Frustration

If you think things can’t get worse it’s probably only because you lack sufficient imagination.

The super-committee, as predicted, reached NO agreement that would have benefited American citizens by finding a way to cut spending. As usual, the 12-member group was evenly divided between the two major parties: the Democrats refusing to cut without raising taxes and the Republicans refusing to raise taxes, even on the super-rich. All of them were thinking about getting reelected and not hurting the cause of their main contributors, i.e. lobbies. Not one even suggested the possibility of listening to the people; now that would have been a change and it means that we absolutely need to use referendums when politicians reach an impasse. Very Frustrating!

 Politicians should look at this flag, really look!

Speaking of listening to protesting masses, Mr. Newton Gingrich once again played the decisive card when analyzing the Occupy Wall Street movement; without any hesitation whatsoever, he put his foot in his mouth once again. He showed his true colors, which means pandering to the Tea party followers. He said that the OWS people were no better than a bunch of dirty hippies who should look for a decent job after taking a shower. He repeatedly emphasized the fact that they didn't pay for the park they occupied and the toilets they used, even though these are public property. He characterized the movement as extreme left gone amok. Very Frustrating!


Republicans, led by their fearless and occasionally emotional leader Speaker Boehner, have declared war on anything that President Obama has proposed, including his much needed job bill. They don't even bother to offer a compromise or an alternative; granted, Mr. Obama is a Democrat (gasp), so whatever he says is automatically suspect (I wonder if race is a factor in this dislike). So we can be sure that nothing of importance will be done during the last presidential year and the President is quite aware of that. He has taken the only avenue left to him:  presidential decrees that do not require Congress' approval. How Frustrating!

Are we supervising big banks to make sure they don't lead us to the brink of economic and financial hell as they did in 2008-09? Are we keeping an eye on large financial institutions that sold us toxic instruments 3 years ago? The answer is depressing; they have hundreds of well-paid lobbyists in Washington who make sure no such bill reaches the floor. The only way for us, ordinary citizens, to fight back would be to have our own lobby to defend our interests, just as AARP defends senior citizens with success. Why not? All we need is an incorruptible leader to start a new association called "Citizens for Change". But who would be selfless enough to grab the standard and fight for us? It's an idea that deserves more attention; however, the silent majority, the ones who refuse to vote, will remain passive and let "others" do the work. How Frustrating!

The growing Occupy Wall Street movement has lacked a unifying voice that can offer concrete ideas of change; maybe, just maybe, they could be the core of the new NGO "Citizens for Change", a powerful NON-partisan lobby whose exclusive task would be to fund campaigns for those politicians willing to listen to reason and to the People. But, would its leaders be sucked by the Washington insiders and by the existing corruption? Where are these saviors? Do they even exist? How Frustrating!

Ladies and Gentlemen: I declare this blog to be the leader in the fight against political passivity. If we want a good government and a functioning democracy, we must unite and demand action. Are you willing and ready?

Me, Now, Here

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country (John F. Kennedy)

Many of our politicians in Congress would do well to revisit this truth by one of our greatest Presidents. Their vision is limited to ME, NOW, HERE. It should be, of course, THEM, THEN, THERE, wherein Them are the suffering people of this powerful nation, Then is the next 50 years and There is our devastated environment.

The powerful lobbies have taken over our federal government; we have, in effect, ceded the control of all branches to large corporations. Even the Supreme Court is not immune to private interests. Some of its august members dine and play golf as guests of honor of wealthy executives, which makes it difficult if not impossible to remain unbiased when called upon to act on appeals involving large conglomerates.

The President offered during his campaign to eliminate the influence of lobbies and to veto any bill that had special interests attached to it. Alas, he was caught in the web just like any newly minted Congressman. "Do what I say, but not what I do" seems to be the motto on the Hill. Legislators make fiery speeches against legalized corruption, i.e. lobbying all the while opening their coffers to anxious donors.

Their weapons now are BlackBerries and cell phones. But connections, savvy, and fundraising clout are still the keys to the influence wielded by the city’s 50 top lobbyists. (Washingtonian, Kim Eisler, June 1, 2007)

Does the name Abramoff ring a bell?  "We need to entirely eliminate any contribution by those lobbying the government, participating in a federal contract, or otherwise financially benefiting from public funds" says the disgraced lobbyist. He should know a thing or two about how the system works. But unfortunately, Congress is the only organism allowed to make laws and it will never agree to pass anything that hurts its individual pockets. Ideally we should have an outside agency, a sort of ethical watchdog, that forces changes upon the legislative branch, but, again, such agency would have to be set up by the very people it would supervise. No Way, no How!


 We? The People?? Or They, The Special Interests? The Founding Fathers would be aghast at the business-like atmosphere in Congress which apparently has become a branch office of Wall Street. The venerated television program 60 minutes devoted a segment to insider trading by some Congressmen, asking pungent questions to embarrassed legislators who vehemently denied any personal involvement. Or course, they have experts doing the financial work for them and the report from CBS implied that they have advanced knowledge of bills that may impact the value of some companies or portions of real estate. It would be quite revealing to ask Congressmen to publicly declare their fortune at the beginning of their hallowed representation and at five year intervals thereafter. "How did they become rich?" is the burning question in every middle-class member's mind.


"We have the government we deserve", said a wise philosopher and the solution to the present problem is to get rid of every incumbent next November and elect fresh faces who may or may not give us, the people, some hope that Washington will regain the confidence that has been lost. Recent polls indicate a new and shameful low for Congress: 9% of the respondents said that they trusted that federal organism. Wow! Is that a message that will be heard next year or will most of us stay home and then complain that government doesn't work? If you don't vote, you deserve the government that is in place. So stop whining and prepare to act!

So Much To So Few

It's insane! It's crazy and cruel! Where is the sharing, the moral conscience, the gratefulness, the Christian ideal, the compassion, and the generosity that must accompany wealth in all Americans? I am not pointing the finger at Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, or at any of the giving and considerate wealthy members of our society. Rather my indignation signals to the incredible waste of resources by those super rich athletes, singers, actors, politicians and scions of great fortunes who carelessly throw money at extremely expensive baubles while millions of Americans are suffering the shame and humiliation of foreclosures, loss of jobs, loss of pensions, loss of 401K's, loss of savings, and loss of dignity.

Panther Brooch (House of Cartier): 1.1 Million
Diamond Watch (Chanel): 1.9 Million
Audemars Piguet Jules Audemars Watch: $113,000 
2005 Ferrari 430 Coupe: $130,000

These are but a just a few of the outrageous gifts bought by celebrities who apparently are oblivious to the urgent need to help American families who have no home, no job and nowhere to go. What kind of economic system gives so much to so few?

Communism was a wonderful concept but the selfish nature of man rendered the idea unusable. People want to OWN something, a piece of land, a house, or even a pet, without government intervention. Nevertheless, the idea of a just society implies that citizens who, through no fault of their own, fall into desperate financial straits, should be helped by an official agency. After all, private charities cannot handle so many hardship cases; church groups and social clubs do help as much as they can, as do charitable volunteers. But when the scope of the problem is so great, when the evident cause of such catastrophe can be placed squarely on rapacious Wall Street vultures, only the government has the means and the resources to save these citizens in distress.

After all, don't we help the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wild fires, contagious diseases, epidemics, wars, famine, drought, earthquakes and any of the global disasters that every year affect millions of human beings on this planet? Why in the world can't official agencies help the innocent victims of barefaced manipulation of toxic financial instruments and political corruption (those politicians who passed laws to favor big financial institutions in exchange for campaign contributions)?

Why do you think the "Occupy Wall Street" movement has lasted so long and has spread so far and wide to so many cities and countries? It has surged from a profound dissatisfaction and outrage at the capitalistic system that robbed the poor to give it to the rich. Agreed, there is no sin in becoming rich; it is accepted and admired in those who legitimately earned that right. Most create jobs and opportunities for their communities. The problem surges when that fortune has been acquired through dubious means, whether unconscionable bonuses to failed CEO's, bribes to politicians disguised as campaign contributions, finance conglomerates that invent so-called derivatives that include the mortgages of millions.




The numerous financial ties between Congress members and lobbyists are creating laws that favor the already rich at the expense of the middle class; a review of pension laws shows clearly that thousands of retirees have been cheated of their earned income through legal shenanigans in which both corporations and political leaders worked together to cut pension benefits, never with the consent or knowledge of the employees.

Our most important citizens, the ones that prepare the next generation, have salaries that would make a Wall Street broker cringe in financial pain. Yet we throw millions at athletes, most of whom have no idea what to do with it, example Mike Tyson. They buy lavish gifts and sumptuous mansions until the IRS comes knocking on their tax doors. Meanwhile, another 100 families have been thrown into the streets.

Unjust financial and economic system? Of course, that is why the government is the only recourse most people have; witness the enormous importance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Washington says that these social programs are running out of money when billions are squandered on stupid wars, generous tax breaks for the rich, enormous subsidies to wealthy farmers and unneeded foreign aid.

Something must be done and something will be done, next year.

If Not Now, When?

Given the success of the article "To Give or Not To Give" (9/12/11), I feel motivated to add to the present picture of American Society. The main question is: Are we raising a new generation of couch potatoes, corrupt politicians, greedy CEO's, lazy workers, incompetent leaders, careless parents, and unmotivated teachers? Or are we creating a group of Steve Jobs geniuses who will astound us with their creativity and inventiveness? The answer is complex, given that both possibilities are very real, dividing the population into two very separate categories of citizens.

The lack of traditional discipline in most families (not to be confused with physically hurting children, which is abuse) has created a generation of teens who feel entitled to total support without having to work for it. I asked some of my students who are close to 18 what plan they had to survive: Almost no one associated that milestone with becoming an independent adult. They shrugged their shoulders as if to say "Whatever happens, happens." Fatalism is a quality associated more with the Muslim religion than with the Western culture. It usually leads to a lack of ambition and effort, a sure road to welfare.

I vividly remember the heydays of sexual liberation and antiwar movements between 1969 and 1979. Hippies and communes sprang in various places in our country where smoking pot and enjoying free love was the norm. Everybody wanted peace in the world and a greater permissiveness in our society; we searched for the meaning of life through transcendental meditation with the help of Indian gurus. The Beatles were all the rage and colorful clothing changed fashion forever. College students had rebelled and wanted a voice in the governance of universities. Women were at last free to make love without fear of getting pregnant thanks to the pill. The suffocating bonds of straight-laced parents were finally broken, announcing a happier and freer society. However..

Reality asserted itself in the eighties with the recently discovered AIDS virus; families who sought the new freedom were broken up, divorce rate rose, and many young adults decided that marriage was not really necessary in order to have children. As a result, permissiveness turned to neglect and the loss of essential values which hold a social group together. Women wanted their place in the sun and tried to combine work with raising kids, a difficult proposition that created latchkey children. These came from school to find an empty home; others were raised by relatives, nannies, or daycare centers, where social values were not the priority. Deprived of parental love, many youngsters looked for attention and affection in other social groups where they learned how to reject the accepted norms.

There is nothing more important than a united family where lessons are taught with love, patience, and tolerance. I remember a single mother telling me that once a week she gathers all seven children around the dinner table to discuss and try to solve any problem that may have arisen. Everybody's opinion is welcome no matter what their age or gender. This type of strategy makes every child feel important and strengthens the bonds of affection and respect among its members. Whenever possible, close relatives such as grandparents should be invited to participate given their extensive experience and wisdom.

We have lost the ability to talk face-to-face in our modern society; we text mother that we will be late tonight. We send e-mails to friends, relatives, and acquaintances as a replacement for a meaningful conversation. Yes, these are important communication tools, but they should not substitute the need to sit down with a child or parent and examine real human issues. How can we detect non-verbal clues, such as a frown, a smile, a gesture, a shrug, a wink, or even a tone of voice if we can't see the person?

Going back to the initial question regarding what kind of society we are creating, the answer lies not in technology but in recuperating the warmth of human contact. Hugging a child or a friend cannot compare with a cleverly designed e-card or an affectionate e-mail. To parents who claim that they can't afford to give more time to their children I say "If not now, when?" Quality and quantity are both essential when raising kids and nothing can replace the mother the first two years, nothing! Dad must be available to answer questions or settle disputes or simply to give a sense of security that nobody, nobody else can give.

Children who grow up feeling self-confident in their abilities and secure in their emotions may well be the next Steve Jobs; at the very least, they'll make good citizens, and that's something our country will need in the complicated future that our country is facing.

Have We Lost Our Sense of Morality?

Our country is clearly focused on greed, as evidenced by the most successful game shows on television; people cry, scream, and jump for joy on Wheel of Fortune, The Price is Right, Deal or No Deal, The Million Dollar Password, Are you Smarter Than a 5th Grader, Jeopardy, etc. But greed is not the only vice flooding the land; sexual permissiveness flourishes in high school (sometimes even in middle schools), in magazines, in our fascination with movie stars, in our movies and videos, becoming outright porn which knows no boundaries ever since the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment included the right to produce and watch the filthiest behavior humans are capable of.

I am no prude; as a man, I enjoy watching sexy women. Eroticism is in intricate part of our psyche. We have witnessed what happens to a society when its rulers repress all healthy  sexual tendencies and expressions, whether in literature or in film; the early Puritans come to mind. Today's women use make-up to look more attractive and desirable to the other sex. Men inflate their pectorals and flex their biceps to express their readiness to wed and reproduce, just like peacocks display their magnificent colors. That's normal and necessary. On the other hand, homosexuality is a reality, not a sick condition that can be cured, but I don't see why gay people should demand the right to marry just like an ordinary heterosexual couple. They should keep their activities private; most of us agree that a marriage is a ritual that precedes reproduction and thus should not be misused for other purposes.

The next vice that seems to become more prevalent in this nation is hypocrisy, starting with our politicians. It is almost impossible to obtain a clear answer from any of them. The media marvels at the few straight-talkers, which is why people like Hermann Cain and Newton Gingrich seem to have the upper hand in debates. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and even Jon Huntsman, struggle to answer a simple Yes or No question. There is nothing more irritating than a Congressman being interviewed: he or she hems and haws around the question until the reporter presses for a clear answer. Politicians often claim to espouse a certain position when in reality they support another: It is called political expediency. Mitt Romney is a clear example; he goes with the wind, flip-flopping like a kid during recess. Let's not forget the apogee of hypocrisy: the so-called religious men and women who beat their chests, claiming to be good Christians, going to church regularly dressed in their Sunday best, and cheating their fellow citizens on Monday. Somehow, I can't help thinking about bankers and financiers; right, Madoff?



Lies and cover-ups abound in this great nation. We desecrate the bodies of fallen soldiers by dumping their ashes in a common grave: cover-up by the brass. We humiliate Iraqi prisoners in Abu-Dhabi and responsible officers try the quash the scandal: cover-up. Penn State explodes at the sordid news: A coach rapes innocent boys and the man in charge, Paterno, apparently doesn't take the necessary steps to protect other kids. A New York congressman, Wiener, lies about sending lewd photos. A governor lies about going to Argentina to visit his mistress. Bill Clinton lying to Congress about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Catholic priests and their superiors covering up their scandalous sexual behavior. Is it surprising that modern youth consider "normal" what their grandparents view as outrageous?

Our present society, as I have mentioned before, has become far too permissive. Discipline is now seen as a "dirty" word that parents should avoid, except maybe for the flogging judge and his followers. We haven't been able to define the limits of what we can and can't do to raise our children. As parents and teachers, our hands are often tied by government regulations, thus creating teens who say:" I am going to call the police if you punish me or if you leave me alone tonight."



As a result, children are exposed to defective role models through television, movies and video games. Our role as a father or mother, if they care at all, is to limit the damage by trying to explain that it's not O.K. to lie and cheat and have uncontrolled sex. As difficult as raising a child may be, today's society has made it much more challenging. The real heroes are those who manage, against all odds, to raise kids who will be an model of morality and good citizenship.

Let Them Die

Some Republican candidates have shown little mercy for very sick people and for homeowners who face foreclosure. If they can't pay, let nature, i.e. the free capitalistic and cruel market take its course. The Michigan native, Mr. Romney, even condemned the bailout of GM and Chrysler, saying that if they failed and if thousands lost their jobs, that was the way it had to be. Too bad, added Mr. Huntsman, a man I expected to show some compassion for the unemployed. When faced with the question of what to do with banks that are "too big to fail", none of the contenders was able to offer a solution in last night's debate. In summary, everyone, even the bumbling Rick Perry, recommended a return to the heartless days of savage capitalism, probably because they all receive a lot of financial support from big business. The real winner was without a doubt Newton Gingrich who had the temerity of scolding one of the moderators, Bartiromo, for giving him 30 seconds for a topic that would require several hours, health care.


The real problem among the candidates is that they seem to be out of touch with the feelings of the population at large. The majority of Americans strongly believe that the rich are getting a free pass when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes. Outrageous bonuses to CEO's of failing (bailed out) companies compound the ire of the middle class which occupies Wall Street. Ms. Bachman ceaselessly rewinds the tape (she clearly memorized the spiel) of wishing they would go and manifest in front of the White House. Romney coldly tells people who have "underwater" mortgages to keep faith in the capitalist system, just as Marie-Antoinette regally enjoined hungry Frenchmen to eat cake instead of bread. Ron Paul and his supporters would let very sick and uninsured people die of their disease. Their ideal government would consist of a few employees collecting taxes and distributing the funds to the States. What United States?




Apparently a few very large companies are responsible for 90% of the country's GDP. However, they don't pay 90% of the taxes as they have scores of lobbyists who "convince" key lawmakers to introduce a few more loopholes in the tax system. Just look at insurance companies, drug manufacturers, financial companies, and farmers; they all have either subsidies or tax exemptions or outright donations from the Federal Government and they make obscene amounts of profits as they exert a virtual monopoly on their respective market. Did any candidates even suggest closing the loopholes in the tax code? Yes, they did, but with great cunning, they offered to compensate by lowering the capital gains rate 10%. The bottom line is going to be even better for these huge conglomerates. And Joe Smith, or Jane Doe, who make a living with great difficulty in the middle class, who represents them in Washington? What influential lobby defends the middle-class? Oh, that's right, that's why we elected our Congressmen and women, to defend and protect our interests (place sarcasm here!)


That's the key point; money has taken over the political representation. The power resides not in the hands of the people, as the Founding Fathers had desired, but in the greedy palms of thousands of speculators, large companies and politicians.


The OWS movement wants that, precisely: A major change in the way we do politics and stop enacting laws that favor the few and crush the many. That will require the elimination of lobbies, gasp! What happened to the first amendment? (place irony here).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


All men, or just a few?

Inner Eye

To be aware of a single shortcoming in oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand in someone else.

- Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

How little we know about our own shortcomings and how fully aware we pretend to be about others' faults. Many of my teen students have complained about parents being hypocritical; they don't do what they preach. The same can be said for many teachers who present a different persona in class than they do in their private life. Students are quick to detect fakes; they have that special sixth sense in youth that seems to disappear as they get older. As a result, they shut their minds to that particular individual, and that includes parents. Trust is lost and communication suffers.

Honesty and Awareness are priceless tools in human communication, especially with children and adolescents. Psychotherapists know this very well and make it a center pillar of their treatment. Yet we fail to teach the Art of Communicating with our fellow humans in schools, whether public or private, just as we fail to teach the Art of Parenting to future fathers and mothers. A wise philosopher once said:" We have two ears and one mouth. That means we should listen twice as much as we talk." Regrettably, we do just the opposite with our most cherished people, wives, husbands, children, students and close friends. We have this urge to tell them what we think and the reasons for it. Seldom do we take the time to listen, actively, to their own position on the matter. Seasoned and successful diplomats know this and apply the appropriate strategy to achieve results.

How often have we heard our students say :"I wish my father would listen to me."? How many times does a wife complain to her best friend about the husband who never has time to talk, meaning of course serious discussions about important matters? How can we reach a good decision if we act without using the Inner Eye, the tool our conscience offers us to examine, weigh, assess, and analyze our motives, our emotional reactions, and our own shortcomings?

Remember the judge who was filmed whipping the back of his daughter of 16 with a belt? He was clearly enraged, out of control, and yet he justifies his actions as needed discipline. As parents, we should never, ever, punish while angry; the consequences will be disastrous for the child. He or she will cower in fear every time they hear their father coming home; their self-esteem will be shattered and their ability to love and care seriously affected even after they grow into adulthood. Humiliating a child, or an adult for that matter, can result in permanent emotional damage, not to mention the creation of distrust and maybe even hate. It takes a superior being to forgive his parents and/or his teachers for their past abuse, both emotional and physical.

Yes, there is a strong  need for discipline in any family; but too often, parents confuse discipline with severe punishment. Again, the need to prepare future fathers and mothers must start, believe it or not, in elementary school. Children 6 year-old or more are quite capable of expressing their feelings regarding good parenting. Using dolls as make believe children, these kids can be taught how to teach discipline with love and patience. We expect our dogs to behave, but if we use blows and intimidation to achieve that goal, the animal will eventually turn on his master. Should it be any different for human beings?

That's the Way It Must Be

Given the numerous visitors to my latest post "Keep Going, Don't Despair" (I give thanks to all of you), I feel motivated to continue sharing my 25 year experience as a teacher. I noticed as I grew older and as I became a grandfather that we tend to forget how we behaved as children and as teenagers. My mother, 94 year-old, reminded me that as a teen I often stayed in bed till 11:00 o'clock on Saturdays, a lazy memory I had conveniently forgotten. My own grandchildren often keep me on my toes as they behave the way happy teens do: They experiment, they investigate, they want new adventures (while I enjoy my cozy fireplace), they explore and taste life to the fullest. Yes, they make mistakes, yes, they act foolishly sometimes; heck, they even get into fights with each other, they scrape their knees when falling off the skateboard or climbing trees, scaring their mothers, but that's the way it must be.

Connecting with a child or a teen, actually it's more difficult after puberty sets in, represents a challenge for us older adults. They see the world with different eyes as their growing years have been filled with television, movies, videos, and documentaries. They are truly the visual generation, whereas parents and teachers over 40 tend to be more auditive and reflexive. We were reading books and pulp magazines; today they watch shows and play video games. We were listening to songs; today they watch the video of the song. When we marvelled at the prospect of going to the moon, today's blase youngsters ask why not go to the next galaxy. We wrote on a typewriter, cussing the ribbon that ran out of ink; they flash their fingers on an electronic keyboard and instantly send the message. It is as if a more advanced civilization had suddenly invaded the Earth to teach us, primitive humans (you and me), how to enter the age of modern communications.

My father didn't want me to go to college; he used to say with great conviction that books do not teach us how to live in the real world. I went anyway, as soon as I became independent, because I recognized the fallacy of his argument. Books reflect reality as they are written by men and women who want to transmit their own experiences and mistakes. Without books, we would live as nomads on the prairie chasing buffaloes.

Communicating with teens requires a lot of patience, a good sense of humor, and a genuine interest in their goals and interests. It is also essential to show respect for their ideas, however irrational they may appear; some of the no-nos include:

1)    Laughing at their misadventures with the other sex
2)    Yelling  at them to finish whatever task you gave them
3)    Revealing their "secrets" to other adults or teens
4)   Telling them that they will never succeed
5)   Heaping ridicule upon their ambitions
6)   Forcing them to do anything
7)   Not listening carefully when they talk to you in private
8)   Not keeping promises
9)   Favoring one sibling over another
10) Beginning a sentence with :"In my days.."

Adolescents go through phases as they progress toward adulthood; a teacher or a parent must be aware of the changes so as to know what can be expected and what not. Not all teens mature at the same pace, especially boys. The acquisition of complex abstract thinking takes place between the ages of 14 and 18. When the youngster starts asking questions about the meaning of life, you know that he or she is ready to talk about the most important aspects of  human development on this Earth. If you cannot answer those questions, get somebody who can, as young minds can easily stray from the right path by seeking answers from the wrong people.

Most important "Do's":

1)   Answer all questions or tell the teen that you will find a solution (and do it)
2)   Watch carefully for any sudden change in behavior; it may indicate the use of drugs or alcohol
3)   Make sure you are always available as a teacher and parent; it may be something urgent
4)   Study carefully their body language; it may tell you much more than their words
5)   Be frank and honest; they spot "phoniness" immediately and clam up
6)   Admit your mistake if there is one; you will impress them as a teacher or parent
7)   Become their friend but not their buddy
8)   Demand respect at all times
9)   Model the behavior you expect from them
10) Use democratic strategies in the classroom and at home; they will feel that their opinion is important

More than ever we must connect to the younger generations; the present conditions in the world augur a vast change in all areas of human endeavor and our children and students must be ready to face it when their time comes.

Keep Going, Don't Despair

It doesn't matter how slowly you go as long as you don't stop (Confucius)

One of the problems I have observed as a teacher in high school is kids giving up and dropping out. No matter how many times I tell them that every student learns at a different pace and was born with different skills, they feel that they are not smart enough. "Why do I have to read Shakespeare or Mary Shelley or Lord Byron or Edgar Allan Poe; I won't need that in adult life, I can make money anyway", they answer. It is, of course, very difficult to visualize your life 10 years from now when you are 16, 17, or 18. My standard response is to plant the seed of doubt (about their life plan) by giving examples of older adults working in menial jobs that pay very little. There is no point in simply trying to persuade them that we know better as parents or as teachers.

We can also point out that reading classical British poetry and plays by famous authors is not "necessary" to be successful in life, if you define success as material possessions. Savvy English teachers will mention that human nature hasn't changed since the first man walked on two legs; reading the master psychologist William Shakespeare will teach us lessons that no psychotherapist can equal. Studying complex mathematical problems may develop the brain to a new stage of performance that will allow its owner to aspire to well-paid professions. Learning about physical and social sciences will bring an unequaled insight into the mystery of life and the endless complexities of human relations.

 
He who learns but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger (Confucius)

 One of the many strategies available to parents and teachers is to pair the dedicated student with the at-risk one; if the combination is girl-boy so much the better. Women are more mature at the same age as teens, and boys usually react more positively to the other sex than to their male counterparts. Must be some "macho" gene kicking in! Another way to bring the reluctant student into the learning mode is to dedicate a few minutes a day to simply talking to him or her. Showing genuine and respectful interest in their life often brings a positive change in their responses. We frequently cite the need for teachers to make a difference in young people's lives; unfortunately that is not always possible. The way the school day is set up, students run to the next class or once to lunch every 50 minutes. Ideally, there should be no bell and no time pressure. They would go to the next teacher whenever all students have proven that they have assimilated the needed knowledge and skill for the day in that particular topic.

School administrators will react strongly to that suggestion, not always favorably; and yet, that is what we must eventually reach: a school day during which all types of learning styles and speeds are attended to. Students would shoulder more responsibility for their acquisition of skills under an honor code. If we started the new type of school with the first year of elementary, the learners would reach high school already trained in actively seeking knowledge instead of sitting passively on a hard plastic seat during 8 hours. Modern technology (I call it "teachnology") such as iPads and tablets would be available to every kid of every social class. A lot of self-learning can be accomplished with such wonderful tools. Let's imagine futuristic intelligent school desks that respond to the youngster's needs. A teacher would be become more of a guide than a lecturer, a supervisor of learning processes, a resource rather than an authority figure.

We must absolutely change our way of teaching to the lowest common denominator. Let's make every teacher a full-time partner in education, listening to his or her suggestions. They know as nobody else what's going on inside the classroom and they want every student to be successful. But they need the right tools to achieve that goal. Our country's future leaders are in elementary schools right now. We need them well-prepared.

Winners and Losers

Badly does an enemy treat his enemy, a foeman his foe: worse is the havoc wrought by a misdirected mind (Buddha)

 President Obama appears, as of today, the winner of the 2012 election a year from now. Republican bigwigs committed a terrible faux-pas that surely will haunt them long past Halloween. At the beginning, they berated, insulted, ridiculed, scolded, and belittled the OWS movement (Occupy Wall Street). Some right-wingers accused the crowds of being communists, imagine that! Anybody who is against Wall Street bankers and financiers, the ones responsible for the financial meltdown, must be a closet Socialist, hell-bent on nationalizing the largest corporations. For these Republicans, there is nothing in between; it is black or it is white, no grays allowed!

The protesters simply want justice; the manipulators of toxic instruments must be tried and go to jail. The laws have to be changed to prevent banks from speculating on Wall Street with their customers' resources. Big corporations and millionaires must pay their fair share of taxes. Calling this "class warfare" is simply stupid or simple-minded (Right, Mr Cantor?). Yet some Republicans fail to see the danger to their cause, including the main White House candidates such as Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. Ms. Bachmann is already out of contention, even though she has tried to re-direct the OWS movement toward the White House, a clumsy effort that exhibit the limited thinking process in the Minnesotan Representative.


In all the brouhaha caused by the accusations of sexual harassment against Mr. Cain, the umpteenth flip-flop by Mitt Romney, the bumbling performance in New Hampshire by Rick Perry (they even asked him if he was under the influence of pain killers), President Obama is emerging as the clear winner of the first rounds in this heavyweight fight. He also picked up a lot of points during his trip to the key voting states by showing up Republicans as denying jobless Americans much needed help from the federal government. He kept harping on the fact that his opponents reject his proposal of increasing taxes on millionaires as class warfare, and yet..

In one of the recent polls, most Americans support taxing millionaires more: "The Elon University poll found that two-thirds of the people polled support raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $1 million per year, an idea Democrats have floated to pay for job stimulus and debt reduction."

Even though I would like to see Mr. Huntsman win the primaries, his numbers are still very low compared to, for example, Ron Paul and Newton Gingrich. The former Speaker of the House under Clinton has surged recently both in preferences and money, a fact that may convert Mr. Gingrich into a severe threat for Mitt Romney and Cain. He is a brilliant orator, a quick witted debater, and possesses a great analytical mind. He is however handicapped by his past relations with women while still married. The religious right wouldn't like it one bit.

At the end, the populist manifestations against Wall Street have lasted longer than anybody had suspected. Just like the Tea Party, these protesters will exert a strong influence on next year's elections; whether this will help the Democrats or their opponents remains to be seen. But I suspect that given the present improvement in the economy, however slight it may be, voters will conclude that Mr. Obama can perform better than anybody else until 2016.

Not So Bad

Yes, we all know that the country is not in the best of shape: 14 million Americans without a job; close to 4 million foreclosures this year alone; more than 100 failed banks so far this year; countless small businesses have closed due to lack of customers who can't afford to buy their products; and politicians spend their "valuable" time bickering like turkeys before Thanksgiving. We lack leadership in the White House, in Congress, and in many bankrupt states. The most important news is the latest divorce of Hollywood flesh or the family jewels of some over-the-hill rock star. Did I mention the "reality" show, read comical confrontations, offered every two weeks by would-be Republican contenders who act more like school children than responsible and mature adults?



And yet, when you look at the big picture, this mighty country has retained its appeal for millions of potential immigrants. Why? Because of freedom, the real kind, not just paper-like freedom. Because the American Dream, a little red house with a white picket fence, is still accessible and affordable for newcomers willing to work hard. What about the millions unemployed you will ask? I recently read an article about Alabama where thousands of jobs are suddenly open ever since the new immigration law was passed. The sad part is that farmers could not find enough people to do the work. Many jobless Americans are unwilling to relocate and unwilling to catch any job related to agriculture. That's the reason why so many farmers swear that illegal immigrants are absolutely needed to pick up lettuces and potatoes. Did I mention that the price of produce has gone up due to the scarcity of laborers... from Central America?


In spite of all these negative factors, America is still the Land of the Free, the Land of Opportunities, although perhaps not as attractive as it was 50 years ago. Consider the alternatives: Are any of you willing to move to Russia, where "Ras"Putin holds all the cards, where you may be thrown in jail without bail and without valid reasons? Do any of the South American countries attract you? They don't like Americans and they let you know about it, unless you go there as a rich tourist! Canada is another possibility with its vast, enormous territory and free health care; they take in immigrants every month, but there is a little problem: the bitter cold during 6 months. If you like it, go ahead, move there. Think of ice road truckers and the risks they take.  How about Alaska? Palin can see Russia from her window, together with polar bears and snow bunnies!

Africa has enormous empty spaces, but, again, they don't like us too much. Actually, there are very few countries who really like Americans, and that's because they envy us, they envy our wealth, our low taxes, our way of life, our energy, inventiveness, and unequaled military power. Since 2001, nobody has dared mount another attack on us; they know the response would be pitiless and devastating.

Consider this: There are many jobs available in these United States. Maybe not what you consider ideal jobs, but they'll give you enough to make a decent living. How many unemployed people prefer to continue drawing their monthly check from Uncle Sam instead of taking a job they consider beneath their dignity? Hey, I would sell corn on the cob (roasted) in the local flea market if I had to; or sell insurance door to door or anything that would allow me to survive. Opportunities are there, all you have to do is open your eyes and muster the needed energy.

This country is still the best in the world and if you don't believe that, move to another place.

Distant Neighbors

After spending more than 20 years in Mexico as an English teacher, I returned to the States and started reflecting on the enormous difference in cultures, way of life, daily habits, religion, politics, and, above all, public perception toward government, whether local or national. Mexico was, of course, settled by Spaniards who gave the country its language, but not its culture. The resulting mix of European and Indian blood, known in Mexico as mestizos, comprises more than 90% of today's population. The Catholic Church established the main religion for most Mexicans who revere the Virgin Mary as its beloved protector. Even drug traffickers, ironically, invoke her help to carry out their sinister trade.

To understand  Mexican cynicism toward government, one must remember that this proud country has been unable to find true democracy except for very short periods of time. Invaded by the French and by Americans, plagued by dictatorships from Porfirio Diaz to the political monopoly during 70 years under the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI), citizens of the Aztec country are naturally very skeptical as to their rulers' claims of democracy. Vast fortunes were made by corrupt politicians who acted with impunity and sacked state and national treasuries. No checks and balances existed to limit political excesses, no judicial system (controlled by cronies) dared interfere or ask for public accounting. The media, with rare exceptions soon quelled, reflected the government's point of view with nary an independent opinion.
Vicente Fox, First non-PRI President

Things changed on December 1, 2000, when Vicente Fox was sworn in as the first non-PRI President of Mexico. The nation exhaled with relief; now things would change. Democracy, finally, was taking over in Mexico! Alas, old habits die hard. The governing machine remained the same with firmly entrenched bureaucrats who still saw their poorly paid positions as an opportunity to supplement their salary through the famous mordida (bribe). Trying to open a business in Mexico is a via crucis that may take as much as 2 years, unless you know who to talk to. Intermediaries quickly saw their opportunity to fatten their purses by "negotiating" a deal with government officials. Popular Mexican wisdom says that there is no such thing as a poor politician, only a dumb one.

Because the people has suffered so much during more than two centuries since Mexico's independence in 1810, they regard any foreigner with suspicion and sometimes with outright hostility. Poverty is still rampant, especially in major cities. Public services are deficient and very expensive. Gasolines (all types) are sold at international prices to people who make less than half of what similar positions make in the U.S. Natural gas is abundant in the northern part of the country so most homes use it to cook and heat their homes. Unfortunately, it is in the hands of a Spanish company which won the bidding when Mexican politicians decided to privatize the business. The price of gas is simply too high for the majority of middle-class inhabitants and, of course, for the poor. The cost of electricity is also based in dollars, making it prohibitive for the ordinary family. So, many homes simply "steal" power through ingenious shenanigans, such as hiding the cables which bypass the meter.


Justice is severely biased in Mexico; if you are incarcerated, you have to prove your innocence or pay a mordida to get out of jail; judges can often be bought (they make very little money), and the police is not known for its humane treatment of prisoners. An accused person may spend years in prison before they appear in court and nobody is in a hurry to pass sentence. There is no jury; it's all up to the judge. Or course, people with high-placed compadres can often obtain their early release. A simple phone call to the court will take care of business. Favors are paid with favors.

Nowadays, the only institution Mexican citizens trust (more or less) is the army which has engaged the drug traffickers in a frontal assault. Thousands of local police and low level functionaries have been arrested and accused of collusion with cartels.Thousands of Mexican citizens have fled the country and settled in our country: the very rich and the very poor. The former because of fear, the latter because of hunger.

It is difficult to conceive how two neighboring countries can be so dissimilar. Even France and Germany, to cite an example of different neighboring cultures, have achieved a decent level of prosperity for their peoples. Mexican people often say:"So close to the U.S. and so far from God," to show their dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. We send our retirees to the cheaper life in Mexico, while they send their poor and hungry. They send us their illicit drugs and we return the favor by sending back millions of dollars.

Some American hotheads have suggested invading Mexico to pursue and destroy the cartels: that would be the most foolish thing to do. It would unite all Mexicans against us; they still remember the Mexican-American war in which they lost half their territory. No, the solution is in the hands of Mexico itself; if they can establish firm democratic institutions and an honest judicial system to punish corruption, they have a chance to grow into the prosperous nation that every Mexican citizen aspires to see one day.

Jon Huntsman Is the Man

Let the wise man guard his mind, incomprehensible, subtle, and capricious though it is. Blessed is the guarded mind (Buddha)

Huntsman is still the guy for me, even though he doesn't shine in the polls. Unlike Perry, he speaks his mind easily and guardedly. Unlike Perry, he doesn't stumble, hesitate, mumble, equivocate, backtrack, or confuse. His message is concise and clear. Yes, he was ambassador under Obama, so what! That gives him a clear advantage when it comes to dealing with China, and China is the main adversary and partner at this time. None of the other candidate has the presence, the charm, and the easy going manner that makes him a perfect candidate for the White House.


Yes, he is a Mormon and yes, he was born rich, two qualities or two handicaps, depending on whether you are a sophisticated human being or a simple-minded citizen. Did we all become Catholics under John F. Kennedy, another rich guy who faced religious bigotry? Jon is a polished diplomat; he worked for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and was the governor of (gasp) Utah, where he obtained a lot of support from Independents and Democrats in the last election (2008). Is there another qualified candidate on the Republican side, more qualified than Huntsman?

Some of his opponents accuse him of being a moderate Republican; I say, bring it on! Do you want somebody who get things done in a bipartisan way? Or do you want an ineffective President, such as Obama in the last year, who hits his head against an unbreakable political wall? Since when is being moderate a political sin? Do we really want an extreme right or left in the White House and, for that matter, in Congress?

Jon Huntsman has a few black areas in his past; for example, he dropped out of high school to try and become a rock star. His signature is almost illegible in a cursive way, though there is a big loop at the beginning that could indicate excessive ambition. But the package as a whole is very pleasant and very convincing. I still believe that despite his low poll numbers he has a chance to be the chosen candidate after Romney and Perry self-destruct through their infighting.

His major obstacles are both the low name recognition and the lack of so-called "purity" in the Republican ideology. The first can be fixed easily and he is doing it through an active campaign in the key states. The second is so subjective that no speech or baby-kissing will remediate. Purity of thought was first approached by George Orwell in his famous novel 1984. Big Brother was watching what you said, what you read, and even what you dreamed about. Another famous era of purity occurred with the Soviets under Stalin; any criticism of the government sent you to the frozen tundra for the rest of your life. Those extreme-right Republicans who expect purity in their candidates would do well to study History again.

It's a shame that only registered Republicans will select (elect) their presidential candidate. If independents had a voice in that vote, Huntsman would win by a landslide. Alas, it is not to be and President Obama's team is watching and smiling, thinking that Jon Huntsman does not have a chance. He is the only candidate they really fear!

Big Change

Is our nation at a turning point in history? Are the momentous events in the Arab countries, in Myanmar, and in China a prelude to a different world? Are we facing 1,000 years of peace as foretold by ancient prophets? Is the United States of America ready to face this "brave new" world?

There is no doubt in my mind that modern communication devices are responsible for the revolts and manifestations in many countries, including the U.S. Through IPhone, IPads, and smart phones in general, rebellious elements are able to be informed minute by minute where the action is and which places are to be avoided due to governmental repression. They look at their screens and witness first hand what is happening in another part of the country. They can organize "flying" teams that evaporate as soon as official troops approach. Above all, they can transmit events to the whole world through Facebook, Twitter, or e-mail, thus guaranteeing that their cause is publicized and that government lies are unmasked instantly. Public opinion counts today as it has never counted before.

In our country, with the highest number of smart phones per inhabitant, news of the "Occupy Wall Street" spread like wildfire in the western world. These events are a prelude to a new economic, financial, and political system, since the existing ones have proven to favor a small minority of wealthy citizens at the expense of the rest of the population.

A CBO report released Tuesday--just the latest in a series of studies to confirm the massive rich-poor gap--found that income for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans had exploded since 1979, by a whopping 275 percent. Meanwhile, income for the poorest 20 percent grew by just 18 percent in the same period. (Yahoo, Zachary Roth, The Look Out, Oct 26, 2011).

Politicians and rulers are completely baffled by these manifestations of the other 99% or by the oppressed peoples in Arab countries. They don't know what to do and so they invent lies:

"Mercenaries paid by foreign powers to destabilize our nation", claim some dictators. "Troublemakers and professional agitators" says the extreme right in the U.S. "Class warfare" shouts Mitt Romney. "Rebels murdered women and children", accuses the Syrian government in order to justify the massacre at Hama where 10,000 inhabitants of that town were killed.

Serious historical changes are always accompanied by pain and violence, even when the protesters behave peacefully. The reasons in different countries may appear to vary from political change to financial demands, but the underlying cause is the same: People are fed up with the existing inequality that modern capitalism has brought. They are willing, and that should scare our rulers, to go to great sacrifices in order to be heard, in order to force the changes that will improve their lives and their children's future.

The moment has come for our leaders in Washington to espouse a new vision of the future United States of America, to get our country back, as some extreme right wingers exclaim, although not the way they understand it. The present members of Congress follow mediocre leaders like sheep, without questioning the big picture, for today's decisions will determine our tomorrow. It is time for a visionary leader to step forward and restore our faith in the American Dream.

Future America

By the ruler's cultivation of his own character there is set up the example of the course which all should pursue.

CONFUCIUS

        How much influence do we want and expect from the U.S. in the modern world? From the heydays of isolationism before WWI to the modern concept of "Realpolitik", America has undergone profound transformations both politically, economically and militarily. We changed from a 'sleeping giant' just before WWII to the most powerful nation on earth after the demise of the Soviet empire. Can we imagine USA 2075? Will we blossom into a model nation, transcending our political bickering and reaching decisions with a rational consensus? Will we eliminate borders north and south and become truly the United States of America?

Our multiple forceful interventions in various parts of the globe have earned us the pejorative appellation of 'imperialistic'. We still have troops in Japan, Korea, Germany and another 20 countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. The main difference with former empires is that we no longer seek adding more territory; we simply consider theses bases as strategically essential to our security and economic interests. That presence has not prevented us from suffering terrorist attacks on our own soil and in various parts of the world, but we should ask ourselves whether it has actually played a part in such declared hostility.

Realpolitik is the guiding force behind our foreign policy; its definition according to Wikipedia is:" .. politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations". It is therefore to be expected that the U.S. will support dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in the future such as Saudi Arabia, China, Jordan and Kuwait in modern times, even though our avowed ideal is to foment democracy. We did nothing to defend Tibet when Chinese troops invaded the Buddhist country because we had no special interest in that part of the world, thereby tacitly recognizing Beijing's rights to annex that small nation. Can we justify our occupation of Puerto Rico? Guam ? Samoa? Guantanamo? Etc.

Article IV of our constitution indicates the following :" the congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States;" Without being a lawyer, I can surmise that the quote refers to any conquered territory that is not a state; our Founding Fathers therefore had planned the possibility that the United States might extend the boundaries through military power, although perhaps limiting the scope of the young republic to the American continent. We actually did during the war with Mexico and with the Philippines, but these times are over. It is inconceivable nowadays that we might occupy and annex a foreign state.

 

The vigor and strength of the early days during the 19^th century when the U.S. exploded as an industrial power, have been replaced by a certain complacency – we are the only superpower left and we can do anything – and by a political bottleneck that effectively impedes the solution of urgent national problems. We have been fortunate that the private industry has, in many cases, taken over the search for new venues in replacing fossil fuel for example; we knew since FDR and Lyndon Johnson that a large portion of the population does not have access to proper medical care and if Obamacare survives, universal coverage will correct that. As a "superpower" we should dedicate the majority of our resources, which are considerable, to the welfare of American citizens, including the fight against global warming.

We really need a new social contract and unshackle the modern American('Man is born free but everywhere is in chains' said Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Enlightenment philosopher). The average citizen is chained to a big SUV, a never ending mortgage, humongous college costs that rise faster than his income, a Congress that spends his taxes and more on futile overseas ventures, an environment that has become more toxic, medical care that leaves him in debt for the rest of his working life and television programs that brainwash him day and night into buying useless trinkets.

We have been lucky to receive thousands of new immigrants every year who dream of achieving their version of the American way of life; we are still strong and vigorous as a nation, but we face the danger of failing our future generations by neglecting the basic values that made us a role model for the rest of the world. Hopefully Future America will evolve into an example of justice, equal justice not based on income, complete care of each and every citizen, and tolerance toward different races and cultures.

A Shining Example From the Past

"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be."

May, 1962 at West Point, Gen. MacArthur in his Farewell Address to cadets.

Right when the Vietnam War was beginning to heat up, the old general who died 2 years later, gave these future Army officers a vision that endures till today. His uncanny remarks about the federal deficit (where have we heard that before), his accusations of big government, excessive crime (no change), and loose morals (if he could only see today's society, he would probably have a heart attack). He even questioned violent extremists and personal liberties, a topic of heated discussions among libertarians. The man was a veritable oracle, even though Truman had to sack him to avoid a nuclear confrontation with China during the Korean War.

Charismatic leaders like MacArthur cannot be found nowadays; the ex-generals who now work as consultants for public and private news organizations are drab and boring when they express their expert opinion on modern politics. The old warriors have taken arms in a different world where they can fight new battles for all eternity. Nothing like hearing bullets flying around you to make you see life with new eyes and develop a true sense of mortality. Military experience, the real kind, not just flying airplanes or buffering leather seats in a fancy office, is a scarce commodity among Republican presidential candidates.

Gov. Perry, like Bush, was a pilot in the National Guard and was able to avoid going to Vietnam. Ron Paul was in the Air Force for 5 years. The other candidates have no military background. Is it necessary to have served in order to become President? Of course not; look at Obama. He has absolutely no history to have served before becoming Commander-in-Chief. Does that make him unfit to manage two wars? Our best commanders-in-chiefs were FDR, Lincoln and Truman, and all three performed brilliantly in that capacity without an iota of battle smoke in their nostrils.

What we look for in a leader like MacArthur and Truman is the strength of their convictions; in the present group of candidates to the White House, only Ron Paul seems to fit the bill. He never wavers from his basic tenets on how to fix the United States of America. Is he right? That's another matter, but let's remember other Presidents who got us in hot water: Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs, a botched attempt to invade Cuba that almost turned ugly for us. Jimmy Carter and the disastrous attack on Iran. Lyndon Johnson who got us in the Vietnam mess with a lie. Bush Jr. who got us in a war on Iraq with another big lie. So even though Paul is convinced that his proposals are right, at least he is not suggesting getting us involved in another conflict; on the contrary, he wants us out of 150 countries where we have military presence. None of the other candidates supported him in his position; a shame, because he is totally right. We are wasting billions that could be applied to our pressing problems here in the good USA.

Am I recommending Ron Paul for President? No, not even for VP. He has other controversial views that cannot be accepted by the general public. And..he is too old, way too old. We don't want to risk another Ronald Reagan in his last 2 years in power, controlled by the visions of his wife's astrologer.


We need however a President with strong convictions who is willing to fight for them, as long as these beliefs do not cause our great country more irreparable harm. No warmonger, and no peace-at-any-cost either. The ideal executive head of our nation must be able to compromise, yes, but without seeming weak. He must be able to negotiate with anybody, yes, but without seeming cowardly. He must be respected by his opponents, unlike the present administration. The Republican leaders do not respect President Obama; their actions clearly show it. They say no to whatever he is proposing and that did not happen with Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled Congress. The reason behind it is a matter for historians to debate 20 years from now.


Obama has faltered on many occasions; I remember in particular the extension of Bush's tax rebates for rich people. He had control of Congress, a lame duck Congress for sure, but he still had the power to act and he blinked..It is true that he showed courage with the bin Laden Affair. He also showed restraint and wisdom in the Libyan conflict, and has been vindicated with the violent death of Qaddafi. But does Obama have the vision for future America, a country that still can recover its greatness? Does he have the steely resolve of a John F. Kennedy who faced the Russian Bear?


That is the bet that voters will make next November 2012 when they cast their ballots. They will not vote for a Republican; they will vote for or against Obama.

  

Frame By Frame Education

Educating teens for the 21st century is the job of thousands of dedicated teachers; I am proud to be one of them. After this moving opening statement (or was it a cliche), let us examine what makes a teen tick and how we can, sometimes, fix their living clock frame by frame.

What is a frame? Imagine that a young person's life is like a movie: actors and objects do not actually move on the screen; rather, their exploits are a series of frames shown at high speed, just like a book of pictures can become a moving scene if we flip the pages very rapidly. In  the case of a real teen, each frame is composed of significant events in their lives that may be beneficial or destructive in the long run. As teachers, we can help produce such highly positive frames just as a movie director tells the actors what to do, say and how to do it.

Of course, teens will not let strangers or, for that matter, let parents dictate what they can or cannot do. They have to be convinced not only that the action will be good for their future, such as going to college, but that there also exists a strong bond of trust with the adult. Without trust and respect, nothing positive can be accomplished.

As a teacher, for that matter as a parent, we have the obligation to create positive mind frames that will perdure far into adulthood. Simply saying to the teen that he or she must go to college to get a better paying job will not be sufficient. They want to know who the messenger is and how much he/she can be counted on to give the necessary support until the goal has been reached.

Who doesn't remember the first driving lesson? The first swimming lesson? The first heartbreak when parents divorce or die of a premature illness? The first bicycle ride, or pony ride, or visit to Disneyland? Our life as a child should be full of pleasant frames that we bring back into our conscious memory whenever the appropriate stimulus appears. The smell of recently cut grass in the country reminds me of my vacations on a farm. The delicious aroma of roasted chestnuts evokes a cold winter night in Geneva, many years ago.

I remember my significant teachers with great pleasure and nostalgia and try to bury the memory of my mediocre ones. Sitting on my easy chair in my autumn garden in the warm twilight I let my mind wander to the fantastic fall colors of tall oak trees in my teen years while listening to a Vivaldi concerto. As we get older, say, above fifty winters, we have, usually, more time to reflect on our childhood and on the key adults who had a hand in our personal growth. It can be a teacher, of course, but other figures appear in my subconscious mind: the leader of my boy scout group, a friend of my parents who offered me a wonderful role model of success, unlike my father, the live-in maid of my grand uncle who taught me proper hygiene and how to discern between nonsense and common sense, the cousin (female) who gave me a lesson on how to kiss, the old fisherman by the lake who showed me how to untie the knots in the tangled nylon line, the pretty secretary who completed my sexual education, all of these frames remain vividly engraved in my memory as a child and teen growing up in Switzerland.

Making a difference in a teen's life, a very positive difference of course, is our sacred duty as teachers and parents. We can do it better by making sure that the frames have three essential components: Visual, Emotional, and Personally Significant. Visual because most people are visual learners. For example, don't just talk about becoming an engineer; find a way to take the teen to a factory or lab where engineers actually work. He or she will always remember the experience whether they decide to follow that career or not.

Emotional because for a frame to perdure in the subconscious mind, it needs emotional energy. It could be a family celebration when the teen achieves a life goal, such as high school graduation or appearing for the first time on stage or scoring the first touchdown or goal in soccer. Even smaller accomplishments must be recognized by parents, teachers and siblings. A simple "good job" may be sufficient to fixate the moment indelibly.

Personally Significant because what is important to father may not be for the son or daughter; a friend of my wife's spent six agonizing years in dentist school just because her father was "convinced" that she, the only child, would follow in his footsteps. She never touched a dental instrument again in her life.

Let's create these mind frames while we have them at home; once they leave, other people will do it, although not necessarily with our children's welfare as a goal. If teachers and parents alike work together to create these beautiful memories in our children and teens, who knows how far they may go?

Will you pitch in?

Social, Socialist or Capitalist System?

Capitalism: Economic system where property is owned by individuals. An economic system in which property, businesses, and industry are owned by individual people and not by the government.

Socialism: a political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

Let's see: President Obama has been accused of socialistic tendencies, of advocating socialist measures, such as health care insurance for all Americans. According to the above definitions, the president has not proposed to abolish private property of insurance or of any other industry. He has simply tried to make it fairer and more equitable, more affordable to all citizens. Social Security, for example, is a social program designed to help those who paid into the system during their working years so as to make their retirement years less stressful income-wise. For any politician to call Social Security and Medicare a socialist plot to eliminate private property is simply absurd and a good reflection of their profound ignorance. Ask the common man and woman what they think about these social safety nets and they will respond vigorously in favor.

Public education is another target of those who advocate the end of social programs; they want the State to give every parent a voucher so as to choose any private school of their choice. That proposal smacks of socialistic tendencies; use tax dollars from the rich and give that money to the less fortunate? Wasn't John McCain deriding candidate Obama's suggestion to tax rich people and give it to the poor?  To spread the wealth as the Republican candidate called it? Isn't the school  voucher, favored by many Republicans, precisely that, spreading the wealth?

It's a shame when fire breathing politicians hoping to appear knowledgeable confuse social safety nets with socialist politics; or maybe they know the difference but simply act in bad faith. After all, they have hundreds of researchers who are most likely better informed. They even accuse Obama of  "Europeanizing" America; would that be so bad? Don't they have a free market society on the Old Continent? Shouldn't we imitate what works for other countries?

Do we really want a return to savage capitalism, to robber barons, and to heartless factory owners who gleefully exploited children, men, and women in the early 1900's? Look at the faces of those victims in early photographs and you will thank your stars that you are not living during that period.

 Boys in a cigar factory

No sane American wants to end the free enterprise system; we all saw what happened in the Soviet Union and, nowadays, in Cuba. Even the Chinese communist junta recognized the need to introduce private ownership and a market driven economy. We all accept that savvy individuals can flourish when allowed to invent and invest; but we must also recognize that not all citizens are gifted, whether intellectually or economically. A free market society must establish a safety net for those less able to provide for themselves. It is a profound shame that the most powerful nation on earth allows people to get kicked out of their homes and thrown, literally, into the streets with their meager possessions. It's a shame when uninsured American citizens lose their savings and their lives due to a severe illness. It's shame to let homeless people freeze to death or starve in the pitiless streets of our rich cities.

It is time to regain our original dream, to make America once again the country of the free, the country of the compassionate, the country of the just. How many politicians are willing to espouse such lofty ideals? Are you, personally, willing to write about it, to work in your community to make it a better place to live and work?

Let me know, this is your space.

The Fall of the American Dream

September 11, 2001 established a benchmark, the end of an era and the beginning of another, much less attractive. We lost the joy and giddiness that accompanied our victory in World War II, which was followed by 50 years of economic prosperity - with a few hiccups on the way, and an apparently never-ending growth of our influence on the rest of the world. The bubble of optimism on Wall Street began to burst with the downfall of Silicon Valley in the year 2000; it took another hit when 9/11 exposed us to the crude reality of a failed foreign policy, and it disappeared completely when recession hit us full in the face in 2008, brought about by Wall Street scoundrels who still enjoy the billions they stole from the middle class.

Our most dangerous enemies are not without, they are within our national boundaries. As the mightiest military force the world has ever seen, we can deal with terrorists and jihadists. We have the best soldiers and the best military technology. But we can't deal, or don't want to deal, with the covert operations of financial soulless wizards who only consider the bottom line without regard for the common man. The whole economic team assembled by President Obama has had a hand, big or small, in the derivative scandal from its inception. Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Bernanke, and other economists, as shown in the brilliant movie "Inside Job" by Charles Ferguson, are or were on the payroll of large corporations before joining the White House team. The financial debacle, which started with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on Sept 15, 2008, was compounded by the choice of Henry Paulson, banker and ex-chairman of Goldman Sachs, to save the day by our ineffable George W. Bush. Talk about putting the fox in the hen house.

Alan Greenspan, another misunderstood figure (that's not a compliment), was recommending the deregulation of financial activities by banks long before the collapse of the whole system and the humongous sums of money wasted to "save" AIG and other institutions such as Fanny Mae. More than 20 trillion dollars were lost during the Second Great Depression between 2008 and 2011 (It's not over).
If a common man steals bread from the supermarket to feed his family, he goes to jail for at least 6  months. If a bigwig gains one hundred million through fraudulent means (subpar mortgages), he remains free. What a lesson in morality for future generations.

The thousands of "ordinary people", i.e. middle class, who try to occupy Wall Street, are furious and with reason since the federal government has failed to indict one single individual in this economic mess. Extreme right commentators keep telling them to manifest their rage in front of the Federal Reserve (Bernanke), and with good reason. Billions have been used by our central bank for "mysterious" purposes; apparently OUR bank is not accountable for the spending of OUR tax dollars. Newton Gingrich, our supersmart candidate to the presidency, said it well on the Oct. 11 debate. He would fire Bernanke instantly, a decision that the other members on the panel apparently cannot understand. Newt won't be president and that's a shame, because he is by far the best man for the job.

Our country's preeminence, according to Larry Elliott of the Guardian is fading:( http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges)
"The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence."

I would add the high levels of poverty, unacceptable in a superpower, politicians in the hands of corporations, the unemployment rate, the lower quality of public education,  the alarming rate of foreclosures, the apparent indifference of voters (less than 50% bother to do their duty), and the growing selfishness and greed that permeate every level of society, exacerbated by a very mediocre television fare and a sense of entitlement that leads to terrible abuses of food stamps and Medicaid.

It has become more and more difficult to realize the American Dream and we can only hope that a fresh infusion of recent immigrants will bring their strong work ethics and save the day.

The Elephant in the Room

John F. Kennedy on his PT boat

"For no government is better than the men who compose it, and I want the best, and we need the best, and we deserve the best." (Senator John F. Kennedy, speech at Wittenberg College, Oct. 17, 1960)

"Elephant": Everybody knows about it but nobody wants to touch the topic. In this case, the "elephant" is the constant erosion of a wonderful and unique experiment: the United States of America. Politicians often cite the Founding Fathers in their speeches and interviews as if they alone knew what these illustrious and daring men would do nowadays to stop the clear decline of what represented then an audacious social experiment. Imagine that! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.."

These unalienable rights, i.e. that cannot be changed, eliminated, or diminished, have in fact been seriously affected by recent legislation under the guise of "protecting us." What we need is protection from the present batch of politicians in Washington who are only interested in their reelection chances. John Kennedy would be aghast at the spectacle offered almost daily by both houses. He would also be pained by the current President who has tried indeed, but who has not presented a clear vision of what the role of the mighty United States should be in the 2lst century.

"Today, three main threats exist to America’s dominant position in the global economy: loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade, the decline of American technological innovation, and the end of the dollar's privileged status as the global reserve currency." (Alfred W. McCoy December 6, 2010) See above link  to The Nation.

I agree with all three domains; we are losing our position as an economic powerhouse for perfectly understandable reasons. Modern technology has created a world-wide trade area in which we have to compete with rising economic centers in the East and in Europe. Patents are being created outside the U.S. at a rhythm never seen before, due mainly to a ridiculous logjam in our patent office (right Congress?). Even if we showed a tremendous productivity per worker, and we do, we will no longer be the main economic power within 10 years. Oh, we still have our geniuses (minus one with the death of Jobs) who occasionally come up with brilliant ideas. But how long will we be able to sustain our lead in technological innovation?

The dollar, notwithstanding what Mr. McCoy states, is still the currency of choice for China, India, and the rest of the developing world. It is, however, on the decline due mainly to our humongous national debt, a crime committed by all the presidents and Congresses after Bill Clinton. But the signs are clear: within 10 years we will be a second rate power with a weak currency and a weakened economy, unless..


Unless our federal government starts acting with common sense; the people want and demand fair treatment for all, the lowly employee and the mighty CEO alike. No more favored tax treatment for the big corporations, the billionaires, and the rich in general. No more immunity for the criminals who caused the Wall Street fracas with their phony values, hurting millions of IRA's in the process. No more backroom deals by industry barons (robber barons??) who cause massive lay-offs to favor the bottom line. No more union leaders who make secret deals with industry captains on the back of their workers. No more foreign wars and foreign nation building while thousands of government officials in those countries line their pockets with our tax dollars. No more discretionary powers to our federal police who can arrest whomever they want without DUE PROCESS, under the umbrella of counter-terrorism.

Let us regroup, let us lick our wounds, and let us work together as one nation to become, again, the safe haven for millions of oppressed people. Our enormous backlog in processing green card requests from legitimate foreigners is discouraging valuable human assets from coming here.

Our government is broken.. let's fix it