Posts filed under ‘Special Rants’
I am white. I cannot speak for a person of color on the subject of race – black voices must be heard – but I can speak with utter indignation upon encountering white people who are surprised to wake up in the aftermath of violence wreaked on a peaceful demonstration of oppressed people and discover that black lives STILL matter.
A New York Times headline about four stories down on the subject of the sniper attack in Dallas ever-so-briefly stated that the ‘Black Lives Matter movement will carry on despite violence.’ The headline is gone now, so that our nation could be declared ‘divided on race.’ Polarizing the story either way misses the point.
It is grossly unfair to attribute a sniper in Dallas to #BlackLivesMatter. And I reject the conceit of being so easily “divided” from my fellow man on the issue of racial equality. An anxious white community must not sink back into their easy chairs to the racist posture that black lives almost mattered, relieved that a righteous movement might have been silenced by the bad behavior of one of their own.
We white people distance ourselves from every hateful white shooter as he murders innocent men, women, children, and babies. No, you cannot forget Oklahoma City and the daycare center or the 1st graders in Sandy Hook, or the baby sleeping in the movie theater, or the church group in Charleston. In those incidents, the dudes were crazy, possibly marginalized by hair dye or religious preference (ignoring the Southern Christians among them) or whatever criterion was self-serving. If white, we are not the shooter or the bomber.
And yet a man of color commits an atrocity, and every wife, mother, father, brother, son, daughter, or friend of innocent black victims must lay down his or her peaceful protest sign out of respect for the new white dead? Of course I abhor the violent deaths of the police officers in Dallas. But their deaths do not reflect the credo of a movement about life.
#BlackLivesMatter. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness even if black.
And please, once and for all, put down those guns.
In an election year my civic mindedness as an educator must reflect both my duty to exercise my right to vote and my strong commitment to balanced analysis of the candidates and their positions on the issues…which I cannot say without irony yet.
Happy New Year? Oh, crap! It’s here. I had been avoiding it for most of a year, vowing NOT to pay attention to any Presidential campaign politics until the actual year of the election. Hate the money and other resources plowed into premature, extended campaigns…not to mention the noise pollution and distractions from the real functions of government. No excuses now.
It is time to develop a framework for political analysis. I offer these probing questions.
1. If the inauguration were held today…Could the candidate credibly take the oath of office to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States based on his or her understanding of the document and who might be comprised in We the People?
2. Does the candidate believe in our political economy based on democracy and capitalism? (choose one)
a. Yes, as long as it includes gerrymandering, campaign finance with Big Money, and non-ownership of factors of production.
b. Yes, as long as it includes Big Money and social programs that trickle up.
c. No, capitalism sucks, let’s go with social democracy.
3. Does the candidate possess the basic math skills for the job? For example, could he or she pass a middle school Pre-algebra quiz by recognizing the impact of his or her policies on both sides of any equation, e.g., supply and demand, imports and exports, etc.?
4. Does the candidate have more than one answer to every issue? For example, is there a challenge to the status quo that could not be addressed by consistently choosing just one of the following strategies?
a. Throw money at it
b. Rely on a return to old time values and ignore it
c. Stockpile weapons, gather a posse, and go get ‘em
5. What is the candidate’s perspective on globalism? For example, when there is a challenge to the nation’s competitiveness among other world powers in terms of…
a. Trade balance – raise minimum wage or give more tax credits to the rich?
b. Education – throw money at it or cite States’ rights to eliminate US Department of Education?
c. World peace – old-time isolationism says ignore it or stockpile weapons, gather a posse, and go get ‘em?
d. Climate change – repeal funding for EPA and deny it or throw money at it?
6. Where does the candidate stand on income inequity? (choose one)
a. Sit down with “haves” and “have mores” and never worry about standing again.
b. Throw money at it as in a lottery or casino gambling.
c. Ask Lions Club to give poor kids glasses so they can get into STEM schools and jobs.
d. Some or all of the above.
e. See answer “c” to question 2.
And so on…It is going to be a long year.
Addressing Education as a Delivery System is not new, but its potential cannot be expressed within the lexicon until we acknowledge it beyond the binary. The current attempts to reinvent the US PreK-12 Education Delivery System generally bundle everything old as bad and introduce a single idea or entity as its sole competitor. To be successful, however, the system must be allowed to exist in fluid form. The schoolhouse walls have been tumbling down for a while with innovative ideas arising from necessity, creativity, or some combination of the two in concert with a vision for truly strategic planning. It is not time to sort the winners or losers; the solution is inclusive.
The tradition public education system has become the straw man against challengers such as private for-profit systems, charter school chains, online programs, and other delivery modalities. Unfortunately, many delivery system innovators have adopted the binary approach – The Good (us) versus The Bad (them) – one of the saddest artifacts of weak management in education. Indeed, almost every argument has become mired in the mud of a rope pulling contest between the best bullies from either side of the fray. This attitude is not going to nurture truly ground-breaking developments. Similarly, this adversarial approach keeps us caught up in the spat among the adults, with the students being barely essential to the dialogue aside from the requisite reference to the children by both sides as their sole concern.
A renewed US PreK-12 Education Delivery System (no “s”, not plural) must be student-centered and universally relevant in order to be sustainable. All information – finance, educational outcomes, teacher effectiveness – must be linked at the most basic level directly to the student. Education can no longer be defined by what happens within the schoolhouse walls. It can be delivered anywhere: at home, in the community, online, or within a central education complex. And the facilitator can be a person, a written source, a transmitter, or an interactive digital or interpersonal experience. The process can be personalized for each student with learning experiences designed for students individually or within optimized cohorts.
I am not usually one for getting hung up on semantics, but this one matters. We need a new approach to the Education Delivery System as a whole. The existing system does not work, and power brokers hanging onto their turf will never build a better system. Everyone has a stake in the solution. The children are the future of our world, but they depend on the education delivery system for effectiveness, health and safety for their survival, and a political economy within which they can become thriving adult citizens. Their villages need to get busy and learn to speak as one.
ISIS has only one use of women – as sex slaves – and kills the rest if over 40. Indeed, a mass grave was discovered when Kurdish fighters recovered territory in Iraq held by ISIS since August 2014 that included the bodies of women, aged 40-80, who had been discarded for their lack of utility for the Islamic State. These Medieval war lords, intent on creating a new world disorder, cannot be allowed to drive world conversations into a sadly regressive series of skirmishes. Leadership must create opportunity to undermine despair.
World leaders were preparing for the G20 Summit in Istanbul as terrorist atrocities spread across Paris Friday evening, and another important news item slipped to the inside pages of International News despite being covered by the BBC, the New York Times, and papers from Boston to Los Angeles. While the genocide had occurred in the past, the existence of the mass grave for Yazidi women between 40 and 80 was yet another reminder that we are dealing with humanity’s lowest common denominator. As we sit poised on dystopia, the classically maternal nurturing response deserves a voice lest the martyrdom of these women presage the fall of civilization.
ISIS violates the social contract that we all have with one another…that we can pursue our individual lives in private and public places, secure in the knowledge that there are things we will not do to one another. Marauders who live by the invader’s motto of killing the men, raping the women, and burning the villages are so anachronistic; yet, we are living and dying with them in horrific fashion. And they wish to claim their place in the annals of world power.
The convergence of the G20 Economic Summit, Middle Eastern unrest, and the new age of terrorism in the Western World is unsettling. However, the context can and should help us find our way. A knee-jerk response to a vicious attack is overwhelmingly weighted toward a show of force in return. And the uncharacteristically militaristic action taken by France is understandable. Still, even as we stand by France, we must show restraint from the sidelines.
The world needs a new, healthy economy. The Middle East needs a path to peace. And the terrorists who are consolidating power in the vacuum created by political unrest, poverty, and powerlessness need a worthy competitor dealing in hope.
In 2001, the Bush-Cheney White House unwittingly acted like war lords in retrospect rather than leading the world as proactive preventers of terrorist. We have been caught up on the battlefield ever since. Unfortunately, this regressive posture is reinforced by the threat of the unknown in a new world economic order that is no longer centered in the West. We need to be fearless…but that does not mean warlike.
Each nation of the world must find its core strengths and economic balance in both its local and international posture. War-torn lands must be rebuilt. Factors of production and workers must re-emerge across the globe in modern, sustainable fashion, displacing 18th century techniques that are cheap, environmentally destructive, and imminently dangerous.
People who are not valued can be made indifferent in their allegiance to good or evil. A world response that sees possibilities for mankind can and must be grounded in a vision of peace and prosperity. Without that, our descent into chaos and disorder will render leadership irrelevant. The G20 may seem powerless for the moment, but they are deciding their own fate.
The legal ability of banks to package their riskiest assets into blind investment instruments greatly reduced risk for the bankers themselves. Instead of managing risk, they simply exported it to their trust customers via paper transactions. To complicate matters, the act of reducing the penalties for risky behavior among bankers led them to engage in less prudent behavior, again creating a burden for the market…all the while collecting fees for this disservice to all but the industry’s most powerful clients. This behavior continues today as non-productive financial assets are proliferating, edging out real investments in capital assets and long-term shareholder value. Without external intervention this generously rewarded behavior will not change.
The US economy cannot flourish with distributor margins. A few decades ago, as a young analyst, I studied shareholder value creation while working for a hospital supply company. The CEO was leading the company through a change from a sales growth model to a profitable growth model that created real shareholder value. The firm was an industry leader, but its share price had languished despite double digit revenue gains for most of its history. A cornerstone of the strategy was vertical integration into manufacturing.
Fast forward to 2015, and we are faced with a dysfunctional US market that is looking for growth in all the wrong places…because they forgot what real shareholder value means. Having divested the supply function in almost every industry, Wall Street has hidden behind smoke screens of paradigm shifts and non-productive market activity while losing its footing in value added to the economy…and they will not change as long as we pay them to do this. At its gloomiest, one could question whether capitalism, or even the US economy, will actually exist when the cycle completes.
Manufacturers across the US divested their supply functions and replaced them with lower cost producers offshore. The co-existence of supply-side incentives in the US with the transfer of the supplier function left corporations and investment houses with excess cash. Banks diligently created new paper assets for trading, as if our money benefited from a sort of isometric workout in the absence of production in the US economy. And the fees for traders and brokers grew even as our economy stagnated. Indeed there is no incentive for the financial services industry to stop their cycle of spinning flax…for them it really does generate gold.
Dubious analysts were labeled as unclear on the whole global economy concept, and the other great paradigm shift – the emerging digital markets – apparently justified underwriting bubble machines for technology stocks. In reality, the US simultaneously shifted from an industrial nation to a distribution economy AND moved product promotion and distribution to the Internet. Granted, it is a lot to digest; however, we have presumed new value creation that does not exist. Distributor margins put skid marks on profits that could not be offset by revenue gains. And the great promise of the New Economy on the Internet has thus far yielded, at best, zero sum shifts from traditional advertising and sales outlets to virtual ones. Exceptions exist, but they have become overvalued and, eventually, sources of booms and busts on Wall Street.
Our retirement funds are not growing with real long-term capital. Our jobs are not expanding in the right places. Our youth already reflect our future, polarized between the entitlement of wealth and privilege and the lean existence of the underemployed and profoundly indebted. No group better demonstrates the effects of unjust and unsustainable income inequity. And the market thrives…churning out transactions with no end game a sane person would want to explore.
I suggest investing in Sports Medicine…because capitalism’s Invisible Hands are severely broken, and whoever figures out how to fix them will make a fortune.
Corporations are not people. The people they represent are not necessarily US citizens. And their tax money shows their allegiance to foreign nations. Other than that, the Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court in 2010 merely violates the balance of power between a free market economy and democracy as a core principle of the American way of life. Political corruption and economic tyranny can be the only outcomes in the end.
Until a corporation can register to vote and walk into a polling place to cast a single vote, it is not a person. In the meantime, however, we have a serious problem thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 that determined that corporations were people. Since then, campaigns financed by corporate sponsors have controlled a significant number of elections in the US, effectively hijacking the democratic process from real people. Within individual states, outsiders are determining who will run for office to represent the residents in both houses of the Congress. And, at the national level, presidential politics have similarly come under the control of anonymous PACs of people.
The power money comes from multinational corporations. And their shareholders, to whom they hold allegiance, represent more or less every nation in the world. So, how can a corporate “person” promise us that it is an American citizen and only serves the interests of American people? Decades before the Citizens United case came to court, these same US corporations already had taken tax breaks for supply-side economics and used them to finance the transfer operations out of the US and create jobs in other nations. And this has not been their only odd way of saying thank you in the US.
Outsourcing jobs offshore was supposed to ensure low-cost supply functions, greater profits, and eventual payback in the US. Unfortunately, a lot of profits have remained pooled offshore. And worse, not all of these corporate citizens have been satisfied with their US headquarters. Indeed, the trend has been to find a nation with a lower corporate tax rate*, invest in a small company there, and transfer the corporate assets and headquarters to that foreign office, effectively renouncing US corporate registration. This process, known as corporate inversion, means that taxes on the profits from US tax breaks to support supply-side economics are actually paid to a foreign nation. Even your corner drugstore, Walgreens, had considered a corporate inversion recently, but yielded to political pressure to delay action.
Not to worry, our domestic representatives of these foreign corporations will continue to demand supply-side concessions in the wake of our sorry employment situation in the US. And, most ironically, they will continue to win elections supported by the Tea Party faithful and other Cretan Paradox sufferers under the banner of “taking back America.”
As I mentioned in my last post…
“The US is defined by a political economy based on democracy and capitalism. The balance they maintain is essential to our freedom. Free market capitalism – not monopolies – are theoretically protected under our constitution. And, because one must have money to play in the free market, the democratic process allows for political will to be exerted over economic processes if poverty excludes too many Americans from the competition. Yet a bad Supreme Court decision has placed capitalists as the masters of both politics and the economy. This can only end badly if left unchallenged.”
This mess really needs to be cleaned up in 2015. There will be too much at stake in 2016 elections for us to leave our destinies in the hands of the incredibly visible hand of the un-free market.
* Conservatives have used this discrepancy in corporate tax rates to call for lowering rates in the US. However, nations with lower corporate tax rates often have higher personal income tax rates to make up the difference. These same politicians are not likely disclose such details or to seek that balance.