Disturbing Phenomenon

by Ruth A. Sheets

I have noticed a troubling phenomenon among my students. Several of my best readers hate reading and tell me that they only read if they have to and then, they try to get away with reading the least possible.  Many of my good math students hate math and do just enough to get the grade they can live with.

What is going on here?  Why should highly intelligent young people dislike or even hate what they do well?  One would think that a person would be proud of what they do well and would want to do it often. 

I have not been able to find anything related to the psychology of this, but it doesn’t seem to be present just in young people in a disadvantaged community.  Our nation seems to be doing the same thing. 

Our government is really good at some things:  Social programs including medical care and research, protecting the environment, keeping food safe, regulating businesses that could get carried away with greed and speculation, moving mail.

Instead of allowing the government to do what it does well, we are trying to convince ourselves that we hate the social programs and want to end protective regulations.  We are being overwhelmed with advertising to convince us that what we are actually doing well doesn’t work and must be scrapped. 

What would these be replaced with?  Privatization, a totally free market, trickle down economics and other programs which have not proven successful are repeatedly proposed.  Why? What are we thinking?  

My students’ struggles will be much greater because they do not value what they do well.  I suspect that our nation’s struggles, too, will be more difficult because we choose not to value and fight for our government and give it the resources to do what it does well.   

WOOING WOMEN WITH A WOMAN WHO IS OUT OF TOUCH

by Ruth A. Sheets

Mitt Romney’s campaign is having trouble wooing women.  The things he has declared as part of his platform are not exactly supportive of women.  So, Romney is bringing out his wife Anne to improve his chances with “the fair sex.”

A Democratic aide made a comment that Ms. Romney had not worked a day in her life, and the responses came flooding in, predominantly screaming that this was an insult to stay-at-home moms.

It seems to me this is not an insult to stay-at-home moms, but an emphasis on the fact that most women cannot make the choice to stay at home, but must work, sometimes two or three jobs to support their kids.  When Anne Romney “works,” it is by choice, not by necessity.

Ms. Romney raised five kids and of course, that is challenging.  She also has MS, which provides daily struggles.  Clearly she has worked over the years at both.

However, that is not what the aide, Ms. Rosen meant.  Ms. Romney did not face these challenges without help to handle them.  Her financial situation made the decision to stay home with her kids a no-brainer, a non-decision.  She had sufficient health care and support that she could navigate the difficulties of MS far better than her non-financially gifted sisters.

One would think that someone who experienced real struggle would appreciate the struggles of others.  She would want to see that her “neighbors” had the same level of support she was given.  But, if her husband’s positions on current issues are any indication, there is little or no empathy for people who have less than she has.

We haven’t heard Ms. Romney’s positions on the important issues for women, but my guess is she would favor many of the bills moving through Republican-run state legislatures.  None of this anti-woman push will directly touch her now since she is past child-bearing, and she has only sons. 

She, like her husband, is attractive and she is even more articulate, but is that enough?  Don’t we want someone in the White House with her president husband who can at least slightly relate to the needs of the majority of women?  I hope so.  Well, that would not be Anne Romney.

HEALTH CARE AND THE SUPREME COURT

by Ruth A. Sheets

So, President Obama has publicly stated his position on the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning the health care plan.  The criticism of his statements is truly ridiculous and “much ado about nothing.”  Is it possible that the “right” has so little to complain about him lately that they are grabbing at straws.

Okay, enough with the cliches.  Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and knows far more than his critics about what is and is not proper related to the Supreme Court.  He has the right of any citizen to remind the Court that they should not be partisan.   He knows that despite the conservative justices’ declaration that they despise “Activist Courts,” they, themselves have been as “Activist” as any recent Court:  declaring corporations to be persons and giving an election to a candidate who did not win despite voter fraud, among other decisions.

The health care law “Obamacare,” is challenging in many ways and whatever decision the Court comes to will be controversial.  According to polls, fewer than half of Americans asked said they did not like the law, but when asked about specific provisions, responded favorably.

Outside the Supreme Court building last week, people in both camps protested loudly.  On the one side, people cried “Health care for all!  The mandate means taking responsibility!”  The other side yelled, “We want freedom!  We want choice!”

Which of these arguments would carry the most weight with average Americans? 

None of the interviewers who spoke with the people in the crowds asked follow-up questions like “How do you think the mandate means taking responsibility?  What do you mean by freedom/choice?”

To me, the group demanding health care for all and people taking responsibility does to a great extent frame the issue and the reason the group was there.  Calling for “freedom” and “choice” says very little. 

Is this freedom to not have health insurance, yet expect to be cared for in the Emergency Room?

Is it freedom to have pre-existing conditions that are not covered for themselves or their family?

Is it freedom for insurance companies to refuse to cover expensive but necessary care?

One can’t help but wonder if the Supreme Court justices are considering these things.  As a nation, we commit to caring for one another.  For the first time in a long while, we have a chance to improve the quality of life for many Americans with minimal sacrifice.  I fear, as President Obama does that our unelected Supreme Court, for partisan reasons may destroy this opportunity.   

WHAT DO WE HOLD SACRED?

by Ruth A. Sheets

On Thursday, March 29th’s NPR program “Here and Now,” a discussion was held regarding morality and what the two political parties/political positions hold as “sacred.”  The guest said that one of our greatest problems currently is that “liberals” and “conservatives” don’t interact with each other.  They don’t exchange ideas on a personal level.  Members of Congress work in Washington for only a short period each week, then rush home to their districts.  They don’t have to really work with anyone on the other side of the aisle.

When people can’t be together on a personal level, they can’t begin to understand the position of the others.  Without such understanding, each side can become entrenched in their own beliefs and attitudes. 

The guest explained that each side antagonizes the other by stepping on, defacing, or denigrating the things the other holds as sacred.  If people can only understand what the other holds as sacred, the anger and fear may dissipate, at least somewhat.

The Republicans/Conservatives hold such icons as the flag, the Bible, and the cross/crucifix as their most revered objects/concepts.  The Democrats/Liberals tend to hold the concepts of fairness and equal opportunity for all as inviolable. 

When a flag is burned or desecrated, the actual desecration seems more important than the reason for it.  There is no room for any of their top three symbols to be treated with anything they might see as disrespect, no matter why.

When conservatives propose actions that do not seem to allow for fair treatment of all groups or which do not accommodate equal opportunity, Liberals often see them as being heartless, often to the point of evil. 

The thing I noticed is that the conservatives cling to objects which no one is allowed do disrespect, but people in general are less important.  Liberals seem to lean more toward people and value symbols and objects less.  It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference here.  

Objects and symbols are easy to deal with.  They don’t need anything. They make no real demands, except loyalty.  Admittedly, that is a pretty strong master.

People are messy, unpredictable, often needy.  The struggle for fairness and equality of opportunity is a lot harder than defending the flag, Bible, or cross, especially when the latter involves only speech in 3-word slogans or even letters (“U-S-A, Drill baby drill.”).

It is easy to think of those who revere symbols as patriotic because those symbols can be easily displayed in nearly any type of setting. 

Improvement of conditions for people, fairness, justice for all are very hard to display.  These generally require stories which take time to experience, time which our current short attention spans don’t accommodate.  But are these less “patriotic?”

It would be helpful if people on the “left” were a bit more sensitive to the “right’s” need that their symbols not be desecrated in art, protest, and other areas of life.  However, the sad part is that I don’t feel the “right” will reciprocate, at least not in this period of our history.  

I believe it is not that the people on the “left” don’t value the things the “right” holds as sacred.  It is that we do not place them above people.

 

An End to Democracy in America?

 
 by muon

This is the United States. We live in a democracy where we elect officials at all levels of government to represent us. We don't bow to dictators and tyrants. If we see our elected officials usurp too much power, we oust them. Right?

In 1990, Michigan passed a law that allowed the state government to take over state institutions (such as schools) by assigning an emergency manager. As I understand it, the manager's job was to help the institution out of financial difficulties.

A year ago, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder passed an act that expanded this takeover authority to include cities with high budget deficits. The managers have the power to suspend council meetings, layoff employees and fire elected city officials. Each city is expected to foot-the-bill for its emergency manager, and their salaries range from $132,000 to a quarter million annually--more than the salaries of the elected officials they were sent to replace. The cities of Ecorse, Pontiac, Benton Harbor, Lansing and Flint have been placed under emergency manager control.

The takeover of Benton Harbor occurred a month after Whirlpool pulled its last manufacturing plant out of the city. The company then proposed to build Harbor Shores, a half billion dollar golf course and residential development. Three holes of the golf course was to be on public lakeshore land taken over from a city park. The emergency manager not only fired Benton Harbor's mayor and stopped council meetings, but replaced members of the planning commission with his own appointees, thus ensuring the development could proceed without public input. It should be noted that the sponsor of the act that allowed Gov. Snyder to take over the city was Al Pscholka, state representative for Benton Harbor, former VP for the development company building Harbor Shores and on the Board of Directors for another organization involved with the development.

As if this weren't enough, when Benton Harbor's public radio station protested the takeover, the manager shut down the station and put it up for sale on Ebay, blatantly violating the citizens right to freedom of speech.

If you're still not convinced that a war for democracy is being waged in Michigan, consider that the democrats of the state's legislature have filed a lawsuit to force the Republicans to follow the state's constitution on the procedures for taking roll call votes. Currently the Republicans, who are the majority, are denying requests for roll call votes from the Democrats, more or less taking away their right to vote.

The scary thing is that these sorts of shenanigans are springing up all over the country. The GOP governor of Ohio took over school districts in Columbus and elsewhere, and just last month, GOP governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania took over the city of Harrisburg. Most Pennsylvania citizens never heard about this and don't realize that they could be the next ones to be denied their democratic right to elect local government representatives.