I will always associate Ash Wednesday with the Latin expression “Memento Homo.” In the days before Vatican Two, all the Catholic Church rituals were conducted in Latin so we heard the Lenten admonition in a language that very few understood: Memento homo quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris – Remember, man, that dust thou art and into dust you will return!
The Ash Wednesday ceremony deals with the most basic human reality – we are all mortal; we are only around for a short time. This is not particularly a Christian insight because dealing with the inevitability of death, finding some sustaining perspective on human mortality, is part of the challenge of every culture and religion.
Throughout history, moralists and preachers have correctly seen death as the great leveler. James Shirley, an English writer who lived at the end of the sixteenth century, wrote a very powerful poem entitled Death the Leveler, which I learned by heart in high school. It starts: The glories of our blood and state/ Are shadows not substantial things;/ There is no armour against fate;/ Death lays his icy hands on kings./ Sceptre and crown/Must tumble down,/And in the dust be equal made/ With the poor crooked scythe and spade.
Modern Western culture is overwhelmingly materialistic. Money and the power that goes with it often lead to a state of near-denial of mortality. Happiness is tied to possessions, to the new car or boat, to the new home or homes that bring status and importance. There is surely a materialistic fallacy here because human contentment does not correlate with the amount of possessions we hold.
This is the big letdown of the modern acquisitive culture which often confuses our basic needs with our many “wants.” The Catholic ritual for Ash Wednesday reminds us of what, in a different context, a friend from Tyrone loved to call “the cold hard facts of life.” We are invited to see life from the perspective of eternity, to put aside the pomp and posturing, to drop our pretensions, to recognize the many masks we wear and to deal with the core issues of our humanity.
Penance is part of the Christian Lenten regimen. So, in my youth, a common question was “what are you giving up for Lent?” When I meet older Irish people who do not take sugar in their tea, I know that this has nothing to do with any anti-carb craze, but with a Lenten resolution from another era.
I gave up cigarettes once for Lent. I recall waiting patiently for Easter Sunday morning when I could again enjoy a drag from a Sweet Afton. I missed the “fags” so much for those forty days, that I never again attempted that Lenten penance, and, when I finally did quit, my decision was driven entirely by health considerations.
Giving-up the cigarettes or the booze for six weeks is a healthy practice that stresses the importance of self-control and builds character. However, in our present economic crisis, asking people who have lost their jobs and, maybe their homes to do without some luxury or other is a bit out-of-touch. So many people - and, especially, families, - are living on the edge that giving-up anything else is not on their agenda.
Many ethicists and preachers suggest that we should eschew the negative approach of doing without; instead, they say, the stress, during Lent, should be on performing charitable works. For instance, thousands of children die from starvation every day, a disgraceful and damning comment on our 21st century culture. The important challenge, from this perspective, surely is to work with and support such charities as CONCERN, GOAL or HOPe in their efforts to alleviate the terrible situation for children in Third-world countries.
I am reminded of the last lines in Shirley’s poem which stress this positive approach: Only the actions of the just/ Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
DARWIN
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are frequently spoken of as the three seminal thinkers of the 19th century. Freud’s stress on the importance of the unconscious mind and his focus on sexuality as a major driving force in people’s behavior set him apart as a revolutionary in promoting a new understanding of the the human psyche. However, the effectiveness of his therapeutic approach, called psychoanalysis, was seriously questioned even before his death in the 1930’s, and pure Freudian techniques are rarely used in therapy today.
Marx’s belief in class struggle, resulting in the inevitable triumph of the working-class and the establishment of a classless, communist system of government, grew in importance after Marx’s death in the 1880’s. His ideas resonated with many liberal thinkers who were tired of the crude excesses of the capitalist system at that time. However, the great communist experiments in Russia and its surrounding satellite countries, all avowedly Marxist, were disastrous for human freedom and workers’ rights. As a result, Karl Marx’s ideas – perhaps unfairly, because he never advocated terror and repression to achieve his utopian state – are now viewed negatively by most historians.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time much better than the ideas of either Marx or Freud. His masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, published 150 years ago, revolutionized biology, stripping man of his perceived central uniqueness from the rest of life on the planet. Darwin did not invent the idea that, over millions of years, higher forms of life developed from simpler forms. This evolutionary theory was discussed widely in academic circles, especially in Europe, before Darwin wrote along the same lines.
What was different about Darwin’s thinking was his espousal of natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. He argued that blind forces within nature determined the evolutionary process. What he called “natural selection” postulated that, usually, only the strongest members of each species thrive and reproduce. Thus, the weak offspring in every species are systematically eliminated, and only the aggressive ones can drive evolutionary development. This is a simplified description of what he called “the survival of the fittest” in the natural selection process.
Darwin’s support for blind evolution ran completely counter to the most common argument for the existence of God. Most theists, then and now, point to the order in nature as proof that, in the final analysis, there must be an orderer. Complex design calls for a sophisticated designer.
The creationist movement, especially in the United States rejects all, or most, of the Darwinian evolutionary beliefs. They see this mechanistic view of man as running completely contrary to their religious beliefs, which center on a personal omnipotent creator. Every year, we hear of school boards insisting that creationist beliefs be given equal time in biology classes. They seem to be confusing the theological query of why human life is the way it is with the how question, which is the only domain of the scientist.
Richard Dawkins, the eminent and popular scientist, who wrote The God Delusion in 2006, asks the core question about evolution: “Are mind and consciousness an unforeseen and unintended product of basically material processes of evolution?” Dawkins’ answer to this crucial question is in the affirmative. This, it seems to me, is where the big division takes place among scientists and, indeed, in the wider academic community. Is it possible that blind and undirected forces in matter somehow developed into a complex, conscious, reflective being? What confluence of inanimate forces could generate intelligent activity?
My imagination cannot stretch to affirm that a series of blind evolutionary accidents, encompassing millions of years, somehow resulted in human consciousness. On the other hand, thinking of an artisan god, who operates like a potter, changing and designing his artifacts, is also unsatisfactory. We are dealing here with the mystery of life in a universe that is complex, beyond our comprehension.
These are spiritual questions that have to be explored, far outside the realm of biology. The mystics in all traditions repeatedly tell us that their central insight into human existence is that all life is one, that the various forms of life are not really separate, that we are all, animate and inanimate, part of the one Life Force, which as the poet, Wordsworth, said “breathes through all things.”
I finish with a quotation from Albert Einstein which addresses the issues raised by Darwin and Dawkins. “Everyone who is seriously interested in science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Saturday, February 14, 2009
ADOLESCENT NEEDS
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
I have worked with adolescents for my entire professional career, as a teacher and school counselor. In addition, my wife, Aileen, and I reared three daughters and dealt – as well as we could – with their teenage travails. The reader might think that all of my professional dealings with adolescents would have made me some kind of ideal parent in dealing with my own kids during their teenage years. I am sure that my educational background and training did help at times, but Aileen, who never studied the psychology of adolescence, dealt better with the various crises that arose than I did.
The first requirement for any adult dealing with teenagers is that he must respect the child. The kids that I worked with in the South Bronx often talked about teachers or other adults who "dissed" them; they felt put down, diminished, by these people. To make progress with any child, he must feel that his thoughts and feelings are important – and, this must hold true even when the child is acting out or being awkward.
Some educators approach their job as a vocation; they often have a spiritual perspective on their work. For instance, a teacher who is motivated by Christian ideals will see his students as God’s children, and thus he will view them all as equal and worthy of the highest respect. Such a teacher realizes that the kind of favoritism that is often bestowed on the talented athlete or the gifted student is inappropriate and unfair to the rest of the class, especially to the young person who is struggling with class work and who does not distinguish himself in any co-curricular activities. The educators who play favorites – and most do to one degree or another – convey a very shallow message to students, namely that accidental factors, like good looks or prowess in some sport, somehow merits a high level of teacher respect.
Of course, one must be realistic about these matters. Teachers are human and they will have their likes and dislikes in any class. However, these preferences should be camouflaged to the extent that each student’s worth is affirmed. The "teacher’s pet" syndrome should be avoided because it does not enhance student or teacher.
It is devastating for students to see themselves as failures. In the high schools in the Bronx, more than half of the students do not graduate, and, unfortunately, the statistics for the male population are much worse. This level of failure militates seriously against a positive school spirit and leads to very damaging consequences for the young people who are failing and, indeed, for society as a whole. It should not surprise us that over 90% of the jail population in the United States are school dropouts.
Young people need affirmation. Experiencing success in school is vital for a positive, healthy self-image. When the educational system is marking so many students as failures, based on the criterion of high school graduation, then major changes are called for. While the status quo of massive failure is obviously not acceptable, it is always easier to describe and identify a problem than to suggest workable solutions.
In a recent blog, titled “Dealing with the Dropout Problem,” I suggested three areas that I think would yield real progress in combating this pandemic of school failure, which prevails especially in the big cities. My brother Fran, also a retired educator, who lives in Australia, posted a comment on that blog that bears repeating. He argued very cogently against a one-size-fits-all approach to educational success. He blames this insistence on standardized testing of all students, which he deems a hangover from an outdated industrial model, for the widespread school failure.
Many students from inner-city backgrounds do not have their needs met at home. Usually, this is not a negative reflection on the adult(s) in the home. Very often, the young people are growing up in a chaotic situation where the mother is working long hours in a low-paying job and the siblings "make do" with fast food and minimal supervision. Teenagers need a certain level of order to complete homework assignments. They need adult guidance to understand the importance of accepting limits to their behavior as they move through the turbulent years of adolescence.
Without some level of consistent adult supervision, young people can easily drift into gangs, whose leaders will insist on following the wrong kind of rules. Drugs provide an easy and attractive alternative to school and family pressures. "Crazy mixed-up kids" seeking some kind of meaningful identity are easy prey for the false promises of the street.
Well-organized after-school programs should exist in every community, especially in the inner-city. I was in charge of a Peer Tutoring Program for many years in the South Bronx. Successful students were paid the minimum wage for helping struggling students, when the regular school day ended. After a while, quite a number of students used the program to complete their homework, often sitting and collaborating with a friend. I provided a healthy snack after the first hour of tutoring ended; this break helped the students to get comfortable with each other and with me. Overall, it was a positive and worthwhile experience, which I look back on with satisfaction.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote often about the importance of moderation in all human endeavors. He highlighted the importance of staying away from extremes, of finding virtue in the center. This stress on a balanced, common-sense approach to dealing with teenage needs is crucial. Caring and protectiveness must not descend to mollycoddling; tough love has a place occasionally, but insisting on strictness at all times can become a kind of adult tyranny; and, most of all, school and family rules must never prevent a teen from establishing his own identity, from starting to fly on his own.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
CONSERVATIVE DISARRAY
The massive 825 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives without one Republican vote. The Senate is now considering a similar bill that, at best, will be supported by a small number of Senate Republicans.
President Obama campaigned on the importance of bipartisan politics, stressing that the economic crisis had to be faced, without regard to ideology or preconceived policy dictates from the right or the left. We were all invited to pull together in the face of the worst economic news since the Great Depression. The new President met for hours with the House Republican leaders. They said that they found him very interested and respectful of their views, and then they voted en masse against his proposals.
They accused their Democratic opponents of pushing a Big Government agenda, spending huge sums in new programs in education, healthcare and infrastructure – a quintessentially liberal response to the crisis. Instead, they advocated for tax cuts for businesses and individuals. They also said that they could not justify the massive borrowing that the Democratic plans entailed.
The Republicans have a major problem in putting forward conservative solutions. They will, surely, hear the advice often given to people whose ideas are not consistent with the way they live: Talk louder because your actions are shouting you down!
George Bush came into office in January, 2001, promising limited government, low taxes and fiscally responsible policies. For six of his eight years in the White House, he had a Republican majority in the House and the Senate. They invited us to watch conservatives in action!
Well, we did. They inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton, but when President Obama took over eight years later, he found a projected deficit of a trillion dollars, not only for 2009, but for every year until 2018! President Bush cut taxes, especially for the rich, promising that, by some magic, this would result in continuing surpluses every year. Contrary to his promises, he also increased spending in nearly every government department from 2001 until he left office. Furthermore, he invaded Iraq and borrowed the hundreds of billions required to fight that war.
The Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed him all the way. The one absolute rule with present-day Republicans is that taxes must never – ever – be increased. They regularly attack their opponents as “tax and spend” Democrats.
Big deficits mean that future generations will have to pay for this Republican profligacy – the very antithesis of the conservative philosophy. Serious Republican theorists of the past, like the late William F. Buckley, would have considered leaving big bills for our grandchildren to pay as completely reckless and definitely un-conservative.
So, today, when the Republican leaders in both Houses trot out the old shibboleths about cutting taxes and reducing spending as a way out of the present crisis, they have a real credibility problem. Democrats are correctly pointing out that it was the so-called conservative Bush policies that got us into the mess in the first place.
Not that voters have embraced the liberal alternative. Indeed, it was very noticeable that the main contenders for the Democratic nomination, including Barack Obama, never identified themselves as liberals. It seems to be a noxious word that voters associate with soft-headed do-gooders who have a government solution for everything.
Democrats have learned to talk about the issues that concern people everywhere – healthcare, employment, education and retirement benefits. Their approach in all these issues is indeed a liberal one, involving hefty government involvement, but please don’t use that “L” word.
The Obama/Democratic proposals surely constitute a liberal response to the present economic crisis. The focus is on creating millions of jobs and enhancing the country’s infrastructure, which, they argue, will improve the chances of long-term, sustainable economic growth.
If the Democratic plans succeed, then we can look to a long period of that party in government. If they don’t turn the economy around, the people will reject the liberal approach, as they now reject conservative thinking.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
BLAGOJEVICH'S TRIALS
At the start of the Illinois Senate hearings, on Monday, about the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich, the presiding judge, Thomas R. Fitzgerald, asked the senators in the chamber, “Is the Governor present?” The answer was negative, because Blago, as he is now commonly called, dubbed the senate gathering a kangaroo court, motivated by political vendettas.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
The Governor is correct in saying that this is a political trial. He will not be judged based on the principles of criminal or civil law; the assessment by the Senators will be based solely on whether they believe he can govern effectively or not – surely, the mother of all subjective political judgments.
Most of the Senators, 37 out of 59 to be exact, belong to the same political party as Blagojevich. They are all Democrats in a State with a long history of rule by that political party. Unfortunately, the Governor has little support among his colleagues in the Senate. He alienated nearly all of the Democratic establishment, including his powerful father-in-law, on his way to the top. Now, he will, almost certainly, pay the price for the selfish behaviour, over many years, of a personality type that can charitably be called narcissistic.
The Senators’ case against the Governor is mostly based on tape recordings, done by the FBI, of conversations which show him as a crude and grasping politician. In talking about filling the Senate seat, vacated because of Barack Obama’s accession to the White House, he suggests that this important appointment should result in some major favours coming his way. There is talk of payola that might reach as high as half a million dollars – plus a lucrative job for his wife.
All of this “low” political behaviour is certainly unedifying and, at times, somewhat shocking. The chief prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, denounced his actions in the strongest terms, stating that the level of corruption involved was so despicable that it would cause Abraham Lincoln to turn in his grave. The usually - balanced New York Times editorial was equally condemnatory, describing his words on tape as “the crass rantings” of a “discredited blowhard!”
The Senators in Springfield are listening to excerpts from these tapes. They do not have access to the full recordings, because Prosecutor Fitzgerald feels that such access at this time would hinder his plans for the criminal case that he is preparing against the Governor, which will probably be tried in the summer.
In that trial, Fitzgerald will have to match his hyperbolic accusations with facts that will convince a jury that Blago is not just an unsavoury individual, but that at an identified time on a particular day, a quid pro quo was established with someone that involved the transfer of money or other favours for the appointment to the Senate. Vague talk about possibilities, imaginary “strokes” with various moneyed people – the equivalent of late-night pub talk, these will have no probative value in a criminal case.
He will have no problem establishing that the Governor is a cad, who, on a whim, regularly upbraided his staff. Likewise, he can easily prove that consultants and contractors, who benefited from State contracts, were clearly told that a large cheque was expected at Blagojevich’s political fundraisers. There is no suggestion of threats being used, so none of this is illegal; indeed shaking down contractors is a common practice in many States. And, looking for a job for his wife is hardly a criminal action.
I am sure that his defence attorneys will ask for evidence of the Governor’s corruption. Has he or his family become rich since he was elected? Has he “persuaded” some compliant contractor to renovate his house for a reduced or nominal payment? Has he used the powers of his office to punish his enemies in Illinois? Why had his political fundraising fallen on hard times long before he was arrested?
The Senators in Springfield, Illinois, will, almost certainly, wreak revenge on their erstwhile colleague by impeaching him in the near future, and he will be replaced by Deputy Governor Quinn. However, based on what we have heard so far, Fitzgerald’s criminal trial may very well have a different outcome.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obama Needs Luck
President Obama is a thoughtful, cool, reasonable person – the epitome of the Renaissance Man. His policies are well-researched and documented. His campaign was guided by a strong commitment to the logical analysis of all policy issues. His selection of Joe Biden as vice-president provides a good example of this ordered approach. Senator Biden emerged as the chosen one only after months of systematic assessment of various other possible candidates. By comparison, his opponent, John McCain chose Sarah Palin on a gut feeling, after two conversations.
Most people are impressed by this kind of deliberative approach to problem-solving, used by Obama and his advisors. However, history points to a major weakness in this approach: most historical events are driven, partly, at least, by emotion and tribal convictions, which are often not amenable to thoughtful analysis. Shakespeare was a devoted exponent of the rational approach to life, but, he fully realized its limitations. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There are two major areas of concern for the new President, which, to a great extent, operate outside the ability of planners to control. If either one goes against him, then his whole presidency will be in serious trouble.
First, his economic stimulus plan is largely a shot in the dark. The new President was advocating last week for the additional 350 billion dollars, part of the Bush bailout plan, to stabilize the banking and insurance industries. Yet, there has been no accountability for the first half of the huge Bush payouts. The bankers took the money and continued on their merry way, following the same policies as before.
Homeowners struggling with mortgages continue to get foreclosure letters, despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to these financial institutions. Now, even if the Obama administration insists on changes in this regard before the second 350 billion is disbursed, there is still no great confidence among independent economists that this money will solve the credit crisis. What happens if they want a few more hundred billion in the fall?
The wider almost-trillion dollar stimulus package that the new President is himself proposing is also fraught with danger. They expect that this money will create about three million new jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by about 2%, very worthy goals. Furthermore, the resulting improvement in the nation’s infrastructure will certainly have very positive long-term economic effects.
However, some democratic leaders, including the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Conrad, consider that these employment predictions by the Obama team are very rosy. The powerful Senator expressed the view that maybe half the projected new jobs is a more realistic figure. What happens if the unemployment rate keeps rising, despite the stimulus package? Is the capitalist system so broken, after the collapse of banks, insurance companies and the auto industry – the commanding heights of the economy – that a whole new economic model will have to be developed?
The scale of the borrowing required is astronomical. Apart from the stimulus packages, we are told that for the next ten years the US Treasury will have to borrow one trillion dollars a year. Add in about one and a half trillion for stimulus packages, and we get some idea of the frightening extent of this problem. Will the Chinese bankers stop lending to us or demand repayment for the money already owed? Surely Socialists must be smiling at the United States depending on Chinese money to keep going!
I don’t know enough about how currencies operate, but I am reading that a lot of economists are very concerned about the impact that all the borrowing and printing of new money will have on the stability of the dollar. The unintended consequences of this kind of mega-borrowing on the strength and stability of the American currency are another major concern for the Obama team.
The new president is really in uncharted waters, and he is doing his utmost to find a scientific answer, a new formula that will, somehow, jumpstart the economy and halt the precipitous climb in unemployment numbers. Nobody seems to understand the dynamics of the present crisis, the worst since the hungry 30’s, but, if, despite his best efforts, the economic situation continues to worsen, the President will be gradually abandoned by his friends and allies in the Democratic Party, and his poll numbers will move in the direction of the last White House incumbent.
The second major concern is a new terrorist attack. President Bush and his supporters point to the fact that the homeland has not been hit since 9/11. They argue that it was his stern policies which kept the country safe.
Many on the other side see this safety issue very differently. They say that the Bush policies, especially the invasion of Iraq, have drawn the anger and heightened the resentment of Muslims everywhere. In this perspective, America is more likely to be hit again by extremists because of the Muslim perception that the United States is hostile to their culture and their interests.
The President-elect is committed to closing Guantanamo and outlawing torture. The American people support these moves right now. However, in the event of another serious attack, this would likely change as people would blame the “soft” policies of Obama for the new tragedy. The tough, militaristic, Bush approach would be lauded then as the only way to deal with terrorists.
Part of the reason that President Clinton had a successful presidency was that he had more than his share of luck, especially in the area of the economic growth of the nineties. President Obama will also need the gods to smile on him for his economic stimulus package to work, and so that there won’t be another serious attack on the homeland.
President Obama is a thoughtful, cool, reasonable person – the epitome of the Renaissance Man. His policies are well-researched and documented. His campaign was guided by a strong commitment to the logical analysis of all policy issues. His selection of Joe Biden as vice-president provides a good example of this ordered approach. Senator Biden emerged as the chosen one only after months of systematic assessment of various other possible candidates. By comparison, his opponent, John McCain chose Sarah Palin on a gut feeling, after two conversations.
Most people are impressed by this kind of deliberative approach to problem-solving, used by Obama and his advisors. However, history points to a major weakness in this approach: most historical events are driven, partly, at least, by emotion and tribal convictions, which are often not amenable to thoughtful analysis. Shakespeare was a devoted exponent of the rational approach to life, but, he fully realized its limitations. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There are two major areas of concern for the new President, which, to a great extent, operate outside the ability of planners to control. If either one goes against him, then his whole presidency will be in serious trouble.
First, his economic stimulus plan is largely a shot in the dark. The new President was advocating last week for the additional 350 billion dollars, part of the Bush bailout plan, to stabilize the banking and insurance industries. Yet, there has been no accountability for the first half of the huge Bush payouts. The bankers took the money and continued on their merry way, following the same policies as before.
Homeowners struggling with mortgages continue to get foreclosure letters, despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to these financial institutions. Now, even if the Obama administration insists on changes in this regard before the second 350 billion is disbursed, there is still no great confidence among independent economists that this money will solve the credit crisis. What happens if they want a few more hundred billion in the fall?
The wider almost-trillion dollar stimulus package that the new President is himself proposing is also fraught with danger. They expect that this money will create about three million new jobs, and reduce the unemployment rate by about 2%, very worthy goals. Furthermore, the resulting improvement in the nation’s infrastructure will certainly have very positive long-term economic effects.
However, some democratic leaders, including the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Conrad, consider that these employment predictions by the Obama team are very rosy. The powerful Senator expressed the view that maybe half the projected new jobs is a more realistic figure. What happens if the unemployment rate keeps rising, despite the stimulus package? Is the capitalist system so broken, after the collapse of banks, insurance companies and the auto industry – the commanding heights of the economy – that a whole new economic model will have to be developed?
The scale of the borrowing required is astronomical. Apart from the stimulus packages, we are told that for the next ten years the US Treasury will have to borrow one trillion dollars a year. Add in about one and a half trillion for stimulus packages, and we get some idea of the frightening extent of this problem. Will the Chinese bankers stop lending to us or demand repayment for the money already owed? Surely Socialists must be smiling at the United States depending on Chinese money to keep going!
I don’t know enough about how currencies operate, but I am reading that a lot of economists are very concerned about the impact that all the borrowing and printing of new money will have on the stability of the dollar. The unintended consequences of this kind of mega-borrowing on the strength and stability of the American currency are another major concern for the Obama team.
The new president is really in uncharted waters, and he is doing his utmost to find a scientific answer, a new formula that will, somehow, jumpstart the economy and halt the precipitous climb in unemployment numbers. Nobody seems to understand the dynamics of the present crisis, the worst since the hungry 30’s, but, if, despite his best efforts, the economic situation continues to worsen, the President will be gradually abandoned by his friends and allies in the Democratic Party, and his poll numbers will move in the direction of the last White House incumbent.
The second major concern is a new terrorist attack. President Bush and his supporters point to the fact that the homeland has not been hit since 9/11. They argue that it was his stern policies which kept the country safe.
Many on the other side see this safety issue very differently. They say that the Bush policies, especially the invasion of Iraq, have drawn the anger and heightened the resentment of Muslims everywhere. In this perspective, America is more likely to be hit again by extremists because of the Muslim perception that the United States is hostile to their culture and their interests.
The President-elect is committed to closing Guantanamo and outlawing torture. The American people support these moves right now. However, in the event of another serious attack, this would likely change as people would blame the “soft” policies of Obama for the new tragedy. The tough, militaristic, Bush approach would be lauded then as the only way to deal with terrorists.
Part of the reason that President Clinton had a successful presidency was that he had more than his share of luck, especially in the area of the economic growth of the nineties. President Obama will also need the gods to smile on him for his economic stimulus package to work, and so that there won’t be another serious attack on the homeland.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Dealing With the Dropout Problem
When I worked as an English teacher in a Westchester high school in the seventies, nearly all the students graduated, and most went on to earn degrees in college. Today, my daughter, Brenda, teaches in a similar school district, and the same situation prevails. These students’ parents are mostly well-educated and successful. Stories and reading are part of the child’s life from an early age. Many will have some experience of cultural events at home and abroad as they grow up. Their friends are likely to come from similarly ambitious and successful families. Educators talk about a positive family and community as the infrastructure that breeds educational success, and these kids are blessed to grow up in such an enhancing environment.
Most of my professional life I worked in inner-city high schools. In Dublin, I was employed for ten years as a guidance counselor and teacher in Ballymun, which was a very poor area in the north of the city. The huge tower blocks were mostly used as a dumping ground for all the problem families of the city. The movie The Committments was filmed in Ballymun and gave a fair picture of the chaotic life there for young people. For the last twenty years, I was employed as a guidance counselor in a high school in the South Bronx. The students mostly came from the surrounding apartment blocks. Many were recent immigrants whose first language was Spanish.
The Ballymun and South Bronx communities had much in common. In both cases the people were poor and felt marginalized. In the South Bronx, most of the kids came from one-parent families; while this was somewhat less of a problem in Dublin, it was still a common feature of family life there too. Poverty was a dominant factor in both communities. Many mothers worked in low-paying jobs, with little or no male support, barely paying the bills. Fast food from local take-aways often provided the staple diet. Drug and alcohol abuse heightened the misery in many families on both sides of the Atlantic. In a word, the infrastructure for success in school was lacking in both places.
The correlation between socio-economic status and educational achievement is well established. The existence of a large minority of unschooled, almost illiterate, children and adults provides a huge challenge in all Western countries. These are often alienated people, unemployed or working in poor-paying jobs, who draw heavily on the social welfare system. They are also far more likely than their middle-class counterparts to be in trouble with the law, and statistics show that the vast majority of people in jail do not have a high school diploma.
It is a major challenge for political leaders to devise policies that would diminish this problem. The record so far is very discouraging because policy makers are trying to remedy not one problem, but a whole complex of issues. The school dropout programs that I have participated in or read about have a low success rate. With the best of intentions, the teachers and counselors who run these after-school or weekend programs find themselves swimming against a strong tide of failure and indifference. There are some success stories, but, unfortunately, the dynamics that created the problem do not subside after school.
There is certainly no one solution to the complex dropout problem. The following three proposals are not novel, but taken together, I believe that they would be helpful in reducing the level of school failure.
Early Childhood Education: Studies of early education programs are very encouraging. A major review of a program in Chicago, carried out over a long period of time, showed that children, who had the benefit of ECE did much better in later education and employment than a comparable group of deprived students who did not have the benefit of ECE. The thinking behind these programs makes eminent sense: replace some of the negative home influences for three-year olds with a positive and supportive school environment and you can expect good results. President-elect Obama, who surely knows plenty about this issue from his years as a community worker in Chicago, has promised a national pre-school program during his first term as president.
Class Size: The number of students that a teacher faces in the classroom makes a big difference to the learning process. To give individual attention, a teacher should not have to deal with more than about twenty pupils at a time. It is really ironic that the size of classes in inner-city schools in New York is significantly higher than in middle-class school districts in the suburbs. This is an issue of funding and it reflects the priorities that are driving political decisions, so this situation can be addressed and remedied in Albany and City Hall.
Quality of Teaching: How do we encourage the best and the brightest teachers to work in the most challenging schools? Salary is an issue, and it is not helpful that many good teachers are enticed away from New York City to jobs in the suburbs that pay as much as 20% more. However, monetary compensation is not the main inducement for teachers, and, certainly, the idea of merit pay, where one teacher in a school earns more than a colleague, would be disastrous for school morale and should not be considered for that reason. Teachers will stay in a school where they are respected and dealt with fairly. Many school administrators seem far more worried about their own image than promoting a teacher-friendly environment. The ability of administrators to collaborate with teachers should be a primary consideration in selecting school leaders.
When I worked as an English teacher in a Westchester high school in the seventies, nearly all the students graduated, and most went on to earn degrees in college. Today, my daughter, Brenda, teaches in a similar school district, and the same situation prevails. These students’ parents are mostly well-educated and successful. Stories and reading are part of the child’s life from an early age. Many will have some experience of cultural events at home and abroad as they grow up. Their friends are likely to come from similarly ambitious and successful families. Educators talk about a positive family and community as the infrastructure that breeds educational success, and these kids are blessed to grow up in such an enhancing environment.
Most of my professional life I worked in inner-city high schools. In Dublin, I was employed for ten years as a guidance counselor and teacher in Ballymun, which was a very poor area in the north of the city. The huge tower blocks were mostly used as a dumping ground for all the problem families of the city. The movie The Committments was filmed in Ballymun and gave a fair picture of the chaotic life there for young people. For the last twenty years, I was employed as a guidance counselor in a high school in the South Bronx. The students mostly came from the surrounding apartment blocks. Many were recent immigrants whose first language was Spanish.
The Ballymun and South Bronx communities had much in common. In both cases the people were poor and felt marginalized. In the South Bronx, most of the kids came from one-parent families; while this was somewhat less of a problem in Dublin, it was still a common feature of family life there too. Poverty was a dominant factor in both communities. Many mothers worked in low-paying jobs, with little or no male support, barely paying the bills. Fast food from local take-aways often provided the staple diet. Drug and alcohol abuse heightened the misery in many families on both sides of the Atlantic. In a word, the infrastructure for success in school was lacking in both places.
The correlation between socio-economic status and educational achievement is well established. The existence of a large minority of unschooled, almost illiterate, children and adults provides a huge challenge in all Western countries. These are often alienated people, unemployed or working in poor-paying jobs, who draw heavily on the social welfare system. They are also far more likely than their middle-class counterparts to be in trouble with the law, and statistics show that the vast majority of people in jail do not have a high school diploma.
It is a major challenge for political leaders to devise policies that would diminish this problem. The record so far is very discouraging because policy makers are trying to remedy not one problem, but a whole complex of issues. The school dropout programs that I have participated in or read about have a low success rate. With the best of intentions, the teachers and counselors who run these after-school or weekend programs find themselves swimming against a strong tide of failure and indifference. There are some success stories, but, unfortunately, the dynamics that created the problem do not subside after school.
There is certainly no one solution to the complex dropout problem. The following three proposals are not novel, but taken together, I believe that they would be helpful in reducing the level of school failure.
Early Childhood Education: Studies of early education programs are very encouraging. A major review of a program in Chicago, carried out over a long period of time, showed that children, who had the benefit of ECE did much better in later education and employment than a comparable group of deprived students who did not have the benefit of ECE. The thinking behind these programs makes eminent sense: replace some of the negative home influences for three-year olds with a positive and supportive school environment and you can expect good results. President-elect Obama, who surely knows plenty about this issue from his years as a community worker in Chicago, has promised a national pre-school program during his first term as president.
Class Size: The number of students that a teacher faces in the classroom makes a big difference to the learning process. To give individual attention, a teacher should not have to deal with more than about twenty pupils at a time. It is really ironic that the size of classes in inner-city schools in New York is significantly higher than in middle-class school districts in the suburbs. This is an issue of funding and it reflects the priorities that are driving political decisions, so this situation can be addressed and remedied in Albany and City Hall.
Quality of Teaching: How do we encourage the best and the brightest teachers to work in the most challenging schools? Salary is an issue, and it is not helpful that many good teachers are enticed away from New York City to jobs in the suburbs that pay as much as 20% more. However, monetary compensation is not the main inducement for teachers, and, certainly, the idea of merit pay, where one teacher in a school earns more than a colleague, would be disastrous for school morale and should not be considered for that reason. Teachers will stay in a school where they are respected and dealt with fairly. Many school administrators seem far more worried about their own image than promoting a teacher-friendly environment. The ability of administrators to collaborate with teachers should be a primary consideration in selecting school leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
