution had it mind as protected speech.  The quest for wealth by any means necessary is allowed to trump moral beliefs about proper behavior.  Those who quote the Declarations of Independence with respect to our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't find much of importance in the part  which says that  "all men were created equal," meaning being of equal worth and deserving of equal consideration.  

     Approval of abortions by liberals and continued approval of the death penalty by conservatives, despite DNA testing showing many of those sentenced to death to be innocent, narrow the gap between the behaviors of Christians and those of many Americans who have no religious faith.  

     And unfortunately we are becoming better at it.  There is no way that the most wealthy and powerful Americans can have unlimited access to the nation's wealth and still leave enough wealth for those at the bottom--and those in the middle heading for the bottom--to survive.  We on the verge of greed-induced genocide, where those at the bottom either die of malnutrition and poor health care, or kill each other in an attempt to survive.   

     But this could not happen in a predominately Christian nation until Christians first became desensitized to profanity, obscenity, nudity, sexual promiscuity, deteriorating family structures, until Christians first became void of compassion for each other by reducing passion for their religious faiths and their desire to have religion impact their lives by guiding their judgement and behavior.  Even China is attempting to protect its culture from the worldly ways of the West,

     The rights of women to not be stay-at-home moms, the behavior of men that have driven women to seek independence, and the rights of gays and lesbians to marry are rights to which they are entitled.  But dad at home with young children is not the same as mom being there.  And out-sourcing care is worse, except where the mother resents staying at home enough to be a threat to the children.  

     And how do heterosexual children respond to seeing homosexual couples kiss and make love in movies and on television?  Do they know the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals at young ages?  Might they not come to feel that kissing, making love and marrying heterosexual individuals of the same gender is acceptable?    It's hard to see how these behaviors can contribute to a stronger, long lasting society of the nature we have known.  However, can--or should--a person feel a greater responsibility to the future of the society than to the fulfillments and gratifications of personal needs and desires?  

     Whereas laws and interpretations of the Constitution grant and protect our personal rights and religion serves to guide our personal lives, better politics will require better homes and better informed family members.  And all will be impacted by the influence of religion--or by the lack of it.  

Let Reason Prevail: A Request of Atheists

     I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display."  It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds.  There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith.  The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add  religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display.  The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.

     Any display of religious symbols are public  expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.  

But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs.  That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.

     These atheists want permission to display a banner which says:  "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL.  There are no gods, no devils,  no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds."   But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?  

     Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors.  But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders.  It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL."  Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS."  There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith.  It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."

     But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate.  So let's try it.  They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is.  They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural  world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter.  But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.   

     Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted?  And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence.  (I'm just reasoning.) 

     But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.

     There appear to be only two choices:  Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ  always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute.  Both are incomprehensible.   The question about who made either one is legitimate.  I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible.  However, I Two options are all that I can see.   

     So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness.  As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built.  Mankind with intelligence had to build them.  

      Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable.  That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable.  But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.

     So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed.  At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill.  He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.  

     Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.

      Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence.  Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him.  I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.

    

President Obama: A Toothless Tiger

December 14, 2011

To:  The Editor                                        

     The President of the United States has been rendered a toothless tiger.  He can roar and growl during his political speeches about the economy and the needs to create jobs, but the fact remains that fellow Democrats defanged the President--and Democrats in Congress--when they did not get out the vote during the 2010 congressional elections.  

     Democrats, including the President, apparently did not recognize the threat that Republican successes posed to the Democrats' agenda.  Even as polls were saying that there would be Republican gains sufficient to take control of the House, Democrats were not telling voters why such a transfer of power would be a disaster for the middle class.  They took the polls as evidence of a movement that they could do nothing about.  Mitch McConnell had already stated the Republican goal was making President Obama a one-term president.  Yet the President did not recognize or anticipate the threat that a Republican-controlled House and the lack of a veto-proof Senate would provide to his presidency.  

     Democrats seemed to have taken for granted that the voter turnout  will always vote less during the mid-term elections regardless of what they did.  To the contrary that should have motivate Democrats to be even more politically active, and make sure that this election was one of the exceptions. 

     I rode around town on election day, seeing if I could find neighborhood signs encouraging voters to vote, and to vote for Democrats.  I did not find any.  Maybe Republican supporters pulled up the signs, but I didn't hear of any such complaints from Democrats.

     Democrats need the votes of the poor and minorities to win.  But increasingly, the poor and minorities are becoming disenchanted because their conditions don't change regardless of who is president or who controls Congress.  Democrats don't even promise to do anything for them anymore.  Their votes, historically, have helped to significantly improved the economic status of members of the middle class and the working poor.  But when middle class members have made it, they have not always used their good fortune to give the less fortunate comrades a helping hand.

     Members of the working poor and non-working poor are not by nature significantly less intelligent than are those in higher income brackets.  This is especially true of members of many black American communities.  What there are less of, though, are environments that encourage, inspire and provide the role models of success and possibilities both within their families and within their communities.  These conditions can be overcome, but usually not without the help of people who know how to make a difference and care enough to try.       

     Consequently, even though many Americans believe there are good reasons to vote for Democrats next November, the wide range of incomes among middle-class families make common ground among them meaningless in terms of the amenities that are possible both within and among the various income levels.

     Who is the middle class, anyway?  Do middle-class families earn yearly, $40-250 thousand a year?  What does a family which earns $40 thousand a year have in common with one which earns $250 thousand per year?  Do families with yearly earnings of $250 thousand have more in common with those with yearly earning of $50 thousand or those with yearly earnings of $500 thousand?.

     Within each wealth class there are people who are seeking to move up within that level or to more to another level of wealth.  Those who are in positions either by educational preparation, intelligence, access to people with influence or other qualities which enable some people to move up the economic ladder faster and further than others don't have a common vision with others about what is best for their situations and expectations.

      Many Americans who are in the upper middle class are satisfied with conditions as they are.  Most of them are living within their means--not trying to live like they are millionaires.  But many of those in the lower middle-class and working poor don't read or listen to political news often enough or with sufficient attention to issues to recognize them, care about them, or take positions about them.  And, unfortunately, they did not hear much advice and encouragement from trusted--often elected--Democratic leaders that might have gotten them out to the polls.

     President Obama had a chance to extend the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits until January 1, 2012, as was agreed to for the Bush tax cuts,.  Allowing them to terminate on December 31, 2011 made no sense, unless the Bush tax cuts also stopped.  

     Future tax cuts should cease for the wealthy on January 1, 2012, as scheduled,  but tax cuts for the middle class should be phased out over ten years.  Members of the middle class are more likely to be severely impacted by any sharp and immediate increases in taxation.

     President Obama's most pressing problems, however, are (1) that there may too many voters who have lost hope that their conditions will change regardless of who is president, and (2) that there is another group within the middle class which may be satisfied with any person as president who appears to assure that their financial conditions either improves or do not change.  

     Democrats get another chance--maybe their last one--to make a compelling case why both groups should vote, and why they should vote for them.