"We've got to stop being the stupid party."

Why am I so hard on today's Conservatives? I think the best answer came from a Conservative. During an interview with the author, C-SPAN quoted from Matt Lewis's book, Too Dumb to Fail, "Somewhere between Reagan's 30 minute speech in 1964 and the most recent government shutdown, the Conservatives movement became neither conservative nor a movement. Hijacked by the divisive and the dumb, it now finds itself hostage to emotions and irrational thinking. It became more personal and less principled--more flippant and less thoughtful. It became mean. It became lazy. It became it's own worst enemy."

The author later added during the interview, "...but there's no doubt that, In recent years, we've seen the dumbing down of Conservatism". Later he added "…because of the political milieu, even the smart Conservatives are forced to play dumb."

He went on to make a number of statements which were entirely counterfactual, indicating that he's not entirely exempt from the gullibility and stupidity of contemporary Conservatism. For example, he repeated the old, entirely unfounded, declaration that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Nevertheless, I agree with his essential points in regard to what went wrong with the movement.

Almost every criticism I make about today's Conservatives is also made by this dedicated Conservative. What I oppose isn't the concept of reasonable caution in moving forward, what I oppose is emotionalism, extremism, and a hatred of rational thought. When an entire political party is dedicated to a constant state of outrage over lies, deceits, and half-truths; you can bet that something is very wrong with that party.
Permit me to repeat, I am not particularly fond of the Democratic Party, but when you have two bad choices; one of which is merely bad while the other is absolutely horrific, you take the merely bad.

I could go on and repeat myself like an older, wiser Marco Rubio, but I won't.

The Patriot Game All Over Again

The Bundys strike again! Lead by their brilliant and charismatic leader, Al Bundy (you remember him don't you?), armed ranchers have seized control of a small government office. They demand that the federal government create a state of total anarchy in which the man with the most money and the most guns can do whatever the hell he wants and the rest of us are forced to obey. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, it does if you're wealthy and have a lot of guns.

To put this in context, let's take a look at some recent news. If you're an unarmed group of black people angrily, but peacefully, protesting against police brutality, you are vicious, dangerous thugs who must be met with massive police force which includes military equipment. However, if you are a well armed group of white ranchers who have stated their intention to kill anyone who dares to stand up to them (including the police and US military personnel), your case is stamped "Fragile: Handle With Care!"

Or to make another comparison, if you're a 12-year-old little boy playing with a toy gun and you happen to be Black, the instant response is "Shoot on sight! Shoot to kill!" On the other hand, if you are a fatigue and mask wearing group of open carry militiamen marching around a mosque to threaten families at worship, the response is, "Have a nice day sir."

It needs to be said again, so I'll say it. Pointing out actual, existing racism is not playing the race card. It's telling the truth. Refusing to face the truth and accusing anyone who does so of playing the race card is playing the stupidity card.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… Remember all those great old Clint Eastwood westerns? You know, the ones where he faced the wealthy, well armed ranchers and shot them all down? I genuinely do prefer nonviolent solutions, but it seems odd to me that the extremists who most idolize Clint Eastwood are the very people that Eastwood spent his movie career killing.

We Are The Fascisti, We Fight The Liberali

Note:  One of the marching songs of the Black Shirts declared, "We are the fascisti, we fight the communisti!"

A post circulating on the Internet displays Fox news commentator Judge Jeanine Pirro making a series of points.  One individual posted it with the comment "This is exactly what I have been telling you! Now get off your fuckin knees and man up to defend our way of life!"

My friend Bobby reposted it with his own series of comments which I have included here:

Okay, I am starting to get nervous that this kind of fascist lunacy actually gets national coverage and enjoys viewer support. The righteous indignation, fearing all Muslims, and mocking liberals, and Obama is common, but the intensity makes me worry about the risk of political and civil overreaction.

"They're here...We are fighting for the very survival of this country and our way of life. You need to make a plan, how you will protect yourself, your family and your kids."

The plan includes:
1) Everyone get a gun any way possible. For your very survival and 2nd amendment. Apparently, if you don't have a gun, you are more likely to get attacked by Islamic terrorists.
2) Weaponize local police. As if the police were somehow ill-equipped to handle recent mass shootings.
3) Close all borders. "Pure and simple." "These people [muslims] do not have a right to be here. End of story."
4) Stop all/any refugee settlement. "We are a nation founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic." Do not let Muslims in. THE enemy is Islamic terrorists, and that we should assume all Muslims are like this (3:45). Muslims now get special privileges that 'we' don't. "The plan is to shut us up." Apparently the 2nd amendment is important, but the 1st amendment for 2.5 million Americans isn't.
5) "If we are stopped from saying something against Mohammed (we aren't) or Muslims in general, then Sharia Law is already here. We are living in dangerous times... The Jackals are at the door."

I can't even make this up. Apparently, if you disagree her, you are worse than unpatriotic; you yourself are dangerous to the nation.

My friend Nick added the following comment:

This is the best thing I've read on Trump and fascism:

"America, thanks to Trump, has now reached that fork in the road where it must choose down which path its future lies – with democracy and its often fumbling ministrations, or with the appealing rule of plutocratic authoritarianism, ushered in on a tide of fascistic populism. For myself, I remain confident that Americans will choose the former and demolish the latter – that Trump’s candidacy will founder, and the tide of right-wing populism will reach its high-water mark under him and then recede with him.

What is most troubling, though, is the momentum that Trump’s candidacy has given that tide. He may not himself lack any real ideological footing, but he has laid the groundwork for a fascist groundswell that could someday be ridden to power by a similarly charismatic successor who is himself more in the mold of an ideological fascist. And it doesn’t take a very long look down the roll of 2016 Republican candidates to find a couple of candidates who might fit that mold.

Trump may not be fascist, but he is empowering their existing elements in American society; even more dangerously, his Tea Party brand of right-wing populism is helping them grow their ranks, along with their potential to recruit, by leaps and bounds. Not only that, he is making all this thuggery and ugliness seem normal. And that IS a serious problem."

http://dneiwert.blogspot.ca/2015/11/donald-trump-may-not-be-fascist-but-he.html

My friend Susan made a different, but apropos, post which quoted a news report:

The Nevada Republican who sent out a Christmas card featuring armed toddlers has put her proverbial foot in her mouth once again – this time in a much more offensive fashion. Michele Fiore, Assemblywoman of the Fourth District, when asked by a Las Vegas radio show about why she refused to sign a statement by Republicans opposing the resettlement of Syrian refugees, indicated it didn’t go far enough for her:

“What–are you kidding me? I’m about to fly to Paris and shoot ‘em in the head myself! I am not OK with Syrian refugees. I’m not OK with terrorists. I’m OK with putting them down, blacking them out, just put a piece of brass in their ocular cavity and end their miserable life. I’m good with that.”

Remember, this is from an elected member of a United States legislative body!

My comment:
Some years back, my oldest grandson and I were having one of our philosophic/political discussions. As I pulled up to stop at the corner of Thunderbird and Dale Evans Parkway, I was making the point that when people get frightened they act in 

a totally irrational manner.  I told him that it hadn't happened in his lifetime, yet. But that something would happen sooner or later and he would see just how insane, self-destructive, and foolish his fellow humans could be.  I told him that as hard as it was to believe, he would will see millions of his fellow Americans acting like terrified chimpanzees; running screaming through the jungle, waving a big stick at anything that comes near them.

I told him that I didn't expect it anytime soon, but that it would come, because bad things happen and people's reactions are so very predictable. It wasn't too much later that 9/11 took place, and I was proven to be correct.

After 9/11, he and I were standing together in the Barstow DMV line. We were again discussing political issues, especially 9/11 and what was an appropriate response. I told him that, quite honestly, I was more afraid of the Bush administration than I was of the terrorists.  The worst the terrorists could  do was kill me. However, I added,  I thought the Bush administration was trying to enslave me, my family, and the rest of the country.  The Patriot Act, illegal spying on American citizens, waterboarding, special rendition, and a whole host of government policies seemed to me to be clearly taking America away from freedom and into a police state.

I got a lot of dirty looks from other people in line. I still hope that one or two of them thought about what I had to say and reconsidered their positions. But I doubt it.

I am very troubled by the levels of hate in America today, but I know that they are being promoted largely by Right Wing Conservatives who I do not think will actually succeed in electing a president. I believe the danger was greater under Bush than it is today. That is, the danger of America turning fascist. I do believe the danger of Right Wing terrorism is now higher than it has been in decades. It may become as dangerous and as deadly, possibly even more deadly, than left-wing terrorism in the late 60s and early 70s.

Just today on C-SPAN a caller whined and cried and complained about how Republicans are never listened to by the government. Somehow he forgot the fact that the Republican Party controls both houses of Congress, a large majority of the federal courts, the majority of state governorships, a majority of state legislatures…but poor pitiful Republicans! Nobody in government listens to them. What he actually means, of course, is that Republicans don't get their way every single time, no matter what. Republicans want a Republican dictatorship in America. A conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, Christian Republican dictatorship. 

While I feared it might happen if the next president after Bush Junior was also dominated by the right wing, I do not fear that now. In spite of the large number of Americans who support Trump, FOXNews, and their fellow travelers, most Americans do not.

Just as I do not fear that ISIS will take over America, I do not fear that these homegrown radicals will take over America. But just as I fear that Lonewolf ISIS terrorists will attack, I fear that Lonewolf conservative terrorists will attack.

So, Bobby, Susan, and Nick; I agree that the danger is very real. I just see it as a danger not of the government going fascist, but of the fascist elements rising to a point where right-wing terrorism dominates our daily lives.

Sent from my iPhone

Too Little, Far Too Late

A post from a Biker group defended the Confederacy, claiming that revisionists were deceiving us all.  They declared that the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery.  I reposted and  commented:

This is a pack of bizarre lies.  Every leader of the confederacy declared, in writing, repeatedly, that the preservation of slavery to maintain white supremacy the one and only issue leading to their secession.  Google the documents they wrote and signed.  Either the glorious leaders of the South were filthy liars or slavery was the the only reason for secession.  Their plans to conquer neighboring nations to spread their slave empire are a matter of cold hard fact.

Revisionist history?  You mean accurate history.  You mean factual history.  Your "history" is delusional.

Later, a friend posted that " I am a firm believer that it is never to late to do the right thing" regarding the lowering of the Confederate flag. I added:  I understand the people who have emotional ties to the flag and want to cling to it.  I am half Texan and once I was as blind to the flag's historical evil as they still are.  I was bitterly resentful of the racists who, I felt, shamed the flag by using it it in their cause.  But facts are facts, and I realized that I was the one who was distorting the flag's meaning. It never stood for anything other than racism and slavery. 

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

The South may finally be giving up its childish ways...we can hope.

Soul Sisters

Soul Sisters

These two battle flags share the same meanings:

-  They stand for White supremacy.

-  They stand for a slave empire.

-  They affirm that the superior master race has the right to expand that empire through war and             conquest.

-  They represent the historical heritage of a people and of their ancestors.

-   They declare the right of the master race to rule the world.

-   They have been used as symbols of rebellion against authority by teenagers and others.

Do I really need to go on making comparisons or do you get the pont?  

Soul Cutters

In response to yet another Facebook attempt at cleverness by self styled Conservatives, I posted:  At a certain point, you really start to worry about the emotional well being of Conservatives. They live in a constant state of self induced rage and terror.  They are the spiritual equivalent of cutters, who abuse their own bodies.  I wish I could help, but I honestly don't know how to heal them.

I mean, where could you even begin?

Segregation Now! Segregation Forever!

Warning! Lengthy quotes regarding race and diversity! Sensitive readers may not wish to continue! Nonracist members of superior races and cultures are especially warned not to continue!

Once again, I am amazed at the foolishness of my fellow human beings. Listening to C-SPAN today my attention was caught by a rather remarkable statement  made by an individual. In about 2 1/2 minutes I had checked his statement and found it to be totally invalid. Let's start with his own words:

HOST:  We are getting your take on crime and policing in your community. What is it like and do you think there's any changes that are needed.  Jay is in a suburb of Pennsylvania, Souderton, go ahead, Jay...

JAY:  The first gentleman, he mentioned the word homogeneity, And of course the most homogenous areas or countries are always the most peaceful. And always have the most trust.

Even though we continue to say this  incredibly Orwellian mantra, diversity is our strength. Which is insane...(he refers to his tiny homogeneous community when he was a child and emphasizes that his superior Pennsylvania German culture kept everyone well behaved.)

The culture and the race of a neighborhood matters. And I do want to say also that that is actually the words and the studies of people not just like me but you look at Robert Putnam, The Harvard professor. I wish you would have him on.  He did that in-depth study 2005 The effects of ethnic diversity on populations. And he's a liberal!  He's the author of a book called Bowling Alone and he didn't like what he found and he was forced to reveal it. And he found, of course he studied tens of thousands of people and communities. And he found that racial diversity… One of the major reason diversity casualties of it is a loss of trust...(He specifies various types of trust which are lost to the detriment of the community)… and at least we should recognize that and stop promoting this insane idea of diversity as strength when it's torn apart civilizations throughout human history. 

Why that's shocking! A liberal Harvard professor discovers that racial diversity is evil destroyer of society and tries to conceal the facts but is forced to reveal them!  Racial prejudice isn't prejudice! A liberal has proven it!  Only gullible fools believe diversity has any value whatsoever!  All it does is destroy civilizations!

That doesn't sound very believable, does it? So of course, I checked it out.

What did the professor actually say? Well here we have, in his own words from an NPR radio interview, the real meaning of his report:

Prof. PUTNAM: I do need to step back a minute and say I think that the - it's not merely a fact that America's becoming more diverse. It's a benefit. America will - all of us will, over the long run, benefit from being a more diverse, more heterogeneous place. Places that are more diverse have higher rates of growth on average and they have better cuisine. And it's just a more interesting place to live. 

So in the long run, waves of immigration like we're going through now and that we've gone through in the past and increasing diversity is good for a society. But what we discovered in this research, somewhat to our surprise, was that in the short run the more ethnically diverse the neighborhood you live in, the more you - every - all of us tend to hunker down, to pull in. The more diverse - and when I say all of us, I mean all of us. I mean blacks and whites and Asians and Latinos, all of us. The more diverse the group around us, ethnically, in our neighborhood, the less we trust anybody, including people who look like us. Whites trust whites less. Blacks trust blacks less, in more diverse settings.

So what he actually said was diversity, in the very short term does tend to create mistrust. But he also stated, unequivocally stated, that diversity is of great benefit in the long run. The bad effects are temporary while the good effects are permanent. I did not see any evidence that he tried to suppress his findings. Or that he even wanted to suppress his findings. Or that anyone forced him to publish them. In fact, except for the short-term effects,  his study solidly confirmed his liberal beliefs. He didn't find evidence that diversity was harmful, causes civilizations  to be destroyed, that some cultures and races were superior and others inferior, or any of the rest of the mental manure  Jay somehow managed to project into the study. I repeat, a study which actually shows how totally wrong Jay is about the entire subject. 

In fact, the professor went on later in the interview to state:

Prof. PUTNAM: Well, I don't know that I'm disappointed in the findings. I'm disappointed that it turns out it takes some time for us to get adjusted to people who look differently from us. And I'm a little disappointed that, as our findings become public, some people - some conservatives, some people who are racist, frankly, have taken comfort from my research. And they've made the inference that if we hunker down in the presence of diversity, it would be just great if we had a little ethnic cleansing and we all just live around people who look like us. That's absolutely not my view.

Pardon me, Jay, but your racist bigotry is showing. Please zip it up. I can't stop you from having such an ugly thing, but you really shouldn't wave it around in public.

Oh no! I have played the race card! When a man says, falsely, that races and cultures are different with some being superior and others inferior and that mixing them is a wicked thing which destroys civilizations, I unfairly suggest he might be a racist! After all he only talked about race while I, with malice aforethought, talked about race.

Sorry, Conservatives. Holding up a mirror that reflects your racism back in your face is not playing the race card. Your whole deck is racist.

Come Now, And Let Us Scream Together, Saith The Conservatives...Isaiah 1:18

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/02/11/28-reasons-im-done-talking-to-most-of-my-conservative-friends-and-family-members/

As the author of the article points out, there are plenty of things to be discussed with conservative friends, just as long as it's not about anything which is actually important. It's not that we don't like to talk about these issues and even desire to have intelligent conversations which include disagreements. It's just that we don't like being screamed at.

What today is labeled a "conservative" is a terrified reactionary, dreaming nightmares of glories past and disasters yet to come.  They live in a state of constant terror and endless rage, because they find these feelings comforting. Having lost the culture wars, they have nothing left with which to define themselves except their sense of abandonment and betrayal.  The past must have been glorious because then they were in power. The future must be a dystopian disaster because they will no longer get their way.

This means that reality and the facts which construct reality are an existential threat to them.  In a spiritual, philosophical, psychological sense, to use facts in a discussion with them is the equivalent of pointing a loaded gun at their body.  I feel great pity for people so trapped by fear, but that does not mean I make excuses for them.

A Pox On Both Their Tweets

In response to the hysteria over the movie American Sniper:

Sorry it took me so long to respond. But I think a response on this particular debate is essential. Both sides have chosen extreme positions presenting a typical forced choice-false dichotomy situation. The truth lies between the two extremist positions.

What did Michael Moore actually tweet? Here are the quotes: "My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes, and invaders r worse."  And later, "What would Jesus do? Oh, I know what he would do – hide on top of the roof and shoot people in the back!"

While fully supporting Mr. Moore's right to say whatever he wants, I have a right to respond.  My response is:  My uncle killed by a submarine in World War II. Submariners are cowards. Or, my uncle killed by artillery in World War II. Artillerymen are cowards. Or my uncle killed by bomb in World War II. Bombardiers are cowards.  

Exactly the same logic applies.  Each one of these individuals killed from a distance without being directly open to return fire from the individual killed. Does Mr. Moore suggest that all these men are cowards? What about men who fire a missile? What about men who plant a landmine and are long gone by the time it explodes? Tankers who fire from an armored vehicle?

I don't like Michael Moore. I haven't liked Michael Moore ever since I first heard of him. He reminds me of a liberal, although admittedly quite a bit milder, Rush Limbaugh. My opinion of him has not improved in this current debate.

Soldiers do their duty. Sometimes that duty is ugly, cruel, and brutal.  The justification for such actions is that they are done to protect our country, and our loved ones at home, from the forces of evil. War is an evil which is sometimes the lesser of two evils. As long as we do need to go to war, war will be ugly. 

Yes, it would be nice if we would all be so perfectly Christian we would never need to go to war.  I am certain Jesus would refuse to go to war. Does Mr. Moore suggest that we should never go to war even if attacked as we were in World War II? I doubt it.  His uncle certainly went to war, even though that's not what Jesus would do.

Moore is is just as much an emotionalist as are his Republican opponents. Facts don't matter. Only what feels right to them in their guts is correct.  

I must add that Mr. Eastwood pointed out that a movie about how soldiers suffer when they come home and how their families suffer from the horrors of war can't really be called a movie that glorifies war.  Mr. Eastwood's political opinions are childishly naïve, but I have to agree with him on this one. By the way, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have an opinion about it. I do have an opinion about extremists who take a movie and turn it into a huge sociopolitical issue.

I don't like them.

Never Ever In An America That Never Was...

Dr. Ben Carson, DAA (Doctor of Advanced Asininity) has declared, "A bunch of rag tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet. Why? Because they believed in what they were doing. They were willing to die for what they believed in," Carson told a luncheon audience of national committee members. "Fast forward to today. What do we have? You've got ISIS. They've got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for it while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness. We have to change that."

Fact check: A bunch of rag tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet. Why? Because the equally powerful and professional French Army and French Navy fought on our side.  This is called fact, aka, reality. 

And don't forget the Spanish and Dutch assistance we also got.  

Dr. Carson, I suggest you attend a few fifth grade classes in American History. You will learn a lot.  Among the things you will learn is that American History is not part of the Star Wars series.

Of course, you will need to surrender your right wing political correctness...

Ben Secures The Borders

Edwin O'Donnell, a College of the Holy Cross history professor, presented this quote to his students during a C-SPAN presentation:

Why should the Mexicans be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their language and culture to the exclusion of ours? Why should California, founded by Americans, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Hispanicize us instead of our Americanizing them, and will never adopt our language or customs, anymore than they can acquire our complexion.

Only six words have been changed from the original quote which was by Benjamin Franklin in 1753, referring to the German colonists moving into Pennsylvania.

I also decapitalized words which would not utilize the capital letter in today's grammar. Otherwise, the quote is as Benjamin Franklin stated it over 300 years ago.

Sounded like FOXNews didn't it? Oh, sorry! I should have used the proper name, FOXLies.

So: 

In the 1700s we were terrified the Germans would take over our country, speak German instead of English, and make us Not British.

In the 1800s we were terrified that the Catholics would take over our schools, teach our children the Catholic Bible instead of the Protestant Bible, and make us love and obey the Pope

In the 1900s we were afraid the communists would take over and make us love Lenin.

Today we are afraid the Mexicans will take over, refuse to learn English, make us all obey Sharia law (?!), and take back everything they gave up in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Now that's progress.

How Reagan Failed To Win The Cold War Or Tear Down That Wall

What really caused the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Berlin Wall? Not Ronald Reagan.
So, my right wing friends, I am confident that you want to know what really did cause the collapses. Here is a brief, but accurate, answer:

According to Mary Sarot, History and International Relations Professor at the University of Southern California :

The Revolution was aging. The Soviets were crippled by instability; in only 2 1/2 years, the USSR had four leaders, because three of them had dropped dead. (No, Ronald Reagan did not sneak over the Soviet Union, have a gunfight with each one of those men at high noon at the OK corral, then ride off into the sunset, back to America, after each gunfight. They died because they were very, very old.)

Because of this embarrassing series of deaths, the Politburo decided the next General Secretary had best be a young man who was more likely to survive. Primarily for this purpose, they chose Mikael Gorbachev. (No, that is not Russian for Ronald Reagan.)

Gorbachev, the only General Secretary of the Soviet Union to have been born after the October Revolution, opened up the Iron Curtain and eased repression through Perestroika and Glasnost, both of which began to erode Soviet power and control. Rather than brutally crushing all opposition, the kinder, gentler route was chosen, and this ultimately lead to the people rebelling. (No, Ronald Reagan did not order him to do any of these things.)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, aka America, Ronald Reagan left office, his successor, George Bush Senior, fired almost all of the previous administration members. This was one of the most extreme changes of administration in American history. The policies of Ronald Reagan were canceled. (No, policies which have been abandoned no longer have the power to change the world.)

This easing of pressure by the Russian government caused the Hungarian Communist dictatorship, which had previously respected the East German government's refusal to allow their citizens to exit the country, to suddenly change its mind. Bribed by the West German government to do so in September, 1989, they began allowing East Germans to come to Hungary and from there take trains to escape to West Germany. So many took this route that the government in East Germany was in danger of collapsing. (No, Ronald Reagan was not the engineer, nor conductor on any of these trains. Neither did he work for the Hungarian government.)

East German officials became so desperate they declared they were going to close the borders even more decisively. This led to mass protests. (No, Ronald Reagan did not lead or participate in any of the protests.)

Now threatened with the demonstrations, the panicked government planned to have their own Tiananmen Square, imitating their Chinese allies. When protests erupted in in Leipsig on October 9, 1989, the government issued orders to shoot to kill. To accomplish this definitive crushing of protest, machine guns were issued to the massive number of troops sent to the city. The 100,000 plus demonstrators turned out to be far more than expected and were so peaceful that the troops refused to fire on them, and instead began to join the demonstrators. (No, Ronald Reagan was not in command of the East German army at that time. He did not issue an order to join the protesters, or refuse to fire on them.)

The spectacular failure lead to the leader of East Germany being kicked out of power. (No, Ronald Reagan was not involved in the decision to fire Eric Honecker or to replace him with Egon Krenz.)

Krenz proved to be incompetent. He decided to talk a nice game while maintaining all existing brutality and oppression. In pursuit of this policy, he made an announcement that there would be minor changes to travel restrictions. He intended this to sound as if changes had been made, while in fact changing nothing. The announcement was botched, leading reporters from the West to think the Wall was opening. The East German people, assuming that the reports were accurate and that this meant the Wall was now open, stormed it en mass. (No, the Great Communicator, aka, the Great Deceiver, did not write or make the announcement. Neither did he storm the Wall.)

With a successful Solidarity movement in Poland on their minds, with the efforts of the Polish Pope inspiring them, with the recent fall of the leader of the repressive government, with the success of the protests which turned the army onto their side, the people of East Germany decided that this was the time to act. Tens of thousands of them went to the Wall and demanded to be allowed to pass. The Stasi tried to hold the line, but began to fear for their own lives. They were outnumbered literally thousands to one. Finally, Harold Yeager, a junior officer on duty that night decided to let people through. Once this was done, the damn had broken and stations all over the city followed his lead. (No, Harold Jager is not the German spelling of Ronald Reagan.)

Remember: Ronald Reagan was no longer president of United States when the Wall finally did fall. Ronald Reagan's policies had been replaced by the sharply different policies of his successor.

So, Republicans, please pay attention. In spite of your fervent belief, your absolute conviction, and your total unwillingness to consider any alternatives, Ronald Reagan did not open the Berlin Wall in 1987. He gave a speech. He gave a rather poor speech. The Wall did not open until his policies have been repudiated and changed by his presidential successor.

So who did tear down the Wall? The answer is: The people of East Germany. Many others contributed and helped to create the atmosphere that led to this final action on their part; but ultimately, they did it. They put their lives at risk and they tore down that Wall. Ronald Reagan's contribution, if he made any, was minor and unimportant.

This is more than just correcting history and eliminating a foolish delusion. As Dr. Sarot points out, the idea that Ronald Reagan gave a speech and magically everything fell before him, has convinced American neocons that all we have to do is rattle our sabers and then wait around until, almost instantly, the world changes into a wonderful happy place. It was exactly for this reason that they included the phrase "from Berlin to Baghdad" in plans that led to the Iraq war and its foolish dreams of easy success and a war that would pay for itself.

Later in the same program, Melvin Leffler of the University of Virginia, a history professor, reported on how the fall of the Berlin Wall looks to various parts of the world, as explained at a meeting with his colleagues from other parts of the world.

He notes that in Western Europe, the fall of the Wall is regarded as evidence of the success of multilateral cooperation and integration among nations and institutions. Russia regards the fall of the Wall as evidence of the results of poor leadership and placing trust in foreign governments. China regards the event as proof of the need to have economic reforms to benefit the peoples' standard of living, while at the same time suppressing political liberalization and strengthening the power of the state.

At the meeting, Prof. Leffer's contribution was to explain the meeting of the fall the Berlin Wall to the United States. He explained to his colleagues that we regarded the fall as a triumph of "freedom over tyranny" and think it showed how effective the United States was in its use of power in the policy of containment and the threat of the use of force against Communism. In other words, we see this as an American victory as a result of American power, which shows the benefits of American supremacy.

It is important to note that no one else in the world looks at it this way. This is an American interpretation. It is deeply flawed. It ignores the people who actually worked so hard in cooperation with America to contain and defeat Communism and it assumes that we, and we alone, should take all the credit. It is a neocon fantasy. It is a neocon mythos.

Bizarrely, Republicans and Democrats, and especially Bill Clinton, actually somehow decided that we had destroyed Communism because of unrestricted free enterprise! This led Clinton and others to believe that deregulation would be a good thing because it would automatically make everything work better. The ultimate result was the second greatest economic disaster in the history of the world.

The professor agrees that memories of the Berlin Wall coming down were a major contributor to the strange belief that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq, which would spontaneously turn into a democracy. We know how successful that was.

Somehow the neocons forgot to notice that East Germany joined West Germany. West Germany! ...An established and successful social democratic democracy. That is to say, a highly regulated, free enterprise-based, socialist system. Not unrestricted free enterprise, but free enterprise working within a highly socialist and well-regulated system. He further notes that we were not a largely unregulated, radically free enterprise system when the Berlin Wall fell. That came later. At the time of the fall, we were still very much an FDR nation. Capitalism was well regulated, with socialistic safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare firmly established and welfare in full effect in this country.

He adds that what actually caused the fall of the Berlin Wall includes the reconciliation between France and Germany and the spread of economic cooperation across Europe in the form of the Common Market and in the expectations that the then proposed European Union would bring even greater prosperity.

All acknowledge that US power was an essential contributor through containment, but that it was a contributor, not the cause. Containment is what allowed these other factors to take root, flower, and lead to the harvest of freedom. Reagan did made a contribution, but it was not in blustering speeches and being threatening as Republicans would have it today. It was in working with other leaders who also contributed and in maintaining the decades old policy of containment. It was in negotiating. It was in cooperating even with our enemies, not in taking a bullying, domineering, militaristic stand. He did the former early in his presidency. He evolved to the latter position as he matured as a president.

Ultimately, the American president who most contributed to the fall of the Wall was George Bush Senior. He succeeded where Reagan failed, not by being provocative, but rather by encouraging reforms and a sense of peace between the Soviets and the Free World.

But if a single person is to be given credit for the fall of the wall, the professor indicates that the one who most contributed was Gorbachev. It was he who changed the vision of the Soviet Union, turning away from militarism, international bullying, and a threat based, security conscious state. If anyone tore down the Wall it was Gorbachev. (No, he did not do it because Reagan told him too.)

The next speaker, Jeffrey Angle of Southern Methodist University, the Director of the Center for Presidential History had much the same points to make, although his statements can be summed up as, the fall of the Wall was, "an intertwined global affair."

He then says that the ultimate lesson of the fall of the Berlin Wall varies from nation to nation. For America, he says, "Ronald Reagan single handedly spent the Soviets into the ground.… And single handedly, moreover, tore the Berlin Wall down, brick by brick."

And of course most Americans believe that Reagan did this because he believed in freedom and strength and, I add, that for strength you can also say militarism or bullying.

He again makes the point that neocons in America assumed that this meant that all we had to do was run around, make threats, maybe have a very brief pay for itself war, and everybody will automatically want to be American just like the East Berliners had. The problem with this, he points out, is that the East Berliners did not want to be Americans. They wanted to be Europeans.

They had, he says, "A desire to join the collectivist spirit embodied in the nascent European Union." So, to Europeans the lesson was clear, unrestricted socialism as found in Communism is a miserable failure while well regulated capitalism working together with well-regulated socialism make a great team. Collectivism is desirable, if it is balanced with individualism. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what so many Americans take as the lesson of the Berlin Wall. The Director points out that Gorbachev expected us to reward him and his country, now Russia, with aid and support and by keeping NATO right where it was. Because we interpreted bullying, and militarism, and saber rattling as the solutions to all international conflict, we did those things instead. The result is Vladimir Putin.

So let me draw a conclusion: Ronald Reagan helped, a bit, to cause the collapse of the Berlin wall, while George Bush Senior, who did less than many other leaders in the world (and who did it by being thoughtful, careful, and keeping his mouth shut), contributed more.

In other words, if I were channeling Ronald Reagan's ghost I would not declare in his famous drawl, "Well, I won the Cold War. All by myself." Instead I'm quite certain he would say, like that little girl in the Shake and Bake commercial that anyone of my age remembers, "And I helped!"

I repeat: The big contribution America and Reagan made to the fall of the Berlin Wall had nothing to do with spending or threatening. It had everything to do with the policy of containment, a policy practiced by every American president from Harry Truman (who developed it) through George Bush Senior. However, containment alone could do nothing but exactly what it's name indicates, contain Communism. By doing so we kept the rest of Europe free and allowed them to develop the capacities and systems which eventually outcompeted the Soviet Union. But remember, we did not beat the Soviet Union through unrestrained, unregulated capitalism. The defeat of the Soviet Union is correctly attributed to a combination of well-regulated capitalism and well-regulated socialism, combined with the efforts of many world leaders, the aging of the revolutionary, Stalinist leadership of the USSR, and the courageous sacrifices of the oppressed people of the Warsaw Pact.

During the question-and-answer period, Prof. Sarotte indicated that if there was one thing she could change about the historiography of that era, it would be that, both then and now, people talking about this era would not simply talk about Europe, but would also talk about Europeans! She points out that it's not possible to accurately talk about the fall of the Wall without talking about Berliners or about the reunification of Germany without talking about Germans, but many people, including historians, do exactly that. She then recalled a former activist she had interviewed on the subject. This was a woman named Mafianna Buetler (sp?), an activist in East Berlin, "It still amazes me when I read history books about the history I lived...about the history I made. I read these history books, and they say the Wall fell and it gave us our freedom. We fought for our freedom and then the Wall fell." The professor said that's what she would change. She would make it clear that there were people who risked their lives to gain their freedom and that the Wall fell as a result of their struggle and its success.

Got it?

It's The End Of The World -- Again!

In response to the latest Right Wing Bizzaro rants about Obama and Africa and Ebola and plots to destroy America, I posted:

While I rate Obama as an above average president, I nonetheless do have some very serious concerns with his administration. There are areas in which I believe he has seriously failed in his duty to the American people. (Most of these are areas in which he is continuing the practices of past presidents.)

I find it very sad, and quite disturbing, that there is so much fantasy based bigotry and hatred directed at this man that it is almost impossible to discuss these real world issues. Instead, when I am trying to debate these matters I find myself spending my time trying to convince people that he's not the antichrist, secret Muslim plotter, evil Kenyan destroyer of America... well you know all the weird accusations that have become Gospel truth to terrified, but otherwise reasonable human beings.

They then begin to attack me as a member of the cabal who believes Obama is perfect. We never get to reality or considered critique.

There is so much smoke and mirrors and so many absurd accusations (the situation reminds me very much of a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster -- all smash 'N crash and flash 'N splash with absolutely no substance or meaning whatsoever) that serious discussion or thoughtful consideration become impossible.

That is not a healthy situation for the obsessed and terrified hate mongers or for our nation.

Fear Is The Mind Killer

I shared the comment below. In response to friends' comments, I added:

Republican Maine state Representative Lawrence Lockman said in 1995, “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”

Once a group, perhaps especially a political party, becomes dedicated to the tactics of hate and fear they find themselves carried along by their own self generated avalanche. An endless barrage of new, ever more shocking declarations are required to maintain their movement's energy.

Apparently this individual has already apologized for his statements, but the mere fact that he felt not only free but even obligated to make them means that no apology is sufficient. Worse, he doesn't seem to repudiate it. He's just sorry he said it and it got reported. Every parent knows this one. "I'm really sorry I got caught. I'm not sorry I did it, only that you caught me."

My question is, why do any women vote Republican? Why are there still Log Cabin Republicans? Even allowing for gerrymandered districts, how can any Republican be elected to anything?

Much of the answer lies in taking a closer look at a phrase from the cult classic Dune. "Fear is the mind killer," say the Bene Gesert Witches. Partly correct. Any truly powerful emotion is the mind killer. Fear and hatred, currently all that the Republican Party has to offer, can very quickly destroy the already limited capacity of the human mind to think in a rational manner.

Note: I have long thought someone should rewrite the novel and call it Prune. The Benihana witches are seeking the ultimate household appliance, the Cuisinart Hat Rack... There's lots more but there's no point in going on because either you like Dune and don't appreciate my trying to spoof it or you don't really know what the hell I'm talking about, so I'll just hush up.

Dancin' The Hypocrite Rag

The oh so very Christian Republicans adore the teachings of Ayn Rand. They say "Jesus" endlessly while doing the work of the implacably atheist Rand.

-- Think of it like a vegetarian opening a steak house. --

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

But the Republicans sure try hard!

(Oh, on a side note, Ayn Rand died poor living off Social Security. So much for opposing big government programs and rallying for “personal responsibility.”) Jesus Christ believed in helping the poor; feeding the hungry; opposing greed; believed in acceptance; taught to provide for the needy, all while preaching love and generosity. Ayn Rand believed that we should only worry about ourselves, that the “self” is the only thing that matters and essentially charity was stupid. - See more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republicans-trying-mix-ideologies-jesus-christ-atheist-doesnt-make-sense/#sthash.7LGSTLGZ.dpuf

Part 2 -- The Best Educational System In The World, And How We Can Have It, Too

So now that we have seen what a superb educational system actually looks like, and noted how radically different it is from our own, it's time to ask the question, "How do we get there?"

In order to answer this question we must begin with an essential element of Finland's schools that cannot readily be applied to our educational system. This reality is that child poverty is rare in Finland. I have pointed out on repeated occasions that the only real problem with the American educational system is child poverty. Eliminate that one factor and we immediately rocket up to being rated as among the best schools in the world.

This does not mean that we do not need to pay attention to the system of Finland. It is a vastly better educational system than ours, even allowing the absence of child poverty. However, the fact remains that the biggest educational problem America faces today is that so many of our children come from poor homes.

That is an entirely different subject and one which would require extensive examination. So, as important as it is, I regarded as largely unaddressable within the context of the current discussion.

But there remain many things which we can and should be doing now. At this point I'm tempted to say the key to all of these educational reforms is…but I cannot do so. That is because there is no one key. There is no one magic solution. Well, with the exception of eliminating child poverty, there is no magic solution, there is no one key.

The things we need to do must start with centralizing our educational system in that the federal government should be responsible for education in this nation and it should establish the guidelines and rules by which everyone else operates. At the same time, we must give a much greater autonomy to the teachers and the principals of individual schools. In other words, we must both become much more centralized and much less centralized. This seeming contradiction makes sense when you realize that we centralize in some areas and decentralize in others.

At the same time we must stop the adversarial cancer which is in eating away at our educational system. When I first became a teacher, our district was just beginning to unionize. I was against teacher unions then, and to some extent remain so to this day. I felt that public service employees, such as teachers, policemen, and firemen, should not be unionized. Instead, I believed we should serve the public and in return be treated with the respect due to those professions. 

I was part of the first contract negotiations held in our district. Because it was a new practice to us, a representative of the California Teachers Association was present. At one point in the negotiations, while our group was in caucus, I said that I really felt that we were taking an adversarial position which was unnecessary. I commented that I sincerely believed that if I sat down with the district superintendent, he and I could quickly reach a solution and agreement with which everyone would be satisfied. I suggested that we all should take that attitude which should lead to a win-win situation. 

The CTA representative was shocked and angered. He said I was betraying my fellow teachers. He threatened to report me to the Labor Relations Board for my unacceptable attitude. He declared that we must treat the administration as our adversaries, any suggestion of developing a cooperative relationship he regarded as repulsive.

I responded as those of you who know me well would expect me to respond. A cooler and older head at the table suggested that both of us should calm down and we should continue on. We finally simply ignored the conflict and proceeded.

I tell this story to emphasize what I despised about unions. Why was it necessary for us to be adversarial? What was the need for that? Today I take more nuanced view, I'm not necessarily opposed to unions if those unions have the correct goals. IF.

If the union's goals are to protect its members no matter what... If the union's goals are to create an adversarial relationship with the administration... If the union's goals are not to make education the best it can be...then I oppose unions.

However, if the union's goals are to protect teachers who need to be protected and deserve to be protected while at the same time weeding out teachers who should not be in the classroom... If the union's goals include creating a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with the schools' administrators...if the union's goal is to make education the best it can be for the children's sake...then I strongly support unions.

In Finland a teachers' union works as a cooperative colleague of the administration. We need to create that situation. This requires a fundamental change the attitude of union leaders, not easy to accomplish, but I think my attitude is closer to that of the majority of teachers. So it is possible.

We also must eliminate the adversarial relationships between teachers. Teachers who work together to attain the goal of making their school a fine place for learning will have much greater success than teachers struggling to get the merit or bonus pay available from attaining higher test scores than those of their colleagues' classrooms. Teachers should not be enemies in a zero sum game. They should be professional members of the same team. No merit pay, no bonuses, only a fair wage for a dedicated public servant. 

The competitive model being pushed so hard in American education today, the model created by the Republicans and embraced by the Democrats, is poisonous. There is no competition in Finland, only the accomplishment and the development of the individual child. Our divisive attitude can be changed only if we change the politicians and they can only be changed if we change the opinions of the public. This could be done. However, the likelihood of attaining it in our current environment of political bitterness and hysteria is unlikely. It is not impossible, and it is worth working for, but it will not be an easy task.

Both responsibility and autonomy must be given to individual principals and their staff members. Teachers are professionals. Given the level of respect they deserve (in Finland they are among the most respected of all professionals) and given both the responsibility and the power to control their own schools in cooperation with their principals, teachers will get the job done. I have no doubt of that. They already have my trust and my support. Getting the rest of the country to agree to that won't be easy. Ever since Ronald Reagan first smeared the nation's teachers to shift attention away from his own failures, teachers have been the scapegoat for just about every single thing that's going wrong in our country.

Before Reagan's smears, teachers were highly respected and honored in our country. We can get back there again. I can only repeat that it will not be easy, but it is entirely doable.

Most importantly of all, education in America must return to being child centered. Children are not raw materials. They are not mere objects to be milled, ground, forged, and hammered into the correct shape. They are human beings who should all be encouraged and assisted in reaching their own full potential as an individual. Such an attitude cannot be attained in a test driven environment. If we are to improve our educational system we must ban standardized tests, or at least reduce the number of standardized test a student takes in his school career to one, as the Finns have done.

This is a mere outline. In order to actually obtain the reforms needed, much more planning is required. However, the outline is valid. We must begin the struggle and we must begin it now. We have one great advantage on our side. That is that even the conservatives admit that Finland's educational system is superb. There is the blueprint; we only need to follow it. There is the pattern; we only need to cut and sew it. There is the model; we only need to copy it.

It is said that it is hard to argue with success. Unfortunately, one of our political parties today has largely taken over the media, has dedicated itself to being pro superstition and anti-science, has based its actions not upon facts and reality but on fear and rage, and thus made sensible change difficult. However, these victories need not be eternal. We can turn the tide back to reality-based decision making.


For another view, see the following:
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2012/real-lessons-from-finland-hard-choices-rigorously-implemented.html

My disagreement with this article is that it assumes it was necessary to go through the extreme educational system which preceded the blossoming in order to reach the blossoming. I completely disagree. The earlier efforts were in fact failures and I do not see that is necessary to reproduce other people's failures before copying their successes. Nevertheless, I offer it to you for the sake of open discussions. It is a thoughtful article which at least approaches the subject without a rigid sense of Ideology.

Frankly, this is quite surprising since the The Thomas B. Fordham Institute tends to be a self-styled conservative organization which usually displays an extremely rigid sense of ideology. I do not recommend their articles in general, only this particular one and it is presented only as an alternative to my views.

I also cannot help but note that while this organization is forced by facts (a remarkable accomplishment for a conservative organization) to admit that the Finnish system, which is so antithetical to their ideology, is in fact highly successful; they manage to conclude that the only way to reach the Finnish system is via all the mindless rigidity of their ideology.

This attitude reminds me of the great Marxist screed. First we must have a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is undesirable, but a necessary stage. Then it will simply fade away. (As if dictatorships ever simply fade away.) However unpleasant this may be, it is a necessary base for finally attaining the real goals of a classless society.

So we must suffer all the bad, awful things before we can finally attain the good things? How sad.

The Best Educational System In The World, And How We Can Have It, Too

I am accustomed to truly bizarre statements being made by the callers when I am watching C-SPAN's Washington Journal.  However, I simply could not allow the statements made by one truly misinformed individual to go unanswered. During a discussion of how to improve American education, a caller made the following statement:

Finland has a decentralized, consumer driven model where where they use vouchers and local autonomy to direct education.

If you know anything about Finland's educational system, you know that this is a statement which is roughly equivalent to stating that in Germany the economy is doing well because they still maintain plantations where slaves grow and harvest cotton. Germany never had such a system. Germany certainly does not possess such a system now. And the Finnish education system is almost the exact opposite of everything this man thinks it is.

Which leads me to wonder where he got such bizarre misinformation. I suppose it could be FOXNews. But who knows?

I suspect it is more likely that he assumes Finland is doing those things because he has decided that they will magically work. Since he knows the magic formula (or, at least, believes he does) he assumes that a highly successful system such as Finland's must be using the methods that he knows will magically work. This is of course totally wrong.

It would be like saying I know that blowing your nose on paper napkins rather than Kleenex prevents cancer. I then find that there is a city in which cancer rates are unusually low. Therefore, without any further fact checking, I assume that everyone in that town must be blowing their noses on napkins rather than Kleenex. After all, how else could you explain the success in keeping cancer rates low?

Just to cover a few of the areas:

1.  Much of education is far more centralized in Finland than in the United States, but only in some ways. Most importantly, their system is a function of the national government and it controls many essentials such as the certification of teacher education programs which are not under the control of the US government. After all, in America, education is a function the state governments.

However, the caller was partially correct in that the national government of Finland has wisely delegated much control to local levels, including giving principals and teachers strong control over their own schools.

Therefore, the Finnish system is BOTH more centralized and less centralized than ours.  It depends upon which area you are discussing.

2.  There are virtually no voucher schools or charter schools in Finland. The creation of such a school is highly controversial and is generally regarded as damaging and negative to the nation's children. 

3.  Yes, parents are very involved in education, but they do not control education as parents do in America through local school board elections.

4. Finnish educators do not believe in homework.

5. Finnish educators regard the arts as critical to a child's education. These programs have not been cut back severely, as they have in the United States.

6. Finnish children get far more recess time then do their American counterparts.

I can go on and on but I've already addressed this in the following blog posts:

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2012/10/educational-deform.html

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2013/09/finland-strikes-again.html

Interesting Link:

 http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-education-school-2011-12?op=1

Anyone interested in factual data should click the link above. It lists many of the the things Finns are doing correctly in their schools. The authors say that the schools are decentralized, but as I pointed out above, this is simplistic.  They are more centralized in some ways, while less centralized in others.

Further, the authors don't mention a couple of matters which they should have included.  First, retention is very rare in Finnish schools. And second, charter schools and voucher systems are not used in Finland. Third, schools are non-competitive. Teachers don't compete with other teachers, children don't compete with other children, school districts don't compete with other school districts. The entire focus of the entire school system is on the benefit of, to, and for the children

Excerpt From A Reference Article:

-- School Management and Organization

The Ministry of Education and Culture oversees all publicly funded education, including the development of the national core curriculum through The Finnish National Board of Education and the accreditation of teacher training programs. Below the national level, Regional State Administrative Agencies and Centres for Economic Development oversee education.

At the local level, the authority comes from the Regional State Administrative Agencies and the Centres for Economic Development. The local government is responsible for providing basic education (grades 1-9) in 3,100 schools, 45% of which teach fewer than 100 students. However, larger schools exist, with the largest comprehensive schools enrolling more than 900 students. For upper secondary education, the Ministry of Education and Culture provides licenses to local authorities, municipal authorities and registered associations and foundations to establish schools.

Schools are managed by the teachers and staff. The local municipal authority in any given region appoints principals for six- or seven-year terms, but apart from this appointment, they largely leave the running of the school to the principal and his or her teachers. Principals are responsible for managing the school staff, ensuring the well-being and success of the students, and managing the school budget, although they do this generally in collaboration with the teachers. --

From:  http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-system-and-school-organization/

Final note: in a previous version of this post I stated that the central government was responsible for teacher certification. This is not correct. Only universities may issue teaching licenses in Finland. However, one of the functions of the central government is the certification of the teacher programs offered at those universities.  Once accepted into such a program, the potential educator receives his training at government expense.