"Waiting for Superman"

I watched "Waiting for Superman" last night. The film captured the reality of public education very well, measured by my reading of the subject. Personally, the film once again brought tears of sadness and feelings of anger because of the total unfairness of life. No one should have to depend on so much luck, whether genes, parents, and now lotteries, to have a chance to live a life of fulfilling one's potential.

The film makes clear that (1) even the poor can learn and achieve, and (2) there is a method to achieve success. The problem is the inability of people to get beyond their personal needs to focus on those who are the focus of education, i.e., students.

Thinking about my own education in Brockton, I realize that my potential was never tapped for all sorts of reasons. I managed to do reasonably well, measured by report cards, but I really never studied or learned to love learning. It was only after entering the seminary that I found out how ignorant I was compared to others who went to BC High or Boston Latin. I have tried to make up for my early losses over time and tried to pass on to my own children the virtues of education, in and of itself, independent of its correlations with careers. It is good to know and it is great to want to know!

While I may not have had the best set of parents, my public education was available independent of them. We all were sorted out my geography and we were all exposed to a set of teachers who were considered good. We all lived to a city that supported education and no one was subjected to the vagaries of a lottery to decide one's future.

My children had the benefits of living in a town that was noted for its education. It was particularly cited because its great successes were achieved with a relatively low percentage of public funds, i.e., the public dollars/student were the lowest in the state and the achievements were well within the range of the best. My children did not deserve this benefit anymore than others. They just happened to be lucky. Born with parents who care about them and their education and living in a town with fantastic schools was not earned. It was a matter of luck.

In today's world, "luck" is even more associated with money than ever before. Elizabeth Warren, long before her public recognition for promoting new regulations to protect citizens, wrote a book about the Middle Class Trap. She cited data indicating that young parents had to consider whether to spend more for higher cost housing so that their children could live in a town/city that promoted good education or live where they want but send their children to private schools. In either case, many parents were put in a situation where both parents needed to work at reasonably high paying jobs and keep them. This was what she referenced as the trap, i.e., their finances were so tied up to mortgages or private schools that any interruption in work, e.g., unemployment, would result in financial disaster.

And now, we have lotteries to determine whether a child can be educated in a charter school that promises a good education.

The problems of accessing good public education are so complicated and filled with unwarranted demands for luck that it is hard not to feel utterly despondent for those who are "left behind".

"Inside Job"

I have read many books, articles, columns and a few films that captured some of the dealings of the financial industry that resulted in our global fiscal disaster. None does better than "Inside Job" at delineating the background, the causes and results of the disaster.

From my perspective, not changed from prior entries to my blog, there are several components that get me angry.

1. Deregulation of the financial industry, the combining of commercial and investment banks, the lack of regulation of the derivative market was both a cause of the disaster and, unfortunately, due to the influence of the industry, the problems remain.

2. The amount of money involved in Wall Street, the exorbitant pay structures, the alignment of Wall Street executives and the White House is a paradise for themselves at the expense of the majority. Our government is now owned by the financial industry. Through the own personnel, the lobbyists, and the amount of money donated to politicians, the government is essentially an oligarchy owned by Wall Street.

3. When banks or any industry becomes too big to fail, it is clearly is too big and must be limited. This view, while articulated so well by many, including Simon Johnson, is not viewed positively by Washington.

4. Compared with his campaign rhetoric, President Obama has been more than a disappointment. He has picked the people who helped create the disaster and has promoted policies advocated by their gurus. What a terrible plight!

I recommend the film even for those who are enlightened. It is well done, appears more than accurate from all of reading, and spells out clearly who are the authors of the financial meltdown.

The Future of the Middle East

One of my assets of writing a blog is that it affords an opportunity to identify with some views even when there is no reason to think that they will not change. How could anyone say anything about the future of the Middle East without recognizing the ambiguity of the situation?

At any rate, here goes.

First, I think that it is relevant to reflect on the consequences of colonialism. The powers of yesterday who authorized who would control what, were victims of grandiose delusions. The wreckage resulting from colonialism is noted in virtually all places with possibly a few exceptions, e.g., India. Exploitation of people and resources has been the rule of the powerful. The consequences have been tragic, demonstrated clearly in the assignment of Middle East countries to European powers. No nation in the Middle East has become better because of their assigned overseer.

Second, Islam is like all religions. It is inherently intolerant. Only with the development of national wealth does religion become moderated. Extreme or literal interpretations of source books, e.g., bible, Koran, become reinterpreted so that they can become acceptable to a more "advanced" population.

Having acknowledged this, it is clear that the present level of development is sufficiently low and, therefore, Islam does represent a potential source of hostile actions. I cannot envision a more "democratic" Middle East in the near future that will not also be a source of major concern to their peoples and other nations. It is hard to believe that all these nations will transition from autocratic rule for 40 years to a democratic form of government sanctioned by the majority. There is a question whether the majority in any given state would actually vote for a genuine form of democratic government composed of various parties. Some may actually vote for a government controlled by Islamic law in its more rigid forms with all of prejudices characterized by their own internal disputes among the various sects. At this moment, there are reasons to doubt whether any of the nations now undergoing revolution will actually satisfy the aspirations of the young people who led these revolts.

Given that I would rule out any form of occupation that would "control" the peoples of any nation as being counterproductive, I foresee a need to tolerate great ambiguity and even open hostility against the West and the United States, in particular. At the same time, I think that we should be prepared to exercise police action against anyone who violates international law, as we should have done after the 9/11 tragedy. We should have gone after the Al Qaeda, captured those who were in control of the plans etc. and prosecuted them accordingly. We should never have got into a military invasion. It never works.

So Difficult to Understand!

No matter how much I've read about our nation's financial straights, I admit to utter confusion!

Paul Krugman today once again voices a view sanctioned by many that our problems are essentially related with the lack of jobs, meaningful jobs at that, that will increase the demand for goods that will create revenue that will support services that are essential to our well-being etc. etc.

Others, without giving voice to the tea baggers, focus on our deficit and the need to reconstruct our economy so that our nation's output (services) better matches its input (revenue).

Both have a point that one can easily support, except it is hard to believe that the consequences of one approach will be commensurate with the other. It seems inevitable that one approach will work and the other won't.

What adds fuel to the fire is the fact that new jobs are not providing workers with sufficient pay to support an middle class life-style. We do live in a country where food, utilities, transportation, housing, education are expensive. While finding a job is important, it is also depressing when the new job pays half as much as the prior job. It is important to recognize that "hidden implications" of the decline in wages for the middles class and, of interest, the potential "political implications" for Obama. Jobs alone will not suffice; they have to earn a level of income to support a moderate life style associated with the middle class.

This is the problem that really frustrates me. I do not see how our nation can maintain its standard of living without a middle class that has sufficient wealth to support our historical life-style. Joseph Stiglitz speaks eloquently to the distortions when the top 1% own such a large proportion of both income and wealth.

And, what really frustrates me is that I cannot figure out where those jobs will come from!

For those who think that bringing back jobs from over seas is magical thinking. Even if one could imagine such a transfer of jobs, they surely would never command the salaries that they demanded prior to their original transfer overseas. We will be getting new industries, but it is hard to imagine another massive employment engine coming out of the "clean energy" industries comparable to the auto industry. There surely will be some innovative technology emerging, but they seem to always demand fewer and fewer "middle class" employees. The focus will be on lower wages.

Krugman does not deal with the reality that "more jobs" will not be comparable to the "jobs" that previously existed.

The other side focusing on deficits does not address the lack of wealth and its implications for our nation's future.

What to do?