Rescuing our schools - Part 2: The Problem

So what's the problem with American education? "Problem? What problem?" Believe it or not, there are a few people who deny that there's a problem. If you've never talked to kids or their teachers during the past 20 years, you might think everything's A.O.K. However, confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as our own personal experiences will testify, and as revealed in the endless reams of statistics being kept under President Bush's federal program "No Child Left Behind" (and other state-level programs), I think it's safe to conclude that our system's broken.

• We know there's a problem when students trash their schools and disrespect their teachers--even resorting to physical violence.
• We know there's a problem when psychologists report one out of 10 teens suffer clinical depression.
• We know there's a problem when 25% of high school youngsters don't graduate.
• We know there's a problem when the U.S.A. is 39 out of 50 nations tested in basic academic skills.
• We know there's a problem when universities have to lower standards in order to fill seats in freshman classes, and then have to create remedial courses in basic courses in order to prepare them for university-level work.
• We know there's a problem when employers complain that American universities are not graduating enough scientists and engineers to fill their positions, requiring them to turn to India, Russia, England, and other countries.
• In summary, the evidence is overwhelming, so we needn't argue if there's a problem, but must turn to solving the problem: Why is our once famous educational system broken?

O.K., now that we've laid a foundation, it's time to define more exactly the nature of "The Problem" if we are to seek solutions to it. It's all well and good to fire blunderbusses in any direction and say, "The system's broken--our kids aren't getting an education." But we need to go further and try to get our arms around specifics.

Doing so isn't easy--the problem is so large and involves hundreds of thousands of teachers, administrators and support people who deliver something we've labeled "education" (it's the largest industry in the U.S.A.), it's hard to "get one's arms around it." It's appropriate to use the adage of the blind men who were told to feel an elephant and then report what it was they examined. Each of them was able to relate bits and pieces of their "feelings" and "impressions," but until someone was able to help put the pieces together that make up a coherent picture, the elephant tended to remain a mysterious entity--threatening and revolting to some, curious and bizarre to others. So to begin shaping the nature of the beast, we must have a common basis for understanding what it is we're "feeling".

It's very helpful to review briefly our own history, which impacts significantly on our system like no other country in the world. When our much revered forefathers set out to establish a new country free of King George III's tyranny, we inherited essential British attitudes and a system of education that was mostly a privilege of the "upper crust." Education had always been a private matter delivered by families of the privileged classes who hired learned tutors in philosophy, religion, mathematics, Latin, and science. Education was rarely something delivered to women, who instead were taught the "social graces" by their mothers. However, the enlisted men who fought and suffered the years of our struggle with Great Britain were largely "dumm as drumsticks" to quote a patrician in those days. They were mostly farmers and tillers of the land, with a smattering of shopkeepers--socially barely one step upward. Their officers, of course, were educated and members of the privileged classes.

Historically, education for the masses was an unthinkable notion--even by the most enlightened liberal thinkers--until the Industrial Revolution began to demand specific factory skills of workers--more than those possessed by farmers and tillers of our agrarian society. In response, beginning in Europe, formal, organized education began to take shape to fill these needs. Simultaneously in America there arose a school of thought that had been influenced, quite understandably, by a revolutionary idea that followed from the successful American political revolution--the republican (note, in the small 'r' meaning) notion that education belonged to "the people"--a notion that was born in the Declaration of Independence's opening paragraphs:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--"

Those few words began to enter the vocabulary and consciousness of even the lowliest American classes--in fact, in a short time, they became the official mantra of a whole new political class that would reach its most influential zenith almost 200 years later. Their impact on education was profound. Armed with the sentiments expressed in this powerful stimulus to the American Experiment, well-meaning citizens came to believe that everyone, no matter what their station in life or the level of individual native capacity, deserved--by constitutional right--as much education as possible. The idea was that, in the popular vernacular of today, "education levels the playing field"-- presumably toward creating a truly egalitarian society. This revolutionary notion was considered the most important stepping stone to pursuing that elusive state: happiness--an exclusive American concept of the meaning of life.

The flowering of this sentiment occurred in massive numbers after World War II when, in an effort to absorb into the economy the millions of GIs being mustered out of service, the once-cloistered universities, heretofore reserved mainly for the privileged, were opened to anyone with the money to pay the tuition--and the generous GI Bill supplied millions of young veterans just that.

It followed quickly that high schools opened their doors to a wider segment of the population--even if it meant readjusting its standards to accommodate more students. Until the early 1950s, high schools and universities filled the demand of America's voracious need for managers, technicians, scientists, engineers, and most facets of the liberal arts professions: psychologists, sociologists, librarians, statisticians, and yes . . . teachers. At the university level, the curricula were shaped and aimed at society's needs and qualified students became "experts" through a rigorous and demanding process. High schools too aimed their students to become proficient in the essential building blocks: math, reading, science, with a smattering of the "old" subjects like Latin, Greek, philosophy and (in parochial schools) religion.

But things began to go horribly wrong around the late-1950s. Some say a national psychosis was introduced into our cultural psychology by the apocalyptic fears that came with the nuclear age in Cold War with the Soviet Union was behind the New Age--a national mode of escapism, as it were. Whatever the reasons, respectable liberal thinkers began to consider--in all social affairs of the nation--the impact of the words, "All Men are created equal . . . and are endowed with certain unalienable Rights . . . pursuit of happiness." A new political movement dedicated to implementing the ideas embodied in these words grew quickly--their proponents viewed school curricula too restrictive, both in their breadth and depth and in terms of the people shut out of the system for various reasons: poverty, political repression, class and race prejudice, and (although rarely voiced) native ability. They were able to shame people into silence, or were successful in shouting them down, if they persisted in resisting the "self-evident" truths in the words "all, created equal, unalienable Rights, pursuit of happiness."

Reality was replaced with excessive idealism by well-meaning progressive thinkers and their followers, but they became so enamored with the progressive ideas embodied in those words that the balance between theory and reality was lost in the enthusiasm of a new era. That enthusiasm was given a sudden, enormous political boost in the 1960s by JFK's era dubbed "Camelot" and the "Age of Aquarius" (the "me" Age) by their most dedicated practitioners. Reinforcing this "new era" was the music and dress code of the Beetles and their imitators; "pot" and peyote were recommended by Timothy Leary and other darlings of the "New Age" as a way to experience "mind opening." Free love, imported from daring films and books from socialist Scandanavia, was institutionalized in a new Hollywood genre of porn in films like "Deep Throat." Widely practiced among hippies of the time, it was undoubtedly encouraged by the invention and introduction of the "pill" in the 1960s.

Nietzsche's nihilism was reflected in Time Magazine's April 8, 1966 cover that asked "Is God Dead?" Karl Marx again became fashionable on university campuses, creating a newly minted political movement that quickly spawned a spate of radical factions of every imaginable kind, including the "Symbionese Liberation Army," a small group that kidnapped newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst, who strangely became one of them and took part in Los Angeles area bank robberies. In summary, the 1950s and 1960s were decades of intense turmoil, vast national uncertainty, experimentation, and social and political bombast. It was during this social upheaval that "education for everyone" was considered deficient and outmoded--in terms of both curriculum and the methods of delivering it in the classroom. Experimentation became the main sail of the teaching profession.

At Kindergarten through Grade 12 levels, "New Math" and "New Reading" methods were invented. No more sounding out words in learning reading--it was now said that "word recognition" was now "in." No more rote memorizing of "boring" multiplication and division tables--"cognitive understanding of these fundamentals was now "in." Curricula were delivered in a "free, less regimented" atmosphere in which kids could study what "felt right" for as long as they wished. Teachers were supposed to cater to the "needs" of their students; they were advised not to become "authority figures," but "facilitators of learning. Older teachers in the system were admonished to join this revolution and if they didn't, they were the first ones to be retired or advised to seek other employment. Education in the 1960s was profoundly changed by those who promoted the "It's all about me" generation that the Age of Aquarius had ushered in.

At the university level the liberal arts were also profoundly affected. Here, experimentation went to new levels. Teacher training was shaped in such a way as to make graduates with Bachelor and higher degrees vessels of the new educational philosophies and methodologies. "Social consciousness" became the raison d'etre of "higher" education; the New Age professors created new courses in racial sensitivies, cultural appreciation--in a word, the "basket weaving " courses. No need to bother students with "hard" courses such as algebra and calculus, chemistry or biology; instead, in order to fill the liberal arts graduation requirements, they were substituted with "introduction to mathematical principles" or "general philosophy" and in science, "history of science" or "appreciation of science" courses. In a word, this was truly the era that started the "dumbing down" of America.

Where we are today: Fortunately, most youngsters nurtured in this period have forgotten this era in meeting life's demands; today they look back on it with a certain nostalgia--either positive or negative, depending on how retarded their lives were because of their education in this era. During the past 10 years, a palpable trend has been underway--there is a slow, tortured desire to return to "the basics" at the K-12 levels--but you don't turn around a giant ocean liner on a dime; it takes time to build new keels and to reorient the ship toward a different course. The main exception to this "corrections trend" is in the liberal arts departments on most American university campuses where the Aquarius generation of "intellectuals" sought permanent haven as professors. Unlike "real life," the Ivory Tower makes few "real world" demands on professorial theorticians, so that their habitants today continue to live out their fantasies and--worse--infect the young and impressionable who enroll to seek "Truth," thereby delaying their maturity and entry into the "real America." Purging campuses of this generation will probably not be complete until they die out--literally.

At this point, you're either with me or not. If I haven't convinced (or reminded) you that America's educational system is truly broken, then don't bother reading Part 3 ("The Purpose") of this series. Instead, I suggest you direct part or all of your 2005 tax refund to your local School District to signal that you're happy with the way things are.

Rescuing our schools - Part 1: Introduction

Where angels fear to tread--

On December 21 of the year just past, I made what "professional educators" would call a naive--even ignorant--promise on this blog to offer clear and practical steps toward recapturing and reforming the education system that was snatched from us about a half-century ago.

My interest derived from the curious experience I had during my brief stint as a high school teacher of Russian and German languages in 1961-62. In a word, I refused to cooperate in an experiment that had my "forward-looking" teacher colleagues all agog. The experiment involved, among other things, not limiting my language classes to eligible students, but offering them, in a loose-knit kind of schedule, to any and all students, whether academically eligible or not. I would teach all comers in a kind of "round-robin" arrangement where I would be available all day long to students who wished to "sample" my classes. I was told that attendance would not be monitored and that I would not issue traditional grades; in fact, performance would not be measured, except to the extent that the students "were satisfied." My reaction was immediate: I rejected the notion as being foolish and unworkable. My principal took my recalcitrant attitude up with the county administrators who evidently relented to my "old-fashioned" methodology, at least long enough to humor me as I organized the first language programs in this particular high school. I insisted on rigorous exercising in the language as much as possible during the 50-minute long, five-day per week classes. Testing was frequent and carried out as another student learning tool. My colleagues were not happy that I was not participating in their "revolutionary" experiments.

I didn't know it at the time, but I had landed smack-dab in the middle of the "revolution" widely sponsored by the Left (which had also given birth to the "progressive" hippie movement on U.S. campuses in the late 1950s), and had the support of growing, powerful teachers' unions (National Education Association and the newer American Federation of Teachers). Because of my refusal to cooperate with new curricula and teaching techniques in my very first year as a new teacher "on trial," I was ostracized by most of my colleagues as educationally "insensitive." If you're interested in a little bit more about this personal experience, you can scroll down on this blog to an entry entitled "Who hijacked our education system?" (August 28, 2005) .

I mention this by way of introduction because I had just entered the teaching world with so much enthusiasm for imparting the skills I had acquired to those who were coming behind me, but left a short time later disillusioned and somewhat bitter. As the years rolled by and I acquired a perspective that comes with maturity and time, I watched our system of education rapidly deteriorate into confusion on several levels:

(1) Teachers became demoralized and were continuously swindled on several levels,

(2) Administrators became cogs in an ever-growing bureaucratic, dogmatic machine,

(3) Parents became confused and neutralized, but worst of all,

(4) Students began to dislike school and even hold it and their teachers in contempt.

Everybody has come to understand, intuitively or by direct contact with any level of education in America, that the system is broken and is in serious need of reform if our country is to survive, much less to regain our competitiveness in a world that has grown rapidly smaller. The following cartoon, published last December in our little local paper, illustrates our common knowledge: Something's seriously wrong. Unfortunately, no one has yet undertaken serious steps to fix the problem,* although there is an overabundance of pundits who daily continue to comment on our nation's shame and embarrassment.

*No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a recent attempt launched by the Bush Administration with the intent to fix it, but it is clearly failing because there is no political unanimity behind it and, most significantly, it's a bureaucratic monstrosity that is drowning schools in the maintenance of endless statistics--it's like frantically trying to patch the enormous hole in the Titanic with rolls of duct tape, while simultaneously demanding meticulous record-keeping of the number of feet of tape used, the cost, the source of the tape, the man hours used, who applied the tape (broker down by race, disabilities, level of skills, etc.). Much more on NCLB in subsequent parts of this essay.

Since leaving my teaching post so disillusioned and after the demands of day-to-day responsibilities of raising a family and making a living are behind me, I now have the luxury of time to consider the results that have been percolating in the cauldron of my mind the past 45 years. I think I know what the problem is and how to cure it--assuming, of course, that Americans will summon the political will to carry it out.

I'm not sure how long and in what form my solution will take. I suspect the enormity of the problem I've assigned myself could take hundreds of pages. If I thought such an exposition might have a significant impact on a wide audience, I would undertake the task in whatever length and in whatever formats required. For starters, however, this blog will serve as a repository of the "essentials"--an outline--if you wish.

I am anxious to use this Internet Age "blog" to record this outline for one important reason: To interact with readers and thinkers who undoubtedly will help widen my thinking and thus ultimately contribute to the value of the final product. (Note: Unless I am directed by contributors to exercise anonymity on their behalf, I will record wide attribution to anyone who contributes to this essay--negatively or positively.)

I promise to try and avoid being pedantic, long-winded and academically obtuse. If I drift off into old university-acquired habits, I hope someone reading this will alert me forcefully.
So as to make the whole exercise as palatable for both myself and readers, the essay will be done in pieces--this being Part 1, the Introduction.

Please make comments--either directly at the end of each posting in "Comments" below or by using my separate e-mail (on the "Profiles" button, upper right-hand margin).

Israeli Air Force updating GPS coordinates

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Is he a madman or just pulling our chain?

It's reported that Mr. A continues to rile the West, even the reluctant Germans and Mr. "Smooth" Chirac. In response to the Iranians' removal of the U.N. seals from their uranium enrichment facilities yesterday, the London Financial Times reports today:

French President Jacques Chirac warned Iran Tuesday that it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community on its nuclear program. And German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that with the latest step Teheran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences." Steinmeier also said he had asked IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to evaluate the dangers of Iran's move.

I can't imagine the redoubtable Mr. A--who undoubtedly is acting in league with the theocratic government of mullahs--misreading both the Europeans and the U.S.A. to the extent of begging for retaliation. But I suspect they are. However, surely he hasn't forgotten that the Devil's "country of the proven and willing" just a few air miles southwest of Teheran has been watching his country's nuclear program with increasingly intense interest? Or does he think they're on Uncle Sam's leash?

And has he also miscalculated China, who surely has more than a passing interest in Iran's possession of the bomb? China has been playing the oriental inscrutable role with respect to its relationship with Iran, but it's a fair bet that they'll countenance an upstart bunch of religious fanatics on their flank having an equalizer--especially not in the hands of a young, apocalyptic radical.

I reckon President Bush's newly minted doctrine of preemption in foreign policy is being looked at in a much more receptive light by European, Russian, and Chinese leaders. And no need to worry about jawboning with the Israelis--they're in if no one else is, and they're perfectly capable of taking care of the job in short order. Their Air Force has run various air strike scenarios over many times since their strike on Iraq in 1983. You can bet their cockpit GPS instrumentation is up to date.

As for my personal attitude: I still remember vividly the seizure of our embassy in Teheran in 1979 and the embarrassment I, along with most of my countrymen, of the year of humiliation we suffered while the theocratic nuts toyed with their hostages, making the U.S. and its president, Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter, the laughing stock of the world, setting off the "paper tiger" image of us that to this day underlies the impunity with which terrorists continue to operate. It would appear that Mr. A (who some think was one of the young terrorists who led the attack on the embassy in 1979) thinks he's going to call Uncle Sam's hand again. With Dubya at the wheel, that'd be a serious mistake.

If asked, I'll do grunt flightline work on Israeli airbases and help the Jews launch their attacks. Just call on me--I'll pull away the chock blocks.

Shooting themselves in both feet

Judge Samuel Alito's Travails

Here we go again! If you recall the confirmation of John Roberts last Fall, it's deja vu all over again. Although I'm tempted to rant (again), I'm restraining myself, because it does nothing but add to the increasing number of gray strands in my ever-thinning mop. I can't afford to put more of it at risk so soon after the Roberts trial.

The Dems continue to demonstrate why they lost all political power in the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branches and, astoundingly, they still don't "get" it. Senator Edward Kennedy, whose irritating upper-crust Boston accent rings from my TV set in the background as I write this, continues to fail to understand the function of his own nest, the U.S. Senate, but the Executive and the Judicial branches as well. I wish one of his staff members would write a pithy essay on Government 101 for Kennedy, although it's possible that Kennedy doesn't hire staff members who possess that knowledge either.

He and his leftist brethren appear to believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of every aspect of American life: economics, morality, education . . . you name it--in their minds, it is that small body of nine lawyers who hold the fate of America in their hands. Therefore, according to the Left, the Court is and must be politicized, that is, it must function in terms not of the law but in terms of whatever societal whim should be placed before it. By any means, they are desperate to make the Court an institute of social engineering and legislation--something our Founders clearly never intended.

But that's why the Left are trying to claim as one of their own the retiring Justice Sandra O'Connor, whom they so lovingly describes as the "swing vote"--that is, "a Leftist vote" in cases of a 4 to 4 tie between the nasty conservatives and the enlightened liberals on the court. The insidious aspect of their frantic effort to politicize the "swing vote" is that they're trying to establish the function of the Supreme Court as a political entity-- not a judicial one--conveniently overlooking the fact that the U.S. Constitution and its founders did not intend that body to be a microcosm of the 535-member legislative houses of Congress, but a pure instrument of jurisprudential oversight, whose members exercise a non-political role. Do the Dems simply not understand that the Court was designed as an institution to address legislation passed by Congress and the states (where state jurisdiction is challenged) as to constitutionality? Or is it a dangerous attempt to reshape the Court's function.

As long as the Dems are so far out of power in Washington and across the nation, the specific, narrow view of the Court's "job description" as our Founders established it, is unacceptable to Edward Kennedy and his ilk; they prefer to slough off their own responsibilities as legislators and look to the Supreme Court for relief. They don't understand that their attempt to eschew their responsibilities and turn the third major branch of the U.S. government into an their own instrument is precisely why Americans have rejected their party several times during the past two decades. Thus, in desperation, believe that if they are able to gain control of the Court, they would be able to recoup their lost political power.

It's a shameless display of ignorance and their helplessness. And the irony is, by taking their hypocritical stance on television with the nominee, Sam Alito, they don't realize that they are merely reinforcing in middle America's mind (wherein lies the Republican power) the ignorance, duplicity, and effeteness of today's American Left. If they continue their incoherent and one-theme performance during the remaining days of torturing a brilliant legal mind of similar stature of Justice Roberts, they're only reconfirming why Americans will continue to reject the Democrats at the polls.

Add this to the daily performance of the Dem's official court jester, head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, and Republicans have little to worry about at the polls for the next couple of decades.

WMD truth finally revealed!

URGENT NOTICE

Be sure to check out this website and be prepared for explosive revelations about the mysterious, lost WMD. Heavy hitters (lots of 'em) will reveal the truth about Saddam's so far undiscovered cache that the Left has been using to bash President Bush unmercifully the past three years. You can also read a preview of the revelations (scheduled to be released at the intelligence summit conference on February 17-20) by journalist Steven Hayes in The Weekly Standard's just published article . Among the several heavy hitters participating in this important conference will be James Woolsey (above), former Director, CIA. February should be an interesting month.

Fizzled out whistle blower?

Why isn't the whistleblower getting media attention?

Russell Tice, an ex-NSA (National Security Agency) analyst went public last week in a TV interview with Amy Goodman, director of Democracy Now. In the hour-long interview, Tice confessed he was responsible for the present uproar inside Washington's Beltway and on the public media around the world. Although he said he was unable to discuss specific operating details of the electronic sweep allegedly performed by NSA at President Bush's direction ("because I don't want to walk out of here into an FBI interrogation room"), Tice left no room for doubt that he was the whistleblower.

Tice said he was still waiting for a response from the House and Senate intelligence subcommittee chairman, to whom he faxed a letter stating his willingness to testify before their committees. He said it was probably too early to expect a response, because he had sent the fax during the Christmas holidays. His voluntary testimony, he said, was conditioned on being treated under the provisions of the "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act."

Tice fingered the past NSA Director (General Hayden, now deputy director of the recently created super-spy bureaucracy headed by diplomat John Negroponte) as well as the present NSA leadership, all of whom he says had to been authorized by President Bush to go around FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) procedures to spy on Americans.

Asked by the TV interviewer whether his termination was connected with his explosive revelations, Tice said he was fired in May 2005, months before he decided to blow his whistle. The actual reason for his firing was, according to him, his dissing the FBI over what he thought was its incompetent handling of a report he pressed his security officer to pass to the FBI for investigation. It seems he reported a fellow NSA worker for engaging in what Tice believed was espionage. Evidently, Tice was dissatisfied at the FBI's handling of the case (that is, dismissal of Tice's allegations).

Asked if his subsequent decision to whistleblow the electronic eavesdropping might be seen by the public as retaliation for his termination from NSA, Tice admitted his timing might be seen in that light. Tice's reason for his revelations? His answer (paraphrased): His self-appointed role in protecting and preserving American Democracy, etc., etc. , ad nauseum.

After hearing Russell Tice's interview last week, I assumed his confession would be instant "big news" that would be picked up within minutes of his live interview. Instead, the reaction has been silence. Which leads one to speculate. Was Tice shown to be a confessor for the personal publicity he anticipated? Or perhaps his further revelations would be severely damaging to intelligence interests? (Maybe, after all, he did walk out of the interview into FBI detention?) Or perhaps congressional authorities, in collaboration with the FBI and his former employer, have decided he's a self-serving fraud?

Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now organization owe a follow-up to her explosive scoop that has so far fizzled.

Only in America!

Cold beer nixed in Missouri!

No joke! The news media report this morning that a Missouri state legislator has introduced legislation (suggested--no kidding--by a grade-schooler's research) that would make beer under 60-degrees Fahrenheit illegal to sell or transport.

Seems the young future scientist presented convincing (in Missouri, anyway--which may explain the ludicrousness of the issue) evidence to Missouri's lawmakers that people drink more beer when it's too cold or, expressed tautologically, Americans reject and thus drink less warm beer ( it should be noted that in Germany, this would not hold true, inasmuch as in many parts of that world beer-guzzling nation, patrons often dunk battery-driven "beer warmers" in their mugs if tap-served brew comes out too "cold").

The pending legislation would put at risk any seller and buyer of beer caught with beer measuring under 60 degrees.

What's next? Missouri's Highway Patrol testing the temperature of any six-pack being transported by an unfortunate driver? I can envision an alternative to a hefty ticket and appearance before a local magistrate: Buying some ribs or chicken and inviting the beleaguered patrolman to an impromptu picnic at the nearest roadside rest stop. And why not? Missouri's in America.

Competing lawmaker mentality: Water ecology. The beer-temperature legislation rivals the proposal of a newly elected councilwoman in our little desert town. Wanting to impress her constituency that she was up to the task, she proposed a city law that would require homeowners to install pool covers on their outdoor pools when not in use--the idea being that the move would save water lost to evaporation in the desert heat. Her suggestion hit a snag when a more experienced fellow-councilman asked her how she proposed to make sure home owners were complying by covering their pools, most of which are located in their backyards. The lady stammered, paused, and the council moved on without further discussion.

But don't laugh! After the council session a wag suggested that she introduce her legislation at the state level--where it'd be more likely to find endorsement (a greater number of "professional" lawmakers, you see) and--given the wider application throughout Arizona--could theoretically amount to water savings in the millions of gallons, while simultaneously stimulating the growth of an industry: pool cover manufacturers. Given the Missouri cold-beer experience, the suggestion might be a sound one.

The Washington Mobster

He's even dressing the part!

A mobster is exposed! One assumes that Jack Abramoff and his associates will surely do time after ratting on the many congressional contacts to whom he generously shared what appears to have been very ill-gotten gains (from various Indian tribes around the country). Some might even believe it follows that Congress is on the verge of collapse, and anyone receiving money from the crook for whatever reason is also tainted. Of course, if the Left weren't scared to death that party stalwarts will be long on a list the federal prosecutors are busily compiling, they'd already be trumpeting Abramoff's extortions and embezzlements as constituting a massive "Republican Cultural Scandal."

I too am outraged, but not because congressmen were receiving "tainted" money for their campaign re-election war chests (mainly by promoting legislation that would benefit Indian casino business ventures)--that's legal and old hat in Washington. What enrages me is that Abramoff crafted an almost perfect scheme to scam our Native Brothers on their generally miserable reservations. In recent decades they had finally discovered the perfect way to rake in the big bucks with minimal capital investments: the Halls of Gambling that much of America seems incurably and insatiably addicted to. The ironic aspect of this growing industry on the reservations is that they're finally realizing in spades for what their white oppressors did to them in the 19th century: Legally fleecing them cleanly.

As to the outrage that the media are expressing--and it seems so far successful in whipping up their readers in middle America--placing the focus on Congress and the 35,000 registered Washington lobbyists, it's a case of completely misplaced emphasis. I've got my own (great big) beef with the elected big free-spenders of our (legally) confiscated money in Washington--and I've no doubt there may have been some legislators were directly engaged in the fraud that Abramoff was perpetrating. But they probably amount to precious few.

Recently, I had an exchange with a blogger, a (Leftist) professor of economics at a major university, over his over-zealous condemnation of politicians (especially G.W. Bush). His assertion was that our representatives, everyone one of them, are corrupt to the core and should therefore be fired, and replaced with "honest citizens" (under a system Karl Marx referred to the "enlightened proletariat," enroute to Eden or Communism) who would, overnight, bring everlasting peace, harmony, and economic equality to America. When I responded to his apocalyptic view of American government by citing a few facts against his pure illusions and fabrications, he became livid and denounced me as "obviously an active member of The Conspiracy" (I presumed he meant Hillary's "vast Right-wing conspiracy"). Proffering this kind of worldview is what severely damaging the very foundation of American governance. The professor would also contend that Jack Abramoff is a White House undercover "plumber" doing the nefarious work of The Conspiracy. The mainstream press accounts of Abramoff's criminal activities during the past decade are simply framing the professor's view of American politics.

However, I stand in stark contrast to that view of the "lobbying scandal." I don't see it as a "lobbying scandal," but as the gullibility of so many who were defrauded by Abramoff, and the weakness of a few Washington operatives. I also happen to believe our 200-plus year old system, with all its warts and fault lines, is still the best, proven system ever invented and has provided me and mine a standard of freedom and living undreamt of by even my own father. And lobbyists have been an inherent element of our system even before the Constitution was concluded, when interest groups tried actively to influence the framers of our Constitution to shape it to their own visions and perceived needs.

While I recognize it's fashionable to attack lobbyists and try to cast shadows on legislators who accept donations to their political re-election war chests, I don't see myself as political posture as "fashionable." The fact is, Congress couldn't operate (not under the present set-up we like to call a "free-market") without having the court attendants helping legislators to acquire knowledge of the 1,001 things they and their staffs must know in order to fulfill their duties to their constituencies. (Please don't get side-tracked here--I recognize a strong case is made for far less legislation, which would eventually have the effect of cutting down on the size of government, reducing the federal budget, and eliminating most of the excess flow influence through monies throughout the Halls of Congress--all interesting libertarian-like arguments--for another day.)

There's no doubt the lobby system tempts and it also may exert undue pressure on otherwise honest legislators--that's simply a fact of life. Former congressman, now MSNBC TV pundit, Joe Scarborough, made that observation last night in an interview with MSNBC TV interviewer, Chris Matthews, that those who cross the re-election campaign coffers with silver will get first attention from the firms for whom lobbyists work--"it's a fine line [between being tainted and honest brokering]" he said. But when an elected legislator falls for and partakes of the forbidden apple, he or she must bear the full weight of the law and ethical shame.

Just what constitutes "the forbidden apple"? It's clear to me and most Americans (excepting lawyers and politicians who try to wiggle out of accountability): After accepting money for legal re-election campaign purposes, if a legislator agrees to draft legislation or vote the way a lobbyist's client wants without considering all facets of the issue, then that's corruption. Or, as in the recent case of Air Force Vietnam Phantom (F-4) jet fighter pilot ace, "Duke" Cunningham, if a legislator accepts gratuities clearly out of proportion to the inherent sense of propriety (never mind the limits specified in the House and Senate Ethics guidelines), that's corruption. In other words, we have the smell test of common sense and famous "I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it" test. Honorable people know what corruption is. Less-than-honorable people know. Only truly evil individuasl wouldn't know, but the optimist in me says we send very few of that kind of people to represent us. No legislation is necessary in the wake of Abramoff.

The real story here is Jack Abramoff and his immediate willing associates who scammed eager but innocent people into channeling huge sums of money into Abramoff's several companies, in the naive belief their money would insure the success of their casino operations, through favorable decisions from the Department of Interior (via the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and from Congress as well. Their naivete was overwhelming naive! Without doing basic due diligence, they trusted a crook enough to turn over millions of dollars to him personally, or to dozens of fake lobbying companies. Any congressional electee--and officials, including congressmen, their staffs, and career or appointed bureaucrats found complicit in the multiple fraud schemes devised by Abramoff--should be shown no mercy after juries pass their verdicts.

Is there a "cure" that would effectively end the temptation of green--the "apple"? Perhaps the assignment of independent oversight bodies inside Congress and the bureaucracy, accompanied by the certainty of vigorous prosecution would curb the worse excesses. But to advocate the elimination of the lobby system is foolish and ignorant. Lobbyists not only represent corporations as well as the likes of the Indian gaming industry, they also represent thee and me in ways we seldom appreciate: Insurance of various kinds: medical, vehicle, property; retirement benefits; drugs and medicines; legal and judicial abuse; travel;business; education--an endless list of interests to a nation of 300,000,000 souls. In fact, lobbyists are a vital conduit to legislators. To suggest their elimination would throwing the baby out with the bathwater and would paralyze the nation almost immediately.