School districts across the country are quick to point out recent increases in the percentage of students graduating high school, a sign of the good work they are doing. Yet, if we look beneath the surface of those statistics we find some startling news: While more students are graduating with high school diplomas, few students are leaving high school with the skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The results are most striking in Michigan, where a recent study found that the statewide high school graduation rate was 76 percent for the class of 2010. It would seem that such an increase would be worth lauding, except the same study found that statewide only 49 percent of students who graduated in 2010 were proficient in math; 60 percent were proficient in reading; and 56 percent were proficient in science.
In Detroit, for example, one high school had an 89 percent graduation rate in 2010, but a year earlier only 6.4 percent of those students were considered proficient in math and just 10.5 percent were proficient in science based on state administered tests. It was the same in suburban schools. At one suburban high school, 93.2 percent of students graduated in 2010: Only 26.9 percent were proficient in math though. It was not much different for another suburban school where 94.1 percent of students graduated, and only 19.6 percent were proficient in science.
The study by the Michigan Education Department raises serious questions about the quality of education in that state. More important, it raises startling questions about education across the nation. Michigan is not alone in its dismal results. Other states have discovered that their high school graduates often lack the basic skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The result is that in 2008 graduation rates for students who took six years to complete their studies at four year colleges ran from a high of 69.1 percent in Massachusetts to a low of 22.1 percent in Alaska, according to a ranking by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. The results were more horrendous for students who completed associates degrees in three years: The high was 60 percent in Wyoming, and the low was 9 percent in Delaware.
It doesn’t stop there.
In Washington, for example, 56 percent of students who entered community or technical colleges in that state in 2006 needed remediation. The need for remediation crossed racial lines: 56 percent of Asians; 59 percent of African-Americans; 61 percent of Latinos; 52 percent of Native Americans; and 50 percent of whites.
The nationwide results lead one to ask: What exactly are we teaching our high school students, and have we decided that when it comes to high school graduates quantity is more important that quality?
Both questions are important. As the political winds shift in this country, we find ourselves reinventing the wheel and looking for excuses or someone to blame for the failures of our educational system. In Michigan, some school leaders blamed what amounted to student apathy for the dismal results. Others pointed the finger at teachers and their unions. Still more cited the standardized testing wave washing across the nation.
Regardless of who or what is to blame, students are leaving our nation’s schools without the critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for successful lives. Students with strong critical thinking and problem solving skills have the best chance of performing well on any standardized tests and in completing tasks on the job. In addition, the lack of proficiency suggests that we are not attacking the problem from all angles. While all students should indeed have the right to attend college, not all students should.
For years, school districts have made vocational education the unwanted step child of the academic process. Yet, statistics show that vocational education students are often better prepared for the job market, and those who later attend college graduate at a higher rate than students who enter college right after high school or who go to community colleges. In addition, while students do balk at learning things if they cannot see a direct link to their daily lives, it should not stop teachers from pushing concepts, processes and ideas that enhance student skill sets. (Recently, one of my GED students questioned why he needed to learn math concepts -- until I showed him how triangulation could be used to pinpoint from where a cell phone call was made or how the Pythagorean Theory might be used to determine the path of a projectile.)
So what are we to do?
Increasing funding to schools and paying teachers better is not the sole answer. We have been putting money into poor performing schools for decades, and the results are pretty much the same. Rewriting standardized tests also is not the solution. Each new test only seems to create a bonanza for test-taking tutors. Criticizing teachers and unions does not change the culture of the classroom. In too many districts, principals concerned with standardized test results so micro-manage classrooms that teachers are left with little flexibility to adjust lessons and curriculum to students’ needs.
Michigan in general and Detroit in particular offer good examples of the problems we face. The emergency financial manager in Detroit announced recently that the 2010 graduation rate increased to 62.27 percent, up from 59.65 percent in 2009. (The rate was 58.22 percent in 2008 and 58.42 percent in 2007.)
But few of those students can read, write or even complete basic mathematical problems. And that means they will not be able to help themselves or society in the future.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Diasppearing in Wisconsin
Is Wisconsin in the First or Third World?
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Poetry of Democracy
There is a saying in politics: "You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose." Our nation's foreign policy seems to follow that maxim. America poetically campaigns for the spread of democracy around the world, but uses a stilted prose when it comes to supporting democratic movements. The popular uprisings roiling the Middle East and North Africa are good examples. Because when it comes to many of those Arab countries, the democratic principles and concepts we so loudly proclaim as basic to human existence become too complicated and convoluted to implement.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
America Eats More Than Its Young
It did not take long for the conservative apologists and Republicans to get on their soap boxes after the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday in Tucson. While many expressed outrage at the shootings of Giffords and 19 other people -- what else could they do -- they also unleashed a torrent of comments denying that their over-the-top rhetoric may have contributed to the attack.
Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.
By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.
“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.
Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.
When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.
Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.
For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?
More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?
The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.
Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.
By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.
“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.
Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.
When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.
Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.
For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?
More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?
The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Not So Lame Duck
After the results of the mid-term elections had been recorded, the 111th Congress seemed poised for a stalemate. Republicans were swaggering about, drunk on election results that saw them gain six seats in the Senate and control of the House of Representatives. Democrats, on the other hand, were licking their wounds; reeling from what President Barack Obama called a shellacking, and pointing fingers at each other.
Now that the 111th Congress has ended, one might wonder if, in some demented way, the rise of the Republicans will prove good for America. Power concentrated in the hands of a few is deadly. When those powerful few are intoxicated with arrogance and their own sense of self-importance it can be devastating. We need only look at the results of the 1994 mid-term elections when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House of Representatives then quickly acted with utter disregard for what was in the best interest of the country. Arrogance led Gingrich and company to assume that they could do as they wished, including shutting down the Federal Government. It backfired on them.
It appeared that the Democrats, after they took control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the 111th Congress, had not learned any lessons from the Gingrich years. Party leaders acted with impunity, ignoring the seeds of discontent being sowed throughout the country. Democrats argued among themselves, seeking not to lead, but rather to dictate through extremes. As a liberal, I am more than elated that we have a national health-care plan. I am also overjoyed with many of the other legislative initiatives enacted in the last two years. Yet I am also disappointed that others were not completed – a revamping and strengthening of No Child Left Behind, for example – and that some of those initiatives that I cherish were set in motion through arrogance and a disregard for debate.
Democratic control of the 111th Congress reminded me of a conversation I had with a white postal worker in New York City after the 1993 election of Rudolph Giuliani as mayor.
"It's our time," the white postal worker proclaimed. "Now we're in control."
His statement carried the threat of revenge, a sense that it was time for white New York to lash back at the liberal agenda New York City had experienced. Enough with that liberal agenda and its leader, David N. Dinkins, the city's first black mayor, the postal worker argued as we continued to talk. White men had regained their rightful place in New York and they were ready to serve up retribution, he appeared to be saying. In his voice, and in the actions of many, there was a sense of entitlement and self-importance, a sense that now he and his put upon friends could finally put the city's minority population back in its place.
The comments that followed the 2010 mid-term elections carried the same threat. After two years of refusing to work with the current administration in an effort to win back Congress and make Obama a one term president, Republicans swore to continue their march, blocking all legislative action until they got what they wanted – a continuation of the tax cut for the wealthy. They did, indeed, receive what they sought. But at what price?
After the initial bellowing and grandstanding, several Republicans finally stood up and did the right things. The results were not totally to my liking, just as I am sure they were not to yours. But for the first time in many years, Washington seemed to at least be moving toward solutions to the problems that plague us as a nation.
Of course, this is not to absolve the far right of the Republican Party. They were obstructionists for the last two years, and they will seek to be obstructionists for the next two. Nor is it meant to coddle the far left of the Democratic Party, for many of them acted with the same arrogance as Gingrich's GOP majority.
At least, for a few days, we can bask in the sense of accomplishment that permeated Washington for the last few weeks. In doing so, we cannot forget that the afterglow of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress was created by cross-aisle communication. And with a new year approaching, we should pray that leveler heads will prevail and more legislators will have the gumption to stand up, reach out to their counterparts and say, "Let's fix what we has been broken for too long."
Now that the 111th Congress has ended, one might wonder if, in some demented way, the rise of the Republicans will prove good for America. Power concentrated in the hands of a few is deadly. When those powerful few are intoxicated with arrogance and their own sense of self-importance it can be devastating. We need only look at the results of the 1994 mid-term elections when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House of Representatives then quickly acted with utter disregard for what was in the best interest of the country. Arrogance led Gingrich and company to assume that they could do as they wished, including shutting down the Federal Government. It backfired on them.
It appeared that the Democrats, after they took control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the 111th Congress, had not learned any lessons from the Gingrich years. Party leaders acted with impunity, ignoring the seeds of discontent being sowed throughout the country. Democrats argued among themselves, seeking not to lead, but rather to dictate through extremes. As a liberal, I am more than elated that we have a national health-care plan. I am also overjoyed with many of the other legislative initiatives enacted in the last two years. Yet I am also disappointed that others were not completed – a revamping and strengthening of No Child Left Behind, for example – and that some of those initiatives that I cherish were set in motion through arrogance and a disregard for debate.
Democratic control of the 111th Congress reminded me of a conversation I had with a white postal worker in New York City after the 1993 election of Rudolph Giuliani as mayor.
"It's our time," the white postal worker proclaimed. "Now we're in control."
His statement carried the threat of revenge, a sense that it was time for white New York to lash back at the liberal agenda New York City had experienced. Enough with that liberal agenda and its leader, David N. Dinkins, the city's first black mayor, the postal worker argued as we continued to talk. White men had regained their rightful place in New York and they were ready to serve up retribution, he appeared to be saying. In his voice, and in the actions of many, there was a sense of entitlement and self-importance, a sense that now he and his put upon friends could finally put the city's minority population back in its place.
The comments that followed the 2010 mid-term elections carried the same threat. After two years of refusing to work with the current administration in an effort to win back Congress and make Obama a one term president, Republicans swore to continue their march, blocking all legislative action until they got what they wanted – a continuation of the tax cut for the wealthy. They did, indeed, receive what they sought. But at what price?
After the initial bellowing and grandstanding, several Republicans finally stood up and did the right things. The results were not totally to my liking, just as I am sure they were not to yours. But for the first time in many years, Washington seemed to at least be moving toward solutions to the problems that plague us as a nation.
Of course, this is not to absolve the far right of the Republican Party. They were obstructionists for the last two years, and they will seek to be obstructionists for the next two. Nor is it meant to coddle the far left of the Democratic Party, for many of them acted with the same arrogance as Gingrich's GOP majority.
At least, for a few days, we can bask in the sense of accomplishment that permeated Washington for the last few weeks. In doing so, we cannot forget that the afterglow of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress was created by cross-aisle communication. And with a new year approaching, we should pray that leveler heads will prevail and more legislators will have the gumption to stand up, reach out to their counterparts and say, "Let's fix what we has been broken for too long."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
An Open Letter to the Rev. Jesse Jackson
Dear Rev. Jesse Jackson:
I recently read in the Detroit News that you described urban farming in Detroit as a “cute, but foolish” idea. Instead of urban farming, you said, Detroit should add a battery plant. The city, you said, should obtain more industry because the Motor City should not become Moo-City. Also, you said, the city should allow urban squatting so people can take over vacant land and develop it. After all, you said, we are not urging farming in Baghdad.
Indeed.
Mr. Jackson, putting farms on uninhabited land is better than allowing weeds and garbage to grow from it. Growing food on urban farms could provide low-income residents with easier access to fresh produce and fruit. And if those farms use new technology, such as aeroponics, then a new green industry that uses less land and water could be developed. That can lead to new jobs producing not only food, but developing the technology used in such farming. There can even be an educational component to urban farming. Students could be exposed to other areas of agriculture, from creating plant hybrids to new food packaging methods to better storage facilities. Who knows, a Detroit high school student exposed to the possibilities of soy beans might decide to pursue a career that leads to finding other uses for soy. Simply, urban farming could be about more than just growing corn and selling it. It could be about developing technology so that food could be grown in the heart of Baghdad or even in drought stricken Ethiopia.
Adding a battery plant could further encumber the city to the auto industry, which has cyclical declines that often pull down the rest of the region’s economy. Part of the reason Detroit is in such financial trouble today is because of its dependency on the auto industry and the insulated nature of that industry. The city cannot abandon the auto industry, which is too much a part of its history and future, but Detroit must look to non auto-related ways to bring in revenue during an economic downturn. New farm technology could be developed and built in Detroit then shipped elsewhere.
In addition, urban areas have continuously been too dependent on manufacturing, particularly those enterprises that employ unskilled or low-skilled workers. We have seen manufacturing jobs dry up year after year, decade after decade, leaving most of urban America pot marked with abandoned factories and warehouses. Detroit doesn't need more of the same. The city is in desperate shape, so why not take a chance on something different? Why not break the mold and experiment with ideas that are not within the usual context of urban thinking? According to you, instead of using empty land for farming, the city should give it away to squatters for development. What a marvelous idea. Give away city land with the hope that someone will someday build on it. Such a plan could lead to land speculation and greater corruption in a city already reeling from corruption.
If you believe so much in the development potential of Detroit then how about you and some of your rich friends – the ones that received Coca-Cola franchises after your protests several decades ago – build a bottling plant in the city or some other business. And if you decide to do so, Mr. Jackson, please do it on land purchased from the city, not obtained through squatting. People like you have been squatting over Detroit for far too long, dropping all the wrong things on the city.
I recently read in the Detroit News that you described urban farming in Detroit as a “cute, but foolish” idea. Instead of urban farming, you said, Detroit should add a battery plant. The city, you said, should obtain more industry because the Motor City should not become Moo-City. Also, you said, the city should allow urban squatting so people can take over vacant land and develop it. After all, you said, we are not urging farming in Baghdad.
Indeed.
Mr. Jackson, putting farms on uninhabited land is better than allowing weeds and garbage to grow from it. Growing food on urban farms could provide low-income residents with easier access to fresh produce and fruit. And if those farms use new technology, such as aeroponics, then a new green industry that uses less land and water could be developed. That can lead to new jobs producing not only food, but developing the technology used in such farming. There can even be an educational component to urban farming. Students could be exposed to other areas of agriculture, from creating plant hybrids to new food packaging methods to better storage facilities. Who knows, a Detroit high school student exposed to the possibilities of soy beans might decide to pursue a career that leads to finding other uses for soy. Simply, urban farming could be about more than just growing corn and selling it. It could be about developing technology so that food could be grown in the heart of Baghdad or even in drought stricken Ethiopia.
Adding a battery plant could further encumber the city to the auto industry, which has cyclical declines that often pull down the rest of the region’s economy. Part of the reason Detroit is in such financial trouble today is because of its dependency on the auto industry and the insulated nature of that industry. The city cannot abandon the auto industry, which is too much a part of its history and future, but Detroit must look to non auto-related ways to bring in revenue during an economic downturn. New farm technology could be developed and built in Detroit then shipped elsewhere.
In addition, urban areas have continuously been too dependent on manufacturing, particularly those enterprises that employ unskilled or low-skilled workers. We have seen manufacturing jobs dry up year after year, decade after decade, leaving most of urban America pot marked with abandoned factories and warehouses. Detroit doesn't need more of the same. The city is in desperate shape, so why not take a chance on something different? Why not break the mold and experiment with ideas that are not within the usual context of urban thinking? According to you, instead of using empty land for farming, the city should give it away to squatters for development. What a marvelous idea. Give away city land with the hope that someone will someday build on it. Such a plan could lead to land speculation and greater corruption in a city already reeling from corruption.
If you believe so much in the development potential of Detroit then how about you and some of your rich friends – the ones that received Coca-Cola franchises after your protests several decades ago – build a bottling plant in the city or some other business. And if you decide to do so, Mr. Jackson, please do it on land purchased from the city, not obtained through squatting. People like you have been squatting over Detroit for far too long, dropping all the wrong things on the city.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Time for Backbone and Vision
Are there any Democrats with backbone in this country, any willing to present a vision for America and then fight vigorously to realize it? In 2008 it seemed Barack Obama was such a Democrat, but since taking office he has appeared to have turned against his own vision as if it was a nightmare. Obama the presidential candidate painted a picture of an America where discourse would be common and people would seek to work for the better of society, refusing to give in to the pettiness of partisan politics and racial bigotry.
It hasn’t happened, and not simply because Republicans have fought as hard as hell to keep it from happening. It hasn’t occurred because Obama and his band of professional politicians have not had the gumption to make it happen. Yes, the GOP and its Tea Party minions have worked hard to distort the issues and distract the voters. They have taken attack politics and fear mongering to a new level. But too often the problems Democrats face have more to do with their ineptitude than with the opposition’s strengths. Democrats are too quick to step back from their convictions for fear of offending voters in the midterm elections. They are campaigning not to lose, rather than fighting to win.
For example, President Obama rightfully stood before a group of Muslims and non-Muslims in the White House and proclaimed that the people seeking to build an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have the right to do so. He cited the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The next day, after being criticized for being out of touch with what most Americans feel, the President stepped back, saying that while he said Muslims had a right to worship, he did not necessarily say they had the right to build in Lower Manhattan. The President should have stuck by his earlier statement. More important, he should have been more emphatic in his support when the subject came up again.
Instead, his vacillation has led to such people as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight in Nevada, to attack the building of the Lower Manhattan mosque. “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” The New York Times quoted Jim Manley, a top adviser to Reid, as saying on Monday. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
Reid and other Democrats reacted because Republican House and Senate candidates have challenged them on what is a singularly local issue. What is built in Lower Manhattan is a New York City, not a state or Federal issue. If Republicans and Democrats want to debate whether mosque should be built in the United States then let’s bring in the battles in Tennessee and California, where Muslims are facing opposition though they are not trying to build near “hallowed” ground. The battle is not about hallowed ground. It is about stirring up anti-Islamic fervor.
“Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans,” said Elliott Maynard, a Republican running for Congress in Virginia. “Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?”
Newt Gingrich was no better. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Gingrich said on Monday. “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
The Democrats have accused the Republicans of exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks, telling voters that the GOP is more concerned about the symbolism of a mosque in Lower Manhattan that it is about the people injured at ground zero. Several weeks ago, many of the same Republicans who are standing up for the memory of those injured or killed in the Trade Center attacks opposed a new medical program that would have helped emergency workers and others who were exposed to hazardous materials at ground zero.
Yet, that Democratic message isn’t strong enough. The message that needs to be sent to voters during this off-season election cycle is that the Republicans, if they win the House or Senate, will seek to attack everything – from freedom of religion to who should elect U.S. Senators to who should receive U.S. citizenship. And that would create an even more frightening nightmare than anything from our outside enemies.
It hasn’t happened, and not simply because Republicans have fought as hard as hell to keep it from happening. It hasn’t occurred because Obama and his band of professional politicians have not had the gumption to make it happen. Yes, the GOP and its Tea Party minions have worked hard to distort the issues and distract the voters. They have taken attack politics and fear mongering to a new level. But too often the problems Democrats face have more to do with their ineptitude than with the opposition’s strengths. Democrats are too quick to step back from their convictions for fear of offending voters in the midterm elections. They are campaigning not to lose, rather than fighting to win.
For example, President Obama rightfully stood before a group of Muslims and non-Muslims in the White House and proclaimed that the people seeking to build an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have the right to do so. He cited the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The next day, after being criticized for being out of touch with what most Americans feel, the President stepped back, saying that while he said Muslims had a right to worship, he did not necessarily say they had the right to build in Lower Manhattan. The President should have stuck by his earlier statement. More important, he should have been more emphatic in his support when the subject came up again.
Instead, his vacillation has led to such people as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight in Nevada, to attack the building of the Lower Manhattan mosque. “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” The New York Times quoted Jim Manley, a top adviser to Reid, as saying on Monday. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
Reid and other Democrats reacted because Republican House and Senate candidates have challenged them on what is a singularly local issue. What is built in Lower Manhattan is a New York City, not a state or Federal issue. If Republicans and Democrats want to debate whether mosque should be built in the United States then let’s bring in the battles in Tennessee and California, where Muslims are facing opposition though they are not trying to build near “hallowed” ground. The battle is not about hallowed ground. It is about stirring up anti-Islamic fervor.
“Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans,” said Elliott Maynard, a Republican running for Congress in Virginia. “Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?”
Newt Gingrich was no better. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Gingrich said on Monday. “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”
The Democrats have accused the Republicans of exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks, telling voters that the GOP is more concerned about the symbolism of a mosque in Lower Manhattan that it is about the people injured at ground zero. Several weeks ago, many of the same Republicans who are standing up for the memory of those injured or killed in the Trade Center attacks opposed a new medical program that would have helped emergency workers and others who were exposed to hazardous materials at ground zero.
Yet, that Democratic message isn’t strong enough. The message that needs to be sent to voters during this off-season election cycle is that the Republicans, if they win the House or Senate, will seek to attack everything – from freedom of religion to who should elect U.S. Senators to who should receive U.S. citizenship. And that would create an even more frightening nightmare than anything from our outside enemies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)