Friday, February 15, 2008

The Decline of Education in America


Our work force is falling further and further behind in the global race!
by Charlie Leck

I'm not a fan of David Brooks, the columnist for the New York Times. He's just not very consistent in his writing and I sometime wonder if he remembers where he was a few days ago. Nevertheless, in his column of 15 February 2008, he wrote something that makes sense.

"In the 19th century, industrialization swept the world. Many European nations expanded their welfare states but kept their education systems exclusive. The U.S. tried the opposite approach. American leaders expanded education and created the highest quality work force on the planet.

"That quality work force was the single biggest reason the U.S. emerged as the economic superpower of the 20th century. Generation after generation, American workers were better educated, more industrious and more innovative than the ones that came before.

"That progress stopped about 30 years ago. The percentage of young Americans completing college has been stagnant for a generation. As well-educated boomers retire over the next decades, the quality of the American work force is likely to decline."

Brooks is right-on about this! He recommends that the neo-conservatives grab this as their theme for the coming election, advising that the Republicans will catch the Democrats flat-footed on the issue.

Where has Mr. Brooks been? Recall my doubt about him knowing where he was a few days ago! Barack Obama has been talking about this problem for months. This has been a liberal issue for years. The problem has been that Republicans don't want to spend the money to rejuvenate the American educational system. It needs a top to bottom, complete overhaul. That will cost money. It will mean taxes and it will mean taking away those obscene tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans were given by George Bush and his cronies in Congress.

You want evidence that Americans are now dumber than dumb? Go to You Tube and watch this clip of Kelly Pickler (American Idol) appearing on "Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader?" Well, my goodness! Enough said!

We don't really need to build a case to convince anyone that the American educational system needs a drastic revision. How about a President who will put real, professional, creative and top-notch educators at the top of the Department of Education? This is one department with which we can't play politics. Not that Margaret Spellings, the current Secretary, isn't a qualified person, because she is. She gotten herself handcuffed, however. She's handcuffed by her own personal conservative stance on taxes and spending. She's also handcuffed by a President who won't ask Congress to give her the tools she needs.

If David Brooks thinks this could be the watershed issue for the Republican Party, he must be daffy. The ideas you outline in your column, Mr. Brooks, will take some pretty handsome spending. Listen to John McCain on spending these days! The conservatives are going bankrupt this nation by not spending. American industry and commerce needs a highly educated work force. Don't expect the largest corporations to lobby for spending money in this area. They don't need the American work force. They see that China and India are far outpacing us in teaching the sciences, technology and math to their students. This is a global society now (The World is Flat) and the massive corporations are global and don't depend on America.

America needs to compete. Our workers need to compete against the work forces in China, India, Japan, Korea and a host of other places. Where are we in this education race? Face facts! We are way down at the bottom of all the industrialized, economically significant countries in the world. A continuation of conservative leadership will only drive us further down toward the bottom. They're going to keep pushing No Child Left Behind and they'll keep leaving lots of little kids behind in the American classroom because they don't provide the funds to make their program work. Barack Obama has taken a courageous high-road on education. He says he's going to be open to all possibilities – even vouchers (if he sees evidence that they'll work).

Obama was even willing to talk openly about merit pay in a speech directly to the NEA.

"I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success,… I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it to you; I'm going to do it with you."

"In the 21st century, countries that out-educate us now will out-compete us tomorrow… The work you do and the difference you make has never been more important to the future of this country."

Obama's approach is going to cost us. You can't get quality without paying for it. The neo-cons mantra about cutting spending and cutting taxes is utter stupidity. We cannot have high quality education at the prices we're devoting to education today. The neo-cons want to keep cutting taxes on people who can well afford to help us pay for better education and these same people are the ones who should help us pay for it. We have to think of this increased spending as an investment for the future. A nation that does not invest in itself is doomed.

Obama made the speech to the National Education Association (NEA), in which he mentioned those things quoted above, in July of last year. A short time after the speech, Alexander Russo, writing in Education Week, declared that Obama had handed the NEA endorsement to Clinton. Well, here's fact Jack! Teacher's Magazine is saying that educators across the nation overwhelmingly support Barack Obama.

Stephen Dubner, writing on my favorite blog, Freakonomics, applauds Obama on education and especially on paying teachers what they're worth.

If you're concerned about education in America and you're still undecided on a presidential candidate, go to the issues section on Obama's web page and check out what he says about education.

Here's a new, hot book to which you might want to pay attention: Jacoby, Susan: The Age of American Reason [Pantheon Books, New York, 2008]

This book paints a vivid and accurate picture of American's declining position in the race for industrial greatness. Jacoby, in particular, points to the fact that our educational system is failing our students. Even though students are spending more and more time in school and advancing further in school, they are not learning at the rate and level of the other advanced nations of the world. The impact this has on our economy and our ability to compete in a global commercial war is enormous.

Read more about the book on Susan Jacoby's web site.

Read the Salon.Com review of Jacoby's book.

Read a New York Times review of Jacoby's book.

Another intriguing book, which I am yet to read, is Against Happiness by Eric Wilson. I'm on the waiting list at the library for this one and I'll let you know about it after I've read it.

CHANGE OF SUBJECT Have any of you seen the documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side? It's supposed to be extraordinary. If you have seen it, tell me about it.

Last weekend we saw the movie, The Great Debaters. We loved it! It's a smashing and wonderful story! We only read good reviews before we went off to a discount theatre to watch it. I certainly was surprised to learn what I did about little James Farmer. You will be, too.

Watch Out for Hugh Downs Infomercial

Book gets terrible reviews
by Charlie Leck

I'm seeing ads everywhere for the medical books being recommended in infomercials by Hugh Downs. Watch out! It's apparently a big rip off. I almost bit on one of the ads but decided to read a few reviews. Everything I've read is awful, like this one...

12/9/2007 - Denise of Connecticut, USA writes:
"I actually feel sorry for Hugh Downs, bless his heart. I think he was duped by the people in this informercial. He had such an illustrious career and should have known better than to back a book full of info you could get simply by searching the net. There are various other books with info like this too that should be shut down! Prevention Magazine is the only place to get real info, and they've been spouting all this for over 40 years. Shut down this infomercial ASAP!"

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them



President Bush is lying through his teeth
and it really gets me angry!

by Charlie Leck

The current primary campaigns are the best thing that
ever happened to George W. Bush. They’ve distracted us
and we’re not paying attention any more. We’re
forgetting what a terrible, low-down President he is and
this is something that must, for the sake of both history
and the future, never be forgotten. Therefore, I urge you
to go to the
U-Tube website of DelanoCries and listen to
his extraordinary song,
Freakin’ Circus Fascist Nightmare Blues.

Then
watch Keith Olbermann’s video rant about President Bush,
calling him a “bald-faced liar” in no uncertain terms. This is
a video from the end of last year, but it is oh so appropriate
here. Olbermann says “George Bush has no business being
President!” How can you not love a guy like Olbermann?

Forgive me, Al Franken, for using the title of your terrific
book as the title of this current blog. If you suit me over this,
I’ll take back my valuable endorsement.


BREAKING NEWS
The Justice Department admits water boarding is illegal.
An official of the Justice Department, Steven Bradbury,
says his department considers the torture method illegal
under U.S. law. See the story on Capitol Hill Blue
[Feds admit waterboarding illegal]
February 14, 2008 - 8:29am

I just about went through the roof a couple nights ago when I turned on CNN to watch the evening news. There was a clip of President Bush, lying through his teeth again and it really pissed me off. It was actually a Fox video, from which CNN was playing only a snippet.

I’d had a pretty decent day. The highlight was wonderful lunch at Longfellows, a nice little café that sits right on the west bank of the Mississippi River, looking across to Saint Paul. I had a delicious breaded walleye sandwich on a foccacia bun and the best cold-slaw I ever tasted. My lunch partner is a great guy, with a good mind and a spectacular radio-voice. He sprays food everywhere when he gets excited and I lost my appetite somewhat before I finished my sandwich. That was okay. It was fun to listen to his enthusiasm. Yet, all was spoiled in the evening when I heard the President saying of Barack Obama: “…he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad.”

Now here’s the deal. Bush hadn’t just misunderstood Obama. He wasn’t just taking what Obama said out of context. He wasn’t just twisting it a bit for political campaigning purposes. As Olbermann says of our President, “He’s a bald-faced liar!”

Putting Bush’s comments more in their context, this is how he put it in his own extremely ineloquent way:

"I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I
remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I
think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that."

The bumbling, stumbling lie came near the end of the first part of a three part interview with one of Fox’s make-believe journalists, out at Camp David.

Go to Nico Pitney’s column on the Huffington Post to watch the portion of the interview where Bush makes the ludicrous remarks. Pitney quotes what Obama really said.

“In fact, Obama has not advocated either for attacking Pakistan or embracing Ahmadinejad. Obama has said that the U.S. should be willing to strike against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country's president Pervez Musharraf refuses. Obama also said during a debate last year that he was willing to meet with leaders of Iran and other U.S. rivals without preconditions, although he did not commit to doing so.”

Look it here! There is no way to soften the truth about George W. Bush, As Olbermann said better than anyone else ever could, this man has no business being President. There is no moral high ground when it comes to this President. He is only a low-down snake-in-the-grass. Bring on Huckabee, McCain, Obama or Clinton. I’ll take any of them and be mighty relieved.I simply want a President who is more than a marionette whose strings are pulled by corporate moguls. Please!

END

The above sucks as a message on Valentine’s Day. In fact, I left some chocolate and an original card on the kitchen counter this morning for my wife to find. If you wish to read the poem, go to this personal web page.

Coming soon (but not necessarily in this order):
  1. Blog on why Photoshop is getting a bum rap!
  2. Blog on my old man’s love for baseball and the grand old Polo Grounds
  3. A Blog I call "God is!"
  4. Blog on the danger of the big-wigs running the nomination process at the coming Democratic National Convention

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Real Ronald Reagan



I’m delivering this blog much later than I promised;
however, I can only use the excuse that it was much
more complicated than I believed it would be and
runs to well over 5,000 words even after it was
seriously and carefully edited. Ronald Reagan was
one of the strangest presidents in U.S. History in that
he bungled so much and got blamed for so little, thus
becoming known to the press as the “Teflon President.”


The Ghost of Ronald Reagan and his
greatest sin returns to haunt us!

by Charlie Leck

I have a good friend who is as frantic as I about our need to get progressive leadership back in control in Washington. A couple of months ago he told me that his only worry about the 2008 elections was John McCain. I, looking at the polls and at McCain’s slim campaign resources, told him that he had nothing to worry about.

How things change!

Now McCain is actually our big worry. Even at his age he seems to have abundant energy. He flipped the entire Republican primary situation on its head and is charging toward a giant, whopper-sized victory and the Republican endorsement.

Filled with new enthusiasm and certain the nomination is his, McCain has already put his general election strategy into play. He will portray himself as one of the nation’s great, patriotic heroes and the next coming of Ronald Reagan. “I am a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution,” John McCain keeps calling himself. McCain has the temerity to say that we are currently betraying Ronald Reagan’s principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending. The documentation following in this essay will show that Reagan actually did neither, but, quite remarkably, the opposite.

The name of Ronald Reagan is going to be invoked again and again. Writing in the LA Times, Michael Kinsley has written that this year’s “Republican primaries have turned into a Ronald Reagan adoration contest.” Kinsley reminds us, as I will get more specific about later, that Regan’s legacy is that he left us with taxes running at 999 billion dollars and a deficit of 153 billion dollars.

Democrats are going to be running against Ronald Reagan. They might as well get ready for it. Old time, conservative Republicans adore the memory of Ronald Reagan. The young are going to be sold a bill of goods about, not who he really was but, how Ronald Reagan is perceived today.

Here’s the Ronald Reagan the Republican Party will portray. Within days of his election hostages were released by Iran – hostages that Jimmy Carter could not get released for over a year. The great Berlin wall came tumbling down upon his Moses-like command: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” The Soviet Union (“the evil empire”) began to crumble under Reagan’s stern watch and eventually dissolved. The labor movement became mostly ineffective because of Ronald Reagan. Deregulation of industry, commerce and government made the Anti-Trust laws virtually obsolete under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The nation’ military strength was at the constant ready and Reagan demonstrated that he had a steady and ready-finger always upon a hair-trigger.

John McCain will declare himself the disciple of Ronald Reagan. It could be a road to victory if the Democrats don’t find a way to bust the myth and reveal Ronald Reagan for whom and what he really was.

My friend was right-on when he expressed his fear about John McCain as the Republican Party candidate. He is formidable. Because of his age, he will only be a one-term president, if he is elected, but even that could be disastrous for a nation already in trouble.So, my goal here is to present an honest history and a truthful portrayal of the man who was a second-rate actor and a third-rate president. You can see that I’m letting you know right up-front where this depiction is going.In 1989, Murray Rothbard, relieved that Reagan was leaving office, wrote candidly.


“Reagan’s heirs and assigns are a pale shadow of the Master, as we can see from the performance of George Bush. He might try to imitate the notes of Reagan, but the music just ain’t there. Only this provides a glimmer of hope for America: that Reaganism might not survive much beyond Reagan.”
Unfortunately, Rothbard was incorrect. The followers of Reagan are legion within the Republican Party. In the coming election, we will hear far more about Ronald Reagan from the Republican candidates than we will about our original founders and the constitution they so wisely crafted. Most people are simplistic in analyzing Reagan and those people will be easy fish for the Republican campaigners.

Oscar Buchmueller, an old, fatherly fellow for whom I worked for a year, doing an internship while I was in graduate school, was a fellow student with “Dutch Reagan” at Eureka College (a school that some observers have called “that Illinois barber school.”) Oscar’s eyes would light up when he spoke of his old pal. My, oh my, but Oscar was proud. He had been proud enough during those years when Ronny was such a star out in Hollywood; but, wow, when his fellow-alumnus became Governor of California, Oscar was busting his buttons. I never got to talk to Oscar during the years that Reagan was President, but I can imagine that he was beside himself. The interesting thing, though, is that Oscar couldn’t tell me too much of significance about his buddy. He was a terrific football player. He worked on a little college or town radio station (I can’t remember which) and got involved in dramatics. Oscar was a fairly deep thinking, contemplative guy. He couldn’t say the same about Dutch!

Go to the Internet and find the Eureka College web pages about Ronald Reagan’s time at the school. Reagan graduated in 1932. You’ll find all kinds of wonderful stuff that carefully avoids any discussion of academic achievement or class work.

After graduation, Reagan did some radio sports broadcasting in Davenport, Iowa, and in Des Moines (1933-1936), before moving on to Hollywood in 1937. After a screen test with Warner Brothers, he was given a seven-year contract.

Let’s get a lot of the petty stuff out of the way before moving on to Ronald Reagan’s terms as Governor of California and President of the United States.

Reagan was a two bit actor. I know of no one who will disagree with that. His list of movie credits is less than distinguished: Hollywood Hotel (1937) Love is on the Air (1937); Accidents Will Happen (1938); Boy Meets Girl (1938); Brother Rat (1938); Cowboy from Brooklyn (1938); Sergeant Murphy (1938); Angels Wash Their Faces (1939); Dark Victory (1939); Knute Rockne – All American (1940); An Angel from Texas (1940); The Santa Fe Trail (1940); King’s Row (1942); Stallion Road (1947); The Hagan Girl (1947); The Voice of the Turtle (1947); Bedtime for Bonzo (1951); Storm Warning (1951); The Last Outpost (1951); The Winning Team (1952); She’s Working Her Way through College (1952); Law and Order (1953); Tropic Zone (1953); Cattle Queen of Montana (1954); Tennessee’s partner (1955); and Hellcats of the Navy (1957).

During the Second World War, Reagan served in the Army Air Corp as a Captain, making pilot training films.

During his career, Ronald Reagan received no (zero) nominations for Academy Awards; yet, there is something about his movie career with which any evaluation of his life and political work must take into account. Reagan was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in 1947. It was the beginning of McCarthyism and J. Parnell Thomas was chairing the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). A host of actors, writers, producers and directors were being named by the committee as people unfriendly to the “causes” of the United States. The list is startling. Over a few years period, approximately 320 people were “black-listed” from the entertainment industry. Reagan, as president of SAG, refused to support actors such as Larry Parks, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Gale Sondergaard, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee and Paul Robeson. The careers of most of them were ended as the result of defaming charges by HUAC. It was a cowardly act on Reagan’s part. He not only failed to come to their aid, but he openly and actively supported McCarthyism. He was shamefully protecting his own career; for, he knew that anyone who confronted the committee would likely end up on its terrible list.

Reagan was the kind of man who always chose the most convenient way and not the courageous way to leadership. He was a Democrat throughout the 30s and 40s and a huge admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt because his own parents had been so significantly assisted by the programs of the New Deal. After the second Great War, he switched to the Republican Party in order to back the popular general, Dwight David Eisenhower. He was a staunch supporter of Richard Nixon in the 1960 election and of Barry Goldwater in 1964. His active and visible support made him a friend of the business leaders of California. Using a promise of tax relief and the tactics of a dramatic and ugly smear campaign, Reagan defeated incumbent Governor Pat Brown in 1966. His governorship saw dramatic budget cuts and state employee hiring freezes. Student fees in California’s state universities rose dramatically. Students organized protest rallies and Reagan sent in the state police to deal with these rabble rousers. During a second term he instituted tighter requirements for welfare assistance. He squeezed the lower and middle classes very hard, but never delivered on his promise of tax relief. In fact, during Ronald Reagan’s terms as Governor of California, taxes rose to a level that had never been seen in any state in American history.

During his campaign for the presidency, Reagan made the same promises to America that he made to California. He promised lower taxes and smaller government. The facts show that the size of government during Reagan’s term grew enormously. Conservatives have controlled the reins of government in America for 16 of the last 24 years. Yet, government is bigger and more expensive than ever. Reagan promised more efficient government. During his term, the efficiency of government, when measured against dollars in and service out, decreased dramatically. Reagan promised to get U.S. debt under control. Our debt increased to record numbers and he left us with what was then the largest budget deficit in U.S. History.

Reagan was an extraordinarily good speaker (the Great Communicator), if not a magnificent one. He governed up an enormous amount of blunder with a fabulous amount of bluster. He actually knew very little about foreign affairs and international policy. He knew very little about Washington politics and he knew less about the manner in which the federal government worked. When he was asked a truly significant and thoughtful question at a press conference, he looked like a deer in headlights as he nervously pondered a reply. His handlers resisted every attempt Reagan made to go “off script.”

The one thing that Ronald Reagan knew for sure was that he hated Communism. He took communism on in ways that no president before him would have dared. At times he was open and candid about it, but he was mostly covert and devious in his attacks. The Great Communicator was not willing to criticize any anti-Communist government even if they were highly undemocratic. He had a series of UN resolutions criticizing South Africa vetoed. He was unsuccessful in vetoing the Congressional Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

As an example of Reagan’s anti-communist craze, take the unbelievable invasion of Granada as a prime case study.

The invasion of Grenada was called “a lovely little war” by some correspondent. Even such a broadcast news service at Public Broadcasting called the war “an unmitigated success” for Ronald Reagan. To most Americans it was an inconsequential event and nearly the entire country accepted the spin Reagan’s administration put on the action. There was no one to contradict the Reagan version because the administration had blacked out the media and they weren’t included in the invasion force. Only history and the facts are left to contradict Reagan’s version.

More than 20 years later, we know some of those facts and we can look at the adaptation the White House gave us with a jaundiced eye. Reagan claimed that the island was under the control of hard-line communists who were cooperating with Cuba to hold and store modern military weapons that would be eventually transferred to dangerous rebels in Central and South America. Reagan claimed there were vast numbers of military personnel on the island and that 800 American students at a medical college there were in great danger.

Let’s start with the last claim first. The President told the American people that the Grenada airport had been closed and that the students couldn’t get out. Indeed and in fact, the airport wasn’t closed. There was no military presence at the airport and customs procedures were being carried on. Airline service to other Caribbean islands had ceased because U.S. officials were putting pressure on those islands to do so – all in preparation for the invasion. Officials at the medical college sent numerous messages to Reagan and to the press that the students were not in danger and no attempt to save them should be attempted. Over 500 parents of students contacted the White House to say their children were safe and they would only be put in danger by U.S. military action.

Nevertheless, the President sent the marines in. They met very little resistance. It turned out there were few Cuban military personnel. Most were construction workers. Unfortunately, 19 Americans died in the invasion and a number of others were injured. Today we know that most of those were as the result of friendly fire or accidents. Only 100 of the students left the island with their saviours. The others saw no reason to go.

Reagan’s spin-meisters went to work, however, and told of the huge warehouses of modern, dangerous military weapons that had been uncovered. Today we know better. A small warehouse, half-filled with outdated and nearly useless military surplus weapons was stormed. Even these absurd weapons were further away from gorilla bases in South America than they would have been in Cuba.

When the military coup that raised Reagan’s hackles had taken place, Cuba and Fidel Castro had condemned it with great strength and stopped both diplomatic and commercial relations with the little nation. There was certainly no growing and dangerous communist relationship there.

Reagan had also claimed that Cuban construction workers were building a military airbase, bomb-resistant fuel tanks, sheltered bays for military aircraft and fortified control towers. In fact, the invasion discovered that it was a British contractor, underwritten and approved by the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was doing the work. Very few Cubans were on the work force. Most were Finns, Canadians and locals. They were not building military facilities, but only modernizing and enlarging the airport.

In reality, Reagan ordered the invasion because of his paranoia about communists. The little nation was certainly no threat to America. Some think the invasion was staged to take attention away from the horrible bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that had killed 241 military personnel. Reagan’s popularity and approval rating suffered as a result of that attack. It rose remarkably again after the invasion of little Grenada.

A more likely theory holds that Grenada was too good an example of the success of a Black Power movement. The rebels in Grenada had claimed to have been inspired by the Black Power movement in America. That may have worried Reagan.

America’s humiliation in Vietnam was still fresh and Reagan had been angered by Richard Nixon’s half-hearted approach to that war. Grenada was an easy victory on which both Reagan and the military could hang its hat.

Never mind that it was a violation of International Law. Democrats did not distinguish themselves at the time of the invasion. Both Walter Mondale and Joseph Liebermann spoke strongly in support of the action. It was a Republican Senator (Lowell Weiker) who raised the biggest stink about the action, pointing out that it was an unconstitutional power that the President was exercising.

Reaction around the world was completely negative. It took a U.S. veto to negate a United Nations Security Council condemnation of the military action. The General Assembly’s vote against the action passed with an overwhelming majority.

Philip Zunes, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco, wrote of the invasion’s aftermath:


“In Grenada during the ensuing months, the mass organizations were dismantled, the labor unions were re-organized, over half of all medical personnel were expelled, investment and tax codes were revised to favor foreign investment, and cooperatives and states enterprises were sold to private interests. Billboards that had inspired the population to work for justice, equality, development, and national sovereignty were quickly replaced by those designed to inspire them to buy American consumer products.

“The quality of life for most islanders deteriorated in the period following the invasion despite infusions of American aid. This was most apparent in the health care field, where not a single pediatrician remained in this country where 60% of the population was under 25, nor was there a single psychiatrist to care for 180 mental patients (Seventeen patients and one staff member were killed when the U.S. bombed the mental hospital during the invasion.)

“The U.S. invasion of Grenada prompted witch-hunts throughout the Caribbean for those with leftist sympathies. Countries that thought they had the right as sovereign nations to receive economic and military assistance from whomever they pleased realized they had to reconsider. The day after the invasion, for example, Suriname closed down the Cuban embassy in its capital and expelled its diplomats.

“Upon taking over the island, most foreign doctors, teachers, and other civilians were summarily arrested and expelled by U.S. officials. Shortly after the invasion, U.S. forces raided and ransacked the Pope Paul Ecumenical Center due its "subversive activities" of aiding the poor. Hundreds of Grenadans were held for months without charge. Some suspects were shackled and blindfolded in violation of Hague convention standards on the treatment of prisoners of war. The island's only radio station was taken over by the U.S. Navy. The right of free assembly was seriously curtailed, the press was censored, and writ of habeus corpus was abolished.

“Over the next several years, U.S. forces loosened their grip and allowed for popular elections. Grenada has joined other small Caribbean islands under the leadership of a conservative and corrupt elite. The current center-right government, for example, has engaged in some major irregularities in awarding contracts for public works projects to foreign investors with criminal ties and has set up offshore banking operations with little oversight. Although Grenada's economy has been expanding, poverty is widespread, and it appears that the country has little choice but to follow the neoliberal orthodoxy dictated by Washington and its allied international financial
institutions.”
This Reagan action and the current war in Iraq are remarkable reminders that Congress must reign in Presidential power and restore the power of Congress to exclusively wage war. You can be guaranteed that such a restoration will never take place under the leadership of John McCain.

Reagan’s “biggest crimes” during his tenure in office, according to William Blum, were his powerful military actions to suppress social and political change in Central America and Afghanistan.


The support Reagan gave to Pol Pot in Cambodia was not much more palatable to most of us than his interference in Central America. Though Pol Pot’s thugs were murderous and dangerous, they weren’t communists. That was Reagan’s rationalization.

Now, let’s tackle the portrait of Ronald Reagan that John McCain will paint during his campaign and see how much of it is fictional.

Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall
This will probably be the major claim that John McCain will make and he will try to equate himself with Reagan. Well, the truth about this claim is “yes” and “no.” Objective historians will need to give Reagan some credit about the cold war claim, but little or no credit when it comes to the end of Soviet control over East Germany and other satellite nations.

The Soviet Union was nearly bankrupt when Ronald Reagan came into office. The situation in Russia and the other nations that made up the great union was terrible. Of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev had flattering things to say, but he wouldn’t go too far. “He was an extraordinary political leader,” Gorbachev told a group of listeners, who “decided to be a peacemaker” at just the right time. “Our interests coincided,” the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party said.

However, Gorbachev brushed aside the idea that Regan won the Cold War?


“That isn’t serious! That isn’t serious! …I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost ten trillion dollars. We only won when the Cold War ended.” The General Secretary knew he was in “an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of capabilities.”
It has to be admitted that Reagan poured money into the arms race at a pace with which the Soviet Union couldn’t possibly keep up. The domestic result of that in America was national debt astronomically higher than we’d ever seen before or ever imagined possible.

The effect and influence of Ronald Reagan’s famous, but fanciful, Star Wars Plan was devastating on the Soviet Union. Was Reagan bluffing? I think so! We were not in good enough financial condition to have implemented such an idea. However, the bluff worked. Gorbachev blinked. He was prepared to talk turkey with the President of the United States.

And, it’s pretty clear now that Reagan was bluffing and that he actually hated nuclear weapons. When he met with Gorbachev, face to face, in Reykjavik in 1986, Reagan shocked the General Secretary by seeing the Soviet ante of a 50 percent cut in strategic arms, and upping him by proposing a total disposal of all nuclear weapons. Declassified minutes from the Soviet Union show that this is factual and that it was an extraordinary historical moment. Reagan was flying solo and his nearby advisors and councilors were shocked. Yet, Reagan didn’t back down. He proposed that the Soviet Union join us in building the Star Wars Defense system to prevent either nation from reviving a nuclear program. In the end the whole idea fizzled out, but Gorbachev was rocked and had discovered Ronald Reagan was not the man he had suspected.

Gorbachev, in 1986, knew already that communism was dead and the Soviet Union was crumbling. It was not Ronald Reagan who was bringing down the great bear, but it was internal economics.

“We were a country with the richest resources on Earth,” Gorbachev said, “and we couldn’t provide toothpaste for our people.”

Though the great Soviet leader didn’t think Reagan had ended the Cold War, he did have great respect for his adversary. He praised Reagan for “restoring America’s self-confidence!” The Watergate scandal and the defeat in Vietnam had America in a depressed mood. “For him,” Gorbachev said of Reagan, “the American dream was not just rhetoric. It was something he felt in his heart. In that sense he was an idealistic American.”

William Blum, in his book, Killing Hope, claims something quite different. He says that Ronald Reagan did not end the cold war, but that he actually prolonged it. His argument is quite convincing. Reagan was certainly NOT responsible for the destruction of the Wall, but the arms race is quite another matter.

Blum shows that it was the failing of the Soviet’s own system of economic and government that did it in. The movement away from Communism is not something that happened suddenly or quickly, but the great empire moved slowly, but steadily, toward a great social change. The slow, steady movement began with the death of Stalin.

Harold Marcuse, a professor of history at the University of California (in Santa Barbara) has strong opinions about whether Ronald Reagan had anything to do with bringing down the Berlin Wall.


“Oh please,… in reality, it was the peoples of eastern Europe, the Poles, Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. whose persistent pressure on their governments forced them into opening toward the west. To suggest that Reagan was the ‘true’ originator of Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika is utterly absurd.”
Reagan’s speech in front of the wall was perfectly timed, but was not motivational in bringing it down. The stage had already been set for that in Eastern Europe.

We must remember it was also Reagan who was given some of the blame for the rise of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was this President who sent Donald Rumsfeld to Hussein to seek his assistance in our problems with Iran. Reagan it was who supplied Hussein with the weapons (Helicopters and chemicals) and funds to fight against the Soviet Union. Reagan also approved of the decision to arm the Mojahedin in Afghanistan. It was this group that eventually became the Taliban.

There is neither time nor space enough here to review all the details of the Irangate Scandal. (Here’s a link if you want to read about this many-faceted and corrupt, illegal action by the Reagan administration.) Against the will of Congress, Reagan used the profits from those deals to supply fund to the anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua. The key element is this entire scandal is that Reagan had promised the American people that he would “never yield to terrorist blackmail.” As a result of this pitiful bit of corruption, two Reagan aides were forced to resign (Donald Regan and John Poindexter). Donald Reagan was only one of the chiefs of staff that the President would lose during his tenure. Michael Deaver, a deputy chief of staff, was also forced to resign and face criminal charges for taking a very apparent bribe from the South Korean government while he served the Reagan administration.

Don’t forget, also, that Reagan had his Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, abruptly resign in June 1982 over the President’s handling of the Falkland Island War involving Britain and Argentina.

[Revision of 13 Feb 2008] A reader sent a column by Fred Kaplan that was published on Slate that argues quite well that the extraordinarily unusual personality combination of Gorbachev and Reagan actually did, together, end the cold war. Click here if you'd like to read it.

Ronald Reagan reigned in Federal Government
This McCain claim will be one of the most absurd. Reagan was deeply committed to weakening federal government. Deregulation was the key word during his administration of our land. Though Ronald Reagan made the feds weaker in terms of their relationship to the states, he actually caused the cost of government to soar. There were 230,00 more civilian government workers when Ronald Reagan left office than when he took the oath.

Even though we were facing a 100 billion dollar deficit, in 1981 Reagan convinced Congress to pass a three-year tax reduction package. He followed this with cuts in domestic spending. Military spending rose at a rate beyond the rate of those cuts. He had increased defense spending by 35 percent, including ludicrously expensive programs like Star Wars (the Strategic Defense Initiative) and the MX missile program. The gap between the rich and poor was widened. The nation moved into a deep recession. This was called Reaganomics.

John McCain is starting to accuse the Bush administration of turning its back on Reaganomics. In fact, George Double-U was a faithful follower of the Reagan system. He cut taxes on the wealthiest of all Americans and, at the same time, increased spending.

Even Reagan’s promise to deregulate government and get it off people’s backs was a bogus one. Jimmy Carter actually set in motion the deregulation of oil and gas, the airline and trucking industries and abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board. They were all timed to phase in during Reagan’s first year and, therefore, he got credit for all of those actions.

Let’s remind John McCain that Reagan went into office promising to eliminate the Department of Education. During Reagan’s years its budget actually doubled. The cost of farm programs also more than doubled. Federal entitlements increased by more than 100 percent. I’m sure a lot of these increases were necessary and good, but candidate McCain ought to be called on his unbridled praise of Caesar.

Let McCain’s memory be refreshed. Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1882. TEFRA was the large increase in taxes in U.S. history. In the same year, Reagan supported higher taxes on gasoline and increased taxes on the trucking industry. In 1983 he raised Social Security taxes by 165 billion dollars and, a year later, he signed his Deficit Reduction Act to raise another 50 billion dollars.

The Republicans will herald the 1986 Tax Reform Act that only shifted 120 billion dollars in taxes over five years from personal income taxes to various, hidden business taxes.Immigration and Ronald ReaganThe Republicans will holler and shout during this campaign, as they have during the primary debates, that Ronald Reagan “would say no way” to amnesty for illegal immigrants. In fact, in 1986, President Reagan signed a law that authorized the most recent act of legal amnesty.

Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator
True, Reagan could give a great speech; however, in analysis, the Reagan’s speeches were little more than grand rhetoric that lacked substance. More than one historian of American politics and many political scientists have pointed to the Reagan era as the one that ushered in a lower standard for intellect in American presidents. Reagan taught people, like George W. Bush, how to use a simple “aw shucks” approach to important decision making.


THE GREAT RONALD REAGAN SIN
Enough with all the questionable praise that John McCain will heap upon Ronald Reagan. Let me deal here with one of the most shameful acts any candidate for the presidency of the United States has ever committed. You need to be reminded that, during the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan campaign in 1980, Iran was holding a sizable number of American hostages. Carter was working on a substantive plan to have them released. Word of this was leaked to Ronald Reagan and one of his campaign managers, Michael Deaver (who, as we mentioned above, would later resign in shame from the administration). Deaver, in later years, would tell the NY Times about it.


“One of the things we had concluded early on was that a Reagan victory would be nearly impossible if the hostages were released before the election… There is no doubt in my mind that the euphoria of a hostage release would have rolled over the land like a tidal wave. Carter would have been a hero, and many of the complaints against him forgotten. He would have won.”
For a candidate to interfere in foreign relations and international negotiations in order to benefit his election prospects is an unheard of sin in American politics. It should be criminal! Nevertheless, according to Barbara Honegger, a researcher and policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan campaign, just such a sin actually was committed.


“William J. Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections. Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.”

So much for not “dealing with terrorists” – a promise Reagan was making during his campaign. He reneged on that promise immediately when he saw that it was the difference in his election or not.

And so much for those 5 or 6 months of the hostages’ lives, as they were forced to remain longer than necessary as prisoners of the Iranian government.

This is a sin for which Ronald Reagan should never be forgiven.

Try to remember some of these things when John McCain gets himself really wound up and begins gushing about the Ronald Reagan legacy and the mantel that he intends to pick up. Save us from that!

In the general election, Reagan easily defeated an ambushed and hand-cuffed President Jimmy Carter by receiving 56 percent of the votes cast – a landslide victory.

END

See the essay by a staunch libertarian: Rothbard, Murray: Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy [LewRockwell.com at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html ]


See: Spartacus School Net { http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm ]


See: Los Angeles Times of 8 February 2008
[ http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kinsley1feb01,1,4679972,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ]

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Save the Caucus in Minnesota


We don’t have enough opportunities to
get involved in local politics as it is.
by Charlie Leck

I’ve attended a lot of caucus meetings. Tuesday night’s was the biggest one I’ve been involved in since 1968, and that one was in the city of Minneapolis at the height of the dispute about the Vietnam War. Most of my precinct caucus experiences have been in crowds of anywhere from two to a dozen people.

Because of the size of the crowds on Tuesday night, and the traffic and parking problems the big turn-out created, there have been calls for a change in Minnesota to a primary vote.

I oppose such a change. The caucus is a political party event. The primary is a state government event. The two are very different and for very different purposes.

Minnesota actually has a primary and voters will have an opportunity to vote for a variety of candidates in September. A choice for President of the United States will not be included on that primary ballot.

About half of the people who attended Tuesday night’s event did not stay for the full caucus meeting. They were only interested in casting their “straw ballot” votes for the Democratic candidate for President. The other half remained and tended to important party business, including the election of delegates to conventions up the line that will endorse party candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate. We also passed a number of important resolutions – one urging the nation to follow the Minnesota method of voting. Our voting is done on paper and then is scanned and counted electronically. Audits are made to insure accuracy and there is always an existent paper trail for recounts and accurate checks. It’s a good system that is virtually tamper-proof and very speedy. Straight computer voting is dangerous and may have contaminated our last two national elections. California has seen how this is so and has put its computerized voting machines in the old storage room.

We passed another resolution urging bonding for the expansion of the Mall of America in order to create much need construction jobs in the state. The estimate is that it would create 7,000 construction level jobs and another 7,000 jobs for other employees of the mall once the project is opened.

The caucus allows neighbors to get to know one another, or renew acquaintances, and learn about what concerns us all. We talk about it and consider if there might be political solutions. We talk about candidates that are on the scene and we deal with matters of party unity.

I’ll be going on to the next level as a delegate to the county and state-senate district convention. There, I’ll have an opportunity to vote for my choice for a candidate to the House of Representatives. Congressional conventions follow that and the competition for seats at those conventions heats up a bit.

For those of you who want to vote in a boring primary, you’ll have that opportunity in September. That’s for folks who want to challenge the choices the two political parties have made.

As I’ve said here before, quoting the late Tip O’Niel: “All politics is local!” If you really want to change America, you must be involved in local politics. The best starting point is at the political party caucus level. Go on line to your party’s web site to find out about when and where they’re held.

Next: The Real Ronald Reagan

Monday, February 4, 2008

Sam Thinks He Can


Sam Stern writes "Sam Thinks He Can!"

Sam thinks Senator Barack Obama can do it!
by Charlie Leck

I tossed and turned in bed last night. It wasn’t the outcome of the Super Bowl that bothered me – I was comfortable with either team winning and I enjoyed every part of the festivities, including the incredible singing of the National Anthem, through half-time, to watching Eli Manning come of age.

No, I tossed and turned because I am going to caucus tomorrow night here in Minnesota. I couldn’t make up my mind about a presidential candidate and it was bothering me. I would lean toward Senator Clinton for a few hours and then toward Senator Obama for a while. For some reason, I feel some sense of loyalty to the Clinton name. I feel that I still don’t know with certainty where Obama stands on a few issues and how strongly he feels about others. The fact is, I don’t want either one of these candidates to not get the nomination!

I awoke in the morning, badly in need of coffee. With strong, hot coffee steaming in a big mug, I turned on my computer and went first, for some reason, to the blog site of a neighbor who lives just up the road. I’m captivated by his web site mostly because of its title: Sam Thinks He Can! It’s a colorful site and it keeps me up to date on a fellow I’m starting to admire quite strongly.

The tumult inside me stopped as I read his fresh, interesting blog. The title of the blog for this particular morning could have been directed to my questions about Senator Obama and his ability to be President. “Sam thinks he can!”

The blog was both emotionally touching and well reasoned. Sam told me to open another tab on my browser and go to an INCREDIBLE video production; and then come back and listen to his reasoning. I did exactly as he instructed me and went to DIPDIVE and watched this cool, inspiring and artful presentation about Senator Obama. Do not miss this! Make sure you watch it, just for the joy of seeing such an outstanding production. What fun! I’ve watched it three times already this morning and I’ll watch it a few times more.

I’m going to caucus tomorrow night for Senator Barack Obama. Also, I’ll pull my check book out today. This is the correct choice, even though it’s made in quite an emotional state of mind.

I am remembering how desperately I wanted Bobby Kennedy to be elected in 1968. I hadn’t been old enough to vote in the election that sent John Kennedy to the White House. I wasn’t very pleased to vote for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. However, then, in 1968, I was ready to vote with enthusiasm and excitement and I was caught up in the joyfulness that had captured huge numbers of the nation’s young. There wasn’t going to be any stopping Bobby Kennedy – until that awful night in June, in a hotel in Las Angeles.

Now I see the joy and excitement of America’s young people as they rally around Senator Obama. The young people! America’s future! The kids to whom we are passing the huge financial, environmental and diplomatic problems we created for them!

This is the time for the young and vigorous and hopeful. They have a dream, by God, and their dream might come true. I’m an old guy, but I’m with them on this one. If Senator Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, it will be the most joyful, celebratory inauguration in the nation’s history.

I will have climbed to where Martin Luther King, climbed – to the mountain top – and I will have seen over to the other side. I will have seen what is possible. I will have seen how great we can be as a nation! I will have seen a great turning – an immense change!

A terribly important paragraph in Sam’s blog struck me right between the eyes and stuck there. It is what finally pushed me over the edge and helped me make up my mind. It’s no fault of Senator Clinton’s, but it is true and it is sad.

“The type of experience Senator Clinton brings to the table also brings baggage. While I firmly believe Senator Clinton can hold her own in responding to the right wing conspiracy she identified more than 10 years ago, I’ve started asking myself whether it’s the best use of our chief executive’s time to have deal day in and day out with orchestrated character assassination.” [Sam Thinks He Can]
I hope, by now, you’ve watched the DIPDIVE video. Drop me a note or add a comment here and let me know what you thought of it. I thought it was absolutely wonderful!


Next: The Real Ronald Reagan

Friday, February 1, 2008

Minnesota Needs Al Franken


Franken is in the style of Paul Wellstone
by Charlie Leck

The pain and grieving was deep when Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife, Sheila, died in that awful plane crash. Wellstone would have been reelected and would have gone on to serve Minnesota with great distinction and compassion. Minnesota has missed him. Norm Coleman has served our state poorly during his tenure in Washington. It is important to make this the final year of Coleman’s reign. As George W. Bush’s buddy, he’s gotta go!

Who in his place? The party is very fortunate right now. The announced candidates for the DFL endorsement are exceptional people. Any one of them would serve Minnesota well; nevertheless, I’ve decided to get on Al Franken’s side and I’ll caucus for him on Tuesday night. In addition, I went to his web site and made a financial contribution today. Here’s why!

First, let me say that I’m impressed with Mike Ceresi’s candidacy. I’m not going to slit my wrists if he wins. He’s very good – bright, articulate, logical, organized and progressive. So, why Al Franken instead.

I wrote to a friend and gave him all the reasons that I’ll outline below. He wrote back and added the most important reason of all, so I really need to start with that.

“He’s someone willing to speak out without regard to political pressure. Franken will follow in the path of other great Minnesota Senators like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone who were willing to challenge conventional wisdom when it meant doing the right thing.”
Responding to my blog about how the caucus works in Minnesota, Jim Miller, from Hawaii, commented that I ought to support Ceresi.

“My advice would be to go with Mike, although I have nothing against Al Franken. When I ran for the legislature 25 years ago his mom supported me, and I've always enjoyed his books and radio work. Ciresi brings decades of success in law and business. As one of the nation's most successful lawyers, he has fought many of the same interests that need to be beaten back again.

'Mike may not be as flashy as Al, but If I needed someone representing me it wouldn't be a tough choice.

"Sorry to hear about the weather back there. Our kids are suffering in White Bear Lake and St. Paul. It's 75 and sunny here.

"Jim Miller (formerly of Hopkins, now a resident of Honolulu, but still interested in Minnesota politics.)”
I appreciate the advice, Jim, but I’ve thought this through and I think Al Franken is the man for Minnesota.

You know, I’ll start off weakly, but maybe it will make sense to some of you: How ‘bout no more lawyers in Congress? Ceresi is a great trial attorney – one of the very best. I just get tired of all the men and women in legislative bodies coming out of law studies. We need a different perspective. Listen, Franken is bright (Harvard) and he’s articulate (he had great ratings on his national radio show). Franken knows how to probe and get to the meat of an issue (he was spectacular as an interviewer and he had great guests and he asked the right, bright questions).

Franken is also successful – maybe not in the huge financial sense that Ceresi is (tobacco settlements), but he’s done okay. He had a long and successful career on Saturday Night Live and he’s authored several excellent books – a couple of which have been major best-sellers.

Franken is compassionate and patriotic. He has a passionate love for his country. He wants it to fulfill its dream. He wants it to return to its constitution. He loves people and cares deeply that some of us are left out of the system. He cares that some people can’t get health care insurance coverage. He cares that Minnesota is no longer top dog in education in America. He cares that the middle class has been kicked in the butt.

You know what? I’ve struggled with the loss of Paul Wellstone. Oh, my goodness, has it been six years already? Wellstone was an original. Progressives could not have been prouder of anyone than they were of Paul Wellstone. Al Franken is cut from the same cloth.

Minnesota needs Al Franken. Get aboard! Caucus for Franken on Tuesday night. Caucus for Paul Wellstone! Caucus for Minnesota!