Steven Bavaria's  Instablog

GOP Needs To Move "Crazy Brother" Out Of The House

In a famous scene in the movie "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels," Michael Caine's character, a Don Juan who preys on rich women visiting the French Riviera, has the tables turned on him when one of his victims announces she's taking him home to a shotgun wedding in Oklahoma. He escapes with the help of Steve Martin, who pretends to be Caine's lunatic brother Rupprecht, whose constant drooling is merely one of his nicer personal habits. When Caine's character insists that Rupprecht will be coming along to live with the happy couple, that quickly scotches the deal.

This scene, unfortunately, describes how the Republican Party is perceived by millions of Americans, who view it like the neighbor up the street that nobody wants to visit because of the crazy relative who lives with them.

Many Americans would welcome a party that embraced serious fiscal responsibility and a smaller overall government footprint. A Republican party that made those issues the centerpiece of its message would generate huge support and have a real shot at winning an electoral majority. But millions of voters who would support a serious campaign based on those issues, are put off and even frightened by what they see as the GOP's lunatic fringe approach to a whole host of socioeconomic issues:

• Their seeming indifference and even hostility to the desire of millions of women to control decisions about their own health
• An opposition to basic science in areas like evolution and climate change, and apparent willingness to incorporate religious mythology into school curricula
• The desire to re-write American history to make Christianity an "essential" aspect of our constitutional framework
• A convoluted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that envisions no limit on the personal right to arm one-self (bazookas, rocket launchers, assault rifles, tanks on your front lawn?), and apparently gives society as a whole no right to protect itself by putting reasonable restrictions on arms-toting individuals
• Simplistic, demagogic proposals on immigration reform (Send 'em all home, even if they have no home to go to)

As long as the GOP puts these issues at the forefront of its platform, or makes them litmus tests to judge the "purity" of its candidates, it will continue to turn off voters who would otherwise find its fiscal and economic message attractive.

They should also drop the rhetoric about rich Americans - as a class - being "job creators" who earned their wealth Horatio Alger style by the sweat of their brow. We've seen enough self-dealing in America's boardrooms, and hundreds of M&A deals that had no economic rationale whatsoever other than to generate fees for the CEOs and their Wall Street enablers, to know that much of the real "socialism" in America involves protecting the compensation of the elite from real market forces. For every "one percenter" who built their financial wealth creating a business with their own hands, mind and entrepreneurialism, there are dozens of others who got theirs by manipulating companies that were owned and built by someone else. The shenanigans in CEO suites and on Wall Street revealed after the financial crash have made that readily apparent. So basing a tax policy on protecting this group as though they represented the engine of economic growth in America is unrealistic, if not laughable.

These conclusions are obvious to many Americans, but will require some serious and painful self-analysis by the GOP leadership, whoever that is. But a GOP espousing reasonable fiscal and economic policies, without the extreme and/or downright goofy positions on other issues, would be a welcome ballot box alternative.

(Published in Lilipoh Magazine, Spring 2011)

Social historians and anthropologists estimate that the average "hunter/gatherer" living 20,000 years ago, before the dawn of "civilization," worked about 20 hours a week. Of course "work" was not sitting in cubicles or conference rooms, but consisted of hunting, fishing, hiking and gathering berries, activities that today we might consider "recreation" and struggle to fit into our busy weekends and vacations.

So how is it that after 20,000 years of so-called progress we have gone from 20 hours a week of low-stress hunting and fishing to 50-60 hours and more of high-stress computers, cubicles and commuting - the "three C's" of our post-Dilbert economy? Further adding urgency to this question is the sneaking suspicion that plagues many Americans - even so-called "successful ones" as measured by the size of their paychecks - that much of what they do on their computers, or at their staff meetings, or during their video-conferences and sales calls, has little tangible value or lasting meaning. So where is the big payoff, to individuals or society as a whole, for tripling our workweek and replacing low-stress activities with high stress ones?

Farms to factories, via the classroom

Although much of what brought us from 20,000 years ago to the present may have been the random flow of physical and social evolution, the shaping of modern "homo economicus" has been heavily influenced by our educational system. In fact, recent historians of public education in the United States have introduced a somewhat more cynical view of the motives of early American educational reformers than that traditionally understood. They point out the not-so-hidden agenda of some of those who established broad public education toward the end of the 19th century was to essentially "mass-produce" factory workers who could, in turn, mass-produce products on newly-conceived assembly lines.

It wasn't that children, many of whom lived on farms, were previously uneducated by the standards of their day - let alone by our "modern" standards - given that their initial reading generally included the Bible, and novels by James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne and other writers we would today consider literary giants. But what was suspect - at least to the powers that be at the time - was the inconsistency of their education. They were all learning different things, in different ways, and, more importantly, they weren't being "socialized" in any predictable manner. They certainly weren't all getting up at the same time, arriving at the same location, or starting and ending their work when a bell rang. So the modern school, and school schedule, was born. Bells signaled the beginning and end of classes, as well as allotted lunch breaks and recess periods. Curricula were standardized so that students across cities, counties and states were more likely to learn the same subjects, at the same time, in the same order and in the same academic year, thus increasing the likelihood that graduates would have similar conditioning and would end up with similar knowledge bases and skill sets. This was the perfect workforce preparation for the factory jobs that sprouted up across the country as America industrialized throughout the early part of the 20th century. School bells were traded for factory whistles. As workplaces became more institutionalized, so did schools, with the result being large factory-like educational warehouses in cities across the nation, turning out standardized graduates ready to take their place on the assembly line, literally and figuratively.

Sweatshops to cubicles

Now fast-forward 100 years to the beginning of the 21st century. Traditional factory jobs have largely disappeared, the "factory" has become the workstation, and the computer, the Blackberry and the cell phone have largely replaced the lathe, the rivet and the drill bit. "Work" for many Americans, especially those sometimes described as "knowledge workers," consists of sitting at computers, communicating via email and other electronic means, and using the Internet as well as all sorts of program applications to do research and analysis, make presentations, trade financial instruments, and deliver services to clients. But work doesn't end when they leave the office. More and more jobs - not just those you would expect, like heart surgeons, midwives, plumbers and firefighters, but routine office and administrative positions - carry an expectation that employees will be "on call" virtually 24/7, as evidenced by the number of people who carry around Blackberry or electronic email/texting devices and check them constantly throughout the evening and on weekends.

But even when people are not working - in their office cubicles or via email, lap-tops, cell phones and other gadgets at their homes or local Starbucks - their so-called fun and recreation increasingly resemble what they do at work. People use the same gadgets they work with - computers, cell phones and similar screen-based applications, like video games or even old-fashioned television (albeit now connected to 500-plus cable or dish-supplied channels) - as their sources of amusement and entertainment. I am sure we have all witnessed groups of people - adults and adolescents - at social occasions where everyone is sitting around staring at (or listening to) their cell phone, Blackberry or equivalent, texting, e-mailing, playing games and/or web-surfing. Then when they do look up and engage each other in conversation, the topic is usually something on one of their screens, or the hardware and software itself (i.e. comparing the relative attributes of their gadgets and applications and discussing what they plan to upgrade to the next time around.)

From a macro perspective, we have created an economic system where (1) workers learn to use various electronic tools, programs and applications to do their jobs and make and deliver products and services; then (2) when they leave work they go out and play with the same or similar electronic tools, products and applications as their primary source of recreation and amusement; and (3) they become so hooked on the electronic tools and the programs and applications the tools deliver, that they spend a major portion of their incomes purchasing new tools, programs and applications (many of which they themselves, as part of their own jobs, participated in designing, developing, producing, marketing and/or selling.) So as consumers, they are creating the demand for the stuff that, as workers, they are producing. The perfect circular system; or as the early economists called it, the "Invisible Hand" at work.

Note that the shift to electronic-based amusement and entertainment has replaced what previously involved person-to-person relationships (conversation, playing cards and other games, more active sports and recreation) with person-to-gadget relationships. This has both social and economic implications. Socially it simply means there is less human inter-action taking place, within families and communities of all types, with all that implies for the development of our culture and civilization. Economically it means we are replacing cheaper recreation (conversation and most games and sports don't cost money each time you do them) with more expensive forms of amusement (Cell phones, I-phones and I-pads don't come cheap, and there are often user and access fees involved in the various applications.) So the more that consumers are switched over from "natural" low-cost amusements (talking, playing games, inter-acting with each other), to inter-acting with and through electronic gadgets and program applications, the greater will be (1) the economic demand for such products, and (2) the incentive to work harder to earn money to buy them.

So it is easy to see how corporate America, including its manufacturing arms - China and other low-cost producing countries - has a vested interest in replacing "natural" (and inexpensive) person-to-person interaction as our main source of entertainment, amusement and recreation, with more expensive and artificial electronic and/or screen-based media. Our government even subsidizes the process by giving computer manufacturers tax write-offs for "donating" computer equipment to schools to help feed and nurture our kids' electronic addictions.

21st Century education: "Wiring" our kids

Many of us may believe - from experience - that our kids have a natural affinity for figuring out how to make remote controls and other electronic gizmos work on the first try, without ever reading instructions, etc. While that may be, it does not mean they are automatically addicted to the use of such things. For that they must be trained, and our educational system has stepped right up to the task.

If the goal of the early 20th century school system was to mass-produce standardized, pre-fabricated factory workers, let us review what the equivalent goal of our 21st century school system would be. Our economy, as currently configured, requires a workforce that will compliantly (1) sit in cubicles and work on computers all day, (2) continue to check in via cell phone, home computer and Blackberry during its "free" time, and (3) so highly value the experience that it will organize its recreation and purchasing around similar activities, hardware and software.

Children, left to their own devices to develop in nature, will not - on their own - choose to sit in front of computers and play with Blackberry's and cell phones in lieu of chasing butterflies, making mud pies and playing hide-and-go-seek. To induce them to do so, computers should be introduced at an early age, made interactive, colorful, interesting. Since little children like to imitate their parents, letting the kids see parents and teachers use computers and then suggest they could have one to play with "just like Mommy's or Daddy's" would be helpful. Getting them used to screen-based entertainment, like television, cartoons and videos, at as early an age as possible, would also further the process. Then, once they are familiar with computers, televisions and other big-screen amusements, you would want to introduce them to cell phones and other hand-held gadgets, both as communication tools and for playing games. The more sounds, bells and whistles the better, since multi-images are more addictive than single images, and get children even more excited.

Parents and teachers will know that schools are doing their job of socializing their kids onto the right path to fit our economic paradigm, if they see the following signs emerge by the early teenage years:

· The kids automatically turn on their cell phones, computers or televisions upon waking up or returning home
· They never go anywhere without a cell phone or handheld device
· They never go more than a few minutes without checking it for text and voice messages, even at movies and other entertainment venues
· During the time they are not checking it for messages they are using it as an entertainment device for music and/or games (often both at once)
· When kids get together with other friends, they are more likely to sit around together and play with their handheld devices or play video games than to have conversations or play other, non-electronic games
· When they do engage in conversation, it is often to discuss their electronic gadgets or applications

Gerbils, mount your wheels!

Top-notch prep schools and public schools in affluent areas all brag about how much individual computer time they expose their young students to and how quickly they will bring them up the technology curve. They obviously want their kids to be primed and ready to step from the playground directly into that cubicle in a Wall Street skyscraper. What better way to prepare adults who will aspire to lives focused on computer screens, quick decisions and high energy lives than to start them out that way in pre-school and build on it for the next 16 years.

But I doubt that every parent necessarily wants his or her kids so obviously prepped for a life right out of Dilbert, especially one that starts at such a young age. Many experts believe that premature exposure to computers and screen-based learning seems more likely to lead to ADHD and "imagination burn-out" than to any longer-term cognitive or emotional advantages. Why take young kids who could be learning from real experiences - touching, feeling, painting, drawing, observing - in three dimensions and replace that with virtual experiences in one or two dimensions?

Our leadership elite - as parents and policy makers - have been lulled into believing that wiring our kids at earlier and earlier ages is somehow good for the kids and for the country. We need to shock them into seeing this brainwashing for what it is. I look forward to the day when parents will be outraged rather than impressed when schools tell them they want to expose their children to computers and other tools that limit young imaginations rather than fostering them. Our kids will have more than enough time to become bored and jaded by the "real world" of corporate America. Why expose them to it any earlier than necessary?

Disclosure: No positions

Most people in the Special Education community, as well as supporters of public schools generally, do not fully appreciate what a close call New York's public schools just had, or how devastating an impact the so-called "Special Education Placement Bill" will have if it finally passes and becomes law. (See article below.) Besides perverting the traditional definition of "Special Needs" to serve the needs of special interest groups, it will also bankrupt public schools across New York, leaving little money left in school budgets for kids with REAL special needs or for mainstream public school programs as well.

The wolf is at the door in terms of this bill being re-filed and voted in with a majority that over-rides the governor's veto. I hope you will let your friends, neighbors and colleagues know how dangerous this bill is, and encourage your elected representatives to oppose it.

New York Public Schools Dodge a Bullet...Actually a Bazooka!

The most important bill most people never heard of was vetoed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo last month. The bill, innocuously titled the "Special Education Placement Bill," would have altered dramatically the traditional definition of "special needs" in determining which children can have their local public school boards pay their private school tuitions. It would have siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars in public school funds to pay for the private - typically religious - education of tens of thousands of newly minted "special needs" kids. It also would have created a "back door" school voucher system for any parent or group with a good lawyer.

It is difficult to under-estimate how financially devastating this bill would be for New York's public schools, and yet many of the groups one would expect to be public school defenders were "asleep at the switch" as the bill's supporters - highly-organized ultra-Orthodox and parochial school parent groups - pushed it through the legislature. Opponents were able to round up an eleventh hour veto from Governor Cuomo, but the bill's supporters plan to file it again, and this time they expect to have a veto-proof majority. Opponents feel their only hope is to galvanize public school supporters who may not appreciate how much this represents a bullet to the heart of traditional public education.

"Special needs" has traditionally been defined as a medical, mental, physical or psychological condition, like autism, Down's syndrome, blindness, cystic fibrosis, dyslexia, etc. The Special Education Placement Bill would have expanded that definition to include "home life and family background," a code for, among other things, religion and ethnicity. Under the terms of this bill, children who were completely "normal" under traditional special needs definitions, but who had been cloistered by their parents in terms of their social interaction - allowed to mingle only with their own religious, ethnic or cultural group, played and socialized exclusively with kids who dressed a certain way, ate a specific diet or attended a particular church, synagogue or mosque - would all be able to claim they were not "comfortable" in a secular public school setting and that public funds should pay for their private religious school or other unique educational environment.

The immediate beneficiaries of this law will be families of children at religious schools. But once public school money starts flowing to children for "home and family background" reasons unconnected with any clinically based need, there will be no limit to the imaginative arguments parents and their lawyers will come up with. Maybe their children have special aptitudes in art, music, drama or sports; or have always attended upper-class private schools and are only comfortable with other rich kids. Why will their claim to have the public pay for them to attend Andover or Exeter be any less valid than the claim of children who want public money to pay for their yeshiva or parochial school? Between 1st Amendment claims over public funding of private religious schools, and 14th Amendment equal protection claims over one family's "home life and family background" needs versus another family's, it is certain that this will make a lot of lawyers rich, while impoverishing local school boards.

Killing public schools by bleeding them to death financially and allocating their funding to special interest groups without even a public discussion about it, is not the way to address the very real issues facing public education in our country. Supporters of public schools, including traditional Special Education programs, as well as those who like to see democracy practiced in the sunlight rather than in dark rooms, had better come forward and make their voices heard.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.