As long as one human remains on Earth the 20th century will be known as the American Century. Immigrants from Africa, Asia and Europe laid the foundation for that title and their children became known as the greatest generation.
Of diverse origins from wealth to extreme poverty the immigrants arrived with their cultures. Native American and earlier settlers' culture were welded onto those old world cultures on forges in fields, forest, deserts, mines and factories to create a new distinct culture of what became the greatest generation. Parents wanted only one thing for their children, a good education and a life better than that they left.
Parents demanded good public schools for their children. In one room schoolhouses across the country first generation children learned Reading, Riting, & Rithmetic (three Rs). There were few trained teachers, mostly a literate citizen would be found to teach the basics. Mostly these drafted teachers were dedicated to instilling a love of learning, many children would drop out to help their families. In urban areas a guiding teacher might have a 10/11th-grade education, high learningof the era. There were few colleges and less money to attend, public libraries flourished as young and old went on to teach themselves, from a desire to learn.
Prepared by homespun teachers colleges turned out doctors, lawyers, engineers and preachers. Teachers became professionals by teaching. Students learned because parents and dedicated teachers took an interest in preparing them for the world. When the children left school they knew the three "Rs" and had seen a future. Excited by visions from school the kids went on to mass produce cars, explore the sky, electronically connect the world, build wealth and better schools. Their drive and creativity pulled the country out a great depression and led to their war time victory and led the world. The country was the world's richest with the highest literacy rate, best technologies and medicine. Foreign student's flocked to American Universities for the best education.
Somewhere after their victory schooling took a wrong turn. The three "Rs", parents and teachers had to step aside for Politically Correct (PC) professional educators. Literacy began to decline and many recent graduates could neither read, write nor balance a checkbook. Public education was demonized. Textbooks are often wrong in the pursuit of professional educators' inspiring theories. Classroom teachers no longer are trusted to determine if students have mastered the courses. Parents are cut out the learning process as to stupid to accept the core theories of professional educators. A massive educational bureaucracy has emerged in government and the private sector. A great deal of money is made by an education industry through testing, re-testing, charter schools, educational seminars, theories, consultants, lobbyist and measurement yardsticks at the cost of learning. Teachers remain at the low end of all that cash flow.
Literacy continues to drop while immense amounts of money are siphoned off from an opportunity to create an even greater generation. It's time to get back to the basics, to parents voicing concerns, teachers teaching, inspired students seeking to learn and repairing public education. Educators and government should get out of the way, let the kids love knowledge and develop visions of a better future.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Money, money, money 042514
A literary surprise this season is Thomas Piketty's, 700 page tome "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" originally published in French. For xenophobic Americans to rush out and spend "good" U.S. dollars for anything French, except maybe an over-priced bottle of wine, is truly amazing.
I've not read Piketty's work and probably never will, not because of its French origins but because it's a scholarly study of centuries' of economic data. Piketty isn't targeting America in his study but rather the principle capitalism and its impact on inequalities of its outcomes.
Karl Marx condemned capitalism over a century and half ago in a philosophical argument that labor is exploited by the wealthy. Capitalist countries immediately condemned Marx's arguments and even the so-called communist countries never truly embraced Marxism.
By the turn of the 19th century labor began struggling to capture a small share of capitalism. Henry Ford broke from his contemporaries by paying his workers enough so they could afford to drive his automobiles. Ford may have been a capitalist anomaly because his contemporaries hired private armies and pressured legislatures to keep labor poor and subservient. Events however overtook global capitalism in the form of world wars and depressions. For a while in 20th century it appeared that wealth would indeed trickle down as labor could now drive cars to pickup their unemployment checks.
In the 21st century labor is again under attack by wealthy capitalist and wealthier legislators, forcing an even larger wedge between big bucks and a few pennies. Piketty's work quantifies the role of capital and income inequality. True workers make more money but they can't afford to live on one paycheck. The immediate surge of growth after World War Two appears to also be an anomaly (a shortage of labor and greater demands from the near universal destruction.)
Changing the focus of inequity, Piketty looks at the rate of capital return and economic growth. In it simplest form Piketty proves that the rich get richer while the poor gets poorer. The wealthy can use their money and power to churn economies, skimming the cream and ignoring reinvestment for real economic production. This is not only an American phenomenon; globalism has embraced wealth and power as billionaires have now emerged even in former communist countries. The 19th century robber barons are back and much more sophisticated.
Barons now understand how to sell, "What is good for the baron is good for the serf." The deceived serfs then vote even more power to the barons by electing them to legislatures empowered to write serfdom oppression laws.
According to Piketty, "When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based."
Piketty might make a few bucks from his book but he must understand it and invest for capital growth and not squander his workman's wages on more paper and pencils for his next book.
I've not read Piketty's work and probably never will, not because of its French origins but because it's a scholarly study of centuries' of economic data. Piketty isn't targeting America in his study but rather the principle capitalism and its impact on inequalities of its outcomes.
Karl Marx condemned capitalism over a century and half ago in a philosophical argument that labor is exploited by the wealthy. Capitalist countries immediately condemned Marx's arguments and even the so-called communist countries never truly embraced Marxism.
By the turn of the 19th century labor began struggling to capture a small share of capitalism. Henry Ford broke from his contemporaries by paying his workers enough so they could afford to drive his automobiles. Ford may have been a capitalist anomaly because his contemporaries hired private armies and pressured legislatures to keep labor poor and subservient. Events however overtook global capitalism in the form of world wars and depressions. For a while in 20th century it appeared that wealth would indeed trickle down as labor could now drive cars to pickup their unemployment checks.
In the 21st century labor is again under attack by wealthy capitalist and wealthier legislators, forcing an even larger wedge between big bucks and a few pennies. Piketty's work quantifies the role of capital and income inequality. True workers make more money but they can't afford to live on one paycheck. The immediate surge of growth after World War Two appears to also be an anomaly (a shortage of labor and greater demands from the near universal destruction.)
Changing the focus of inequity, Piketty looks at the rate of capital return and economic growth. In it simplest form Piketty proves that the rich get richer while the poor gets poorer. The wealthy can use their money and power to churn economies, skimming the cream and ignoring reinvestment for real economic production. This is not only an American phenomenon; globalism has embraced wealth and power as billionaires have now emerged even in former communist countries. The 19th century robber barons are back and much more sophisticated.
Barons now understand how to sell, "What is good for the baron is good for the serf." The deceived serfs then vote even more power to the barons by electing them to legislatures empowered to write serfdom oppression laws.
According to Piketty, "When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based."
Piketty might make a few bucks from his book but he must understand it and invest for capital growth and not squander his workman's wages on more paper and pencils for his next book.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
ConCon 040717
The active word here is con (a.k.a.: scam, hustle, the end of America’s great experiment in constitutional government.)
A state representative in California has requested verification that 34 states have petitioned for a constitutional convention (ConCon). The movement for ConCon began in the 1980 for a proposed balance budget amendment. After an initial flurry of petitions the issue moved to state back burners for over 30 years as some states pulled their petition while others applied. In 2014 Michigan added its request to the pile, possibly becoming the 34th call for a new ConCon. The problem is that no one is really sure how many valid petitions are out there.
Congress can make the petitions moot by passing a balanced budget amendment of its own which 38 states then would have to ratify for it to become law. Congress could ignore the issue entirely, violating provisions of article “V” of the constitution, which would increase Congressional power while probably setting off lengthy court battles. Congress could also acquiesce and call the second ConCon, opening Pandora’s box.
Gun-nuts would demand the right of individuals to bear weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Fundamental Christians, the right to crucify non-Christians. The military would order a coup. California would demand exclusive film rights. The southwestern states would annex Mexico. Alaska would rejoin Russia so Sarah Palin could assume her rightful place as Czarina of all seized territories.
A bit far fetched? Consider that the 1787 ConCon of 13 states was called for some minor tweaking and then became a run away horse (before trains) producing a document and government unlike any before. This was produced by a fairly homogeneous lot of like minded individuals but became a squeaker as competing arguments were presented. With a final compromise document it became a hard sell for ratification requiring the promise of protections under a “Bill of Rights” before sufficient states would sign on. ConCons are under no obligation to stick to an issue and can create whatever it can sell.
Today there are 50 states representing nearly 400 million heterogeneous special interest, each loudly proclaiming ideological supremacy. It took four years to produce the first constitution, it might require four decades to produce another. It is probable that the new document will be written by lawyers preventing any public understanding of the nature and powers of government. Congress may promise a new bill of rights but who believes Congress of the 21st century.
The balanced budget issue would disappear under the weight of new demands. Government would come to a stand still as states waited for the new document. Texas would probably secede followed by other regions seeking to protect their turf. Special interest minutemen armed with WMD would revolt in support agendas that didn’t make the cut.
The United States of America would become ancient history as the world cheered.
A state representative in California has requested verification that 34 states have petitioned for a constitutional convention (ConCon). The movement for ConCon began in the 1980 for a proposed balance budget amendment. After an initial flurry of petitions the issue moved to state back burners for over 30 years as some states pulled their petition while others applied. In 2014 Michigan added its request to the pile, possibly becoming the 34th call for a new ConCon. The problem is that no one is really sure how many valid petitions are out there.
Congress can make the petitions moot by passing a balanced budget amendment of its own which 38 states then would have to ratify for it to become law. Congress could ignore the issue entirely, violating provisions of article “V” of the constitution, which would increase Congressional power while probably setting off lengthy court battles. Congress could also acquiesce and call the second ConCon, opening Pandora’s box.
Gun-nuts would demand the right of individuals to bear weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Fundamental Christians, the right to crucify non-Christians. The military would order a coup. California would demand exclusive film rights. The southwestern states would annex Mexico. Alaska would rejoin Russia so Sarah Palin could assume her rightful place as Czarina of all seized territories.
A bit far fetched? Consider that the 1787 ConCon of 13 states was called for some minor tweaking and then became a run away horse (before trains) producing a document and government unlike any before. This was produced by a fairly homogeneous lot of like minded individuals but became a squeaker as competing arguments were presented. With a final compromise document it became a hard sell for ratification requiring the promise of protections under a “Bill of Rights” before sufficient states would sign on. ConCons are under no obligation to stick to an issue and can create whatever it can sell.
Today there are 50 states representing nearly 400 million heterogeneous special interest, each loudly proclaiming ideological supremacy. It took four years to produce the first constitution, it might require four decades to produce another. It is probable that the new document will be written by lawyers preventing any public understanding of the nature and powers of government. Congress may promise a new bill of rights but who believes Congress of the 21st century.
The balanced budget issue would disappear under the weight of new demands. Government would come to a stand still as states waited for the new document. Texas would probably secede followed by other regions seeking to protect their turf. Special interest minutemen armed with WMD would revolt in support agendas that didn’t make the cut.
The United States of America would become ancient history as the world cheered.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
It’s official 040414
America has a passive court system. Judges don’t get to go out and find issues but rather must wait for just the right case to appear before their bench in order to make their precedent setting rulings.
The founding fathers fully understood the principle that wealth rules, but neglected to include it in the Constitution. It has taken the Supreme Court well over 200 year to find just the right case to firmly establish wealth as the overriding principle of government. It is now official the rich can openly buy the legislation that serves their best interests.
No longer do millionaires, billionaires and trillion dollar corporations have to sneak down dark alleys to buy their legislation. They can finally come into the capitols and dump as much money as they want to insure that under their law they are fully protected from the proletarian concerns of the other 99 percent of the population.
It has been reported that, by percentage, this Congress is the richest in history, wonder how they made their fortunes? The Florida legislators apparently have their hands out for a share of new wealth as they are attempting major liability protections for businesses. They are also on a roll, expanding “Stand your ground (SurG)” legislation. It’s possible that SurG may soon include a self defense plea for legislators who shoot opposition voters. They really do feel their lifestyle is being threatened if they lose their place at the trough.
Law makers know how to protect their prerogatives by freeing government force from public accountability and making it dependent only on legislator protections. The military now has authority to secretly detain citizens indefinitely without charges and in contravention to Constitutional protections. So far the Commander in Chief has not seen fit to exercise this authorization but another president has only to say go do-it before people begin to disappear into the darkness of an area 51 concentration camp.
In some states police activities are already protected from being publicly recorded. Even in states without such police protections, cops seize, even destroy, personal camera phones that may have captured questionable activities. Simple protests lead to arrest and imprisonment on false charges that are eventually dropped after the citizens spend days in jail being sufficiently intimidated. Unions are under government attacks, as terrorist organizations that threaten the wealthy’s ability to earn enough to buy legislation. Remember unions terrorized and brought down 19th century robber barons so they really do pose a significant threat to aspiring barons.
Governments now spend massive amounts of tax dollars telling the populace what to think and justifying even greater restrictions on liberties of the 99 percent.
It is probable that in the future new wave children will ask, “Grandpa, what was it like in the evil old days of democracy when any serf could question government?”
The founding fathers fully understood the principle that wealth rules, but neglected to include it in the Constitution. It has taken the Supreme Court well over 200 year to find just the right case to firmly establish wealth as the overriding principle of government. It is now official the rich can openly buy the legislation that serves their best interests.
No longer do millionaires, billionaires and trillion dollar corporations have to sneak down dark alleys to buy their legislation. They can finally come into the capitols and dump as much money as they want to insure that under their law they are fully protected from the proletarian concerns of the other 99 percent of the population.
It has been reported that, by percentage, this Congress is the richest in history, wonder how they made their fortunes? The Florida legislators apparently have their hands out for a share of new wealth as they are attempting major liability protections for businesses. They are also on a roll, expanding “Stand your ground (SurG)” legislation. It’s possible that SurG may soon include a self defense plea for legislators who shoot opposition voters. They really do feel their lifestyle is being threatened if they lose their place at the trough.
Law makers know how to protect their prerogatives by freeing government force from public accountability and making it dependent only on legislator protections. The military now has authority to secretly detain citizens indefinitely without charges and in contravention to Constitutional protections. So far the Commander in Chief has not seen fit to exercise this authorization but another president has only to say go do-it before people begin to disappear into the darkness of an area 51 concentration camp.
In some states police activities are already protected from being publicly recorded. Even in states without such police protections, cops seize, even destroy, personal camera phones that may have captured questionable activities. Simple protests lead to arrest and imprisonment on false charges that are eventually dropped after the citizens spend days in jail being sufficiently intimidated. Unions are under government attacks, as terrorist organizations that threaten the wealthy’s ability to earn enough to buy legislation. Remember unions terrorized and brought down 19th century robber barons so they really do pose a significant threat to aspiring barons.
Governments now spend massive amounts of tax dollars telling the populace what to think and justifying even greater restrictions on liberties of the 99 percent.
It is probable that in the future new wave children will ask, “Grandpa, what was it like in the evil old days of democracy when any serf could question government?”
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Put-ing 032614
Ancient cold warriors are finally coming in from the cold shouting, “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, we told you so.”
The issue is the Ukrainian ouster of a Russian puppet and its courtship of the European Union. Russian president Vladimir Putin seized an instability moment by “liberating”, “protecting” or “supporting” a carefully orchestrated Crimean independence movement.
When the western powers indignantly objected to Russia’s virtual re-annexation of the Crimea, Putin cried “hypocrisy.” Putin has a point; not that it makes his actions anymore palatable. When the Soviet Union began to implode in the late 20th Century a gleeful West was quick to embrace the splintering Soviet republics as independent democratic States. They were neither independent nor democratic and most are still neither.
In an era of instantaneous mass communication the Russians were subjected to decades of denigration by western politicians as the West pushed its influence eastward, ever closer to the Russian heartland. Freed from the moderating Soviet influence the West engaged in a series of interventions, from Eastern Europe, across Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia that mostly ended in failures. These failures have led to continuing regional instability. Driven by both left and right politicians’ rhetoric aimed at domestic audiences along with the surrounding interventions and denigration angered the Russians. While condemned by the west, Putin’s actions are playing very well with his own domestic audience.
Unfortunately Ukraine and the Crimea are parts of the Russian historical spirit. The question is when does political history become irrelevant. Robert Kaplan calls events a return to geopolitics (the politics of geography). Russia seized Ukraine in the late 18th century and Ottoman Crimea in the late 19th century. Russians emigrated to both but the Ukrainians remained more or less politically on their own until brought under Soviet control in the early 20th century. Stalin’s purges suppressed independence interest and along with his ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tartars during the war, brought the region firmly under Soviet Control. When the NAZIs arrived in the Ukraine they were first seen as liberators but their heavy hand soon created an effective Ukraine resistance movement later crushed by Stalin in the post war era. After Stalin’s death surviving Tartars returned to find their homes occupied by Russians. Khrushchev handed the Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, which declared independence upon the Soviet collapse.
For both East and West there are lessons to be learned in the Ukraine. Historical political justifications have limited validity in the 21st century. Local political rhetoric has far reaching impacts on international affairs. Free elections aren’t free in the presents of an occupying army. Military force is often counterproductive in the long term. In power politics win-win means you can’t lose, in Asian commerce it means both sides win (a fair deal.) International affairs can find the Asian model less costly with a little more time spent in open negotiations. Ideologues make poor negotiators. States have a place at the negotiation table deciding their fate.
The issue is the Ukrainian ouster of a Russian puppet and its courtship of the European Union. Russian president Vladimir Putin seized an instability moment by “liberating”, “protecting” or “supporting” a carefully orchestrated Crimean independence movement.
When the western powers indignantly objected to Russia’s virtual re-annexation of the Crimea, Putin cried “hypocrisy.” Putin has a point; not that it makes his actions anymore palatable. When the Soviet Union began to implode in the late 20th Century a gleeful West was quick to embrace the splintering Soviet republics as independent democratic States. They were neither independent nor democratic and most are still neither.
In an era of instantaneous mass communication the Russians were subjected to decades of denigration by western politicians as the West pushed its influence eastward, ever closer to the Russian heartland. Freed from the moderating Soviet influence the West engaged in a series of interventions, from Eastern Europe, across Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia that mostly ended in failures. These failures have led to continuing regional instability. Driven by both left and right politicians’ rhetoric aimed at domestic audiences along with the surrounding interventions and denigration angered the Russians. While condemned by the west, Putin’s actions are playing very well with his own domestic audience.
Unfortunately Ukraine and the Crimea are parts of the Russian historical spirit. The question is when does political history become irrelevant. Robert Kaplan calls events a return to geopolitics (the politics of geography). Russia seized Ukraine in the late 18th century and Ottoman Crimea in the late 19th century. Russians emigrated to both but the Ukrainians remained more or less politically on their own until brought under Soviet control in the early 20th century. Stalin’s purges suppressed independence interest and along with his ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tartars during the war, brought the region firmly under Soviet Control. When the NAZIs arrived in the Ukraine they were first seen as liberators but their heavy hand soon created an effective Ukraine resistance movement later crushed by Stalin in the post war era. After Stalin’s death surviving Tartars returned to find their homes occupied by Russians. Khrushchev handed the Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, which declared independence upon the Soviet collapse.
For both East and West there are lessons to be learned in the Ukraine. Historical political justifications have limited validity in the 21st century. Local political rhetoric has far reaching impacts on international affairs. Free elections aren’t free in the presents of an occupying army. Military force is often counterproductive in the long term. In power politics win-win means you can’t lose, in Asian commerce it means both sides win (a fair deal.) International affairs can find the Asian model less costly with a little more time spent in open negotiations. Ideologues make poor negotiators. States have a place at the negotiation table deciding their fate.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Irony 101013
Global Warming is a Democratic fiction according to Tea Party Terrorists (TPT) who states that there is no current scientific research to support the its existence. Their statement is correct, the TPT government shutdown has forced researchers to cease and desist in all things enlightening. The shutdown has also forced the government to beg for public charity to support military casualties’ survivors. In an irony adult Republican legislators are now begging Democrats for rescue from terrorism. The situation would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Thousands of government workers can’t meet their obligations. TPT gleefully denounce them as hogs getting fat rooting in the government trough but thousand, maybe millions more citizens are now also out of work because the Fed can’t pay its bills. The old and disabled are terrified that they too will soon be starving and on the streets as government subsidies fail to arrive. Retirees who scrimped and saved for the American Dream have seen their savings disappear as the stock market again plunges at the hands of TPT. The stability and solvency of America is now internationally viewed below that of Greece, Italy and North African States. Republicans are asking will an election endorsement by TPT be the kiss of death at the 2014 polls.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Partytime 100213
I don’t like the Democratic Party but the
Republican Party has become absolutely terrifying. Yes, terrifying
because the Grand Old Party of Lincoln is now hostage to a radical group
of Tea Party Terrorist (TPT) intent on destruction of over 200 years of
American progress. TPT groups are anti-American, opposing integration,
immigration, labor, veterans, disaster relief, health care,
non-evangelical Christians, non-U.S. Americans and any exercise of
freedom of choice. Although TPT’s platform is inconsistent it does
offer America a choice, chose TPT or face national shutdown, default on
obligations, financial collapse and the nation driven into an American
dark-age. TPT are very good at flag waving propaganda, although lacking
substance it managed to frighten the GOP into cowering in the corner
while TPT run amok, exploding political car bombs from Florida, Texas,
Michigan etc. to DC. In the name of party unity the TPT has extorted
Republican Party support for their political extremism. Republicans
must recover their backbone and stand up to domestic terrorism and again
serve the public’s interest rather than party interest. After a couple
of centuries it is possible that we have finally discovered that the
two party experiment is a failure and now must explore a multi-party
system. A system where the majority is free to consider the extremes but
still has the freedom to govern for the whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)