"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: corporate ownership

Though it’s the date we celebrate each 4th of July, it is the direction that the signing of our Declaration pointed us in that needs to be acknowledged each year and fulfilling the aspirations that great but less than perfect men had designs for which remains a work in progress still today.

 

I’m particularly fond of the 4th of July holiday because it is one of the major holidays whose significance is not associated with the church.  That institution, while giving us some of the better virtues we admire, none-the-less gave us the Crusades and the Inquisition while also spawning such infamous social responses to perceived evil like the Salem Witch Hunts and the rise of the KKK to stymie and prevent efforts at racial integration.  But Independence Day is tainted with its dark side too.

Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and all the men who affixed their names to that document declared in it the high principles about how “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”.   Yet all of the signatories were white males and most of them owned slaves.  Those who didn’t were of the common opinion of that time that blacks were inferior to the white race and that women were unqualified to serve in politics.  The woman’s domain was the home and their role was to be in obeisance to their husbands.  Equality was not intended to reach these populations back in our infancy as a nation.

This aspect of our history was omitted in history books as I grew up and I’m sure the Texas Board of Education will ensure that this continues today for many school children.   But I don’t raise this issue to put a downer on everyone’s celebratory mood by pointing out that the people who put the concepts of freedom out there for the world to emulate and fight for were far from perfect.  On the contrary.  The fact that they were, and still had such high ideas, shows that they were perceptive enough at least to open the door to a view of liberty that most sovereign national leaders were unwilling to submit to their subjects at the time.

There’s a sense among those who identify with the Tea Party today that somehow we have lost who we were after gaining our independence from the English royalty and feel an urgent need to regain it.  From what I can tell, they seem to be oblivious of the fact that only wealthy, white male property owners were the primary benefactors of what they wrought after deposing British rule and the freedoms that were eventually gained for the working class, blacks and women had to be dragged out of this elite group over the next 200 years through battles in American courts, streets and the battlegrounds of the Civil War.

Though Martin Luther King was notable for his fight for Black Civil Rights, he fought equally for women’s and workers rights that were blocked by powerful special interests in government and Corporate America

 

The “take America back” crowd seems more inclined to “give America back” to the corporate wealth that dominated American culture  during the Gilded Age of the 19th century.  The rich are seen by those who hold libertarian views as exceptional and should be allowed to promote business, unfettered from government oversight.  Justice for their transgressions should be viewed differently or even set aside so they cannot be inhibited from encouraging wealth and economic growth.  The poor and middle income working class on the other hand are expected to deal with the negative impacts of corporate malfeasance that causes them to lose their jobs, homes and retirement savings. Industrial pollution to air and water supplies is allowed at what are deemed “tolerable” levels as long as jobs don’t suffer, while health care costs for lung diseases and cancers resulting from such contamination continue to escalate and corporate profits take more out of each premium dollar we pay for insurance.

There really isn’t all that much we need celebrate about the 4th of July, 1776 other than our predecessors took that first step to insure the quality of life they addressed in the Declaration.  What’s more important to celebrate on this special day is the gains we have made since then over the last 236 years to ensure that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has been achieved by a wider variety of people than originally conceived and that we still have inroads to make with other disenfranchised groups, especially gays and Muslims.

 

Contrary to the views of the Tea Party supporters and those Supreme Court justices that adhere to a specious interpretation of our Constitution known as “original intent”, there is sufficient evidence that many of those imperfect men who laid out the original outline that our laws were founded on understood that human social dynamics would change conditions and some adaptations to the Constitution would be necessary.  To subjugate the visionaries of early America to a level that holds back progress and change by insisting that unless they declared it as such in their time, future generations had no right to adapt the law to their needs going forward.  Men like Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton would be insulted today I suspect.

Today we no longer have to worry about other nations threatening our freedom for we have become the most formidable power on earth.  Yet there are those who would threaten what the founding fathers envisioned and reduce the republican form of government they crafted in Philadelphia back in 1787 to that of a plutocracy.  The power of corporations has grown to a level today that people like Jefferson, Adams and Lincoln feared would destroy this great experiment in justice and liberty.

Corporate ownership of government threatens the public domain that we all pay for and share equally.

 

On the surface we are made to feel that we’re still the captains of our own fate but underneath is a system by which the rules of the game favor the wealthiest amongst us and not in a fashion that encourages all people to aspire to.  Freedom today is more about consumer choices that marketing experts have influenced.  Real freedom to participate in the competition of markets is cut off to millions who have not inherited wealth or power to afford the education or health care needed to be productive in society.

Can “free markets” really be free when it’s the accepted view that “too many chefs spoil the broth”?  There’s not enough room in the kitchen for everyone. There have to be worker bees to make the goods and services available to the public but over time their livable wages must be reduced to a sustenance level in order to make cheaper goods available to more people while profits remain stable or rise for the “chefs” in the kitchen.

Those who find themselves unable to break through the social and economic barriers that exist by virtue of predominant social and financial forces constantly fear freedom is becoming more elusive to them.  That factor becomes evident in the view held by some Americans who pine about an America that not only no longer exists, but should never exist again.  The one where only the elite gentry had the advantages over everyone else and excludes you today if you tend to fit any other image that doesn’t put laissez-faire self interests above all else.

So celebrate this national holiday in the spirit it was intended but do so in light of the fact that freedom is not and never will be a given.  Understand that there are those who disguise themselves as patriots but who really only want a world where only their values have sway over everyone else and who want to acquire vast sums of wealth with little regard for how it affects the community of man they are a part of.


It may appear to the casual observer that many in conservatism are opposed to public education.  That may only be half true.  A closer look seems to reveal that even those who attack “secular, liberal” academia really want a system that promotes corporate special interests


 

 

Following Romney’s recent sweep in the Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C. primary elections, it seems that Rick Santorum’s opportunity to win the GOP nomination for President is rapidly evaporating.  But the former Pennsylvania Senator’s candidacy will not go unnoticed for the scar it has left on some of the right’s view about a college education in this country.

To most people the real ill affects of a college education today is the huge debt students are left with for most of their life and the uncertainty we once held that higher education is a sure easy path to high salary jobs.  But to the convoluted thinking of people like Rick Santorum, a college education is something to be avoided, supposedly because it separates a child from their conservative roots, including their religious bearings.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Wednesday that “the left” uses universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of “holding and maintaining power.”

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college,” said the former Pennsylvania senator. “The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination.  …  Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.”

Santorum went on to encourage his audience not to “give money” to colleges and universities that he said are causing harm to the country.   SOURCE

A Factcheck.org report has shot down the notion that most kids lose their faith commitment after leaving college.  In fact, it found just the opposite.

Those not attending college were more likely to stop going to religious services and to report they no longer had a religious affiliation than their college-going cohorts, according to data cited in a 2007 report published by the Social Science Research Council and unearthed by PBS.   SOURCE  

Santorum is himself a product of higher education.  His bio on Wikipedia says that he attended Penn State University.  Penn State is by no means a liberal college nor is it a conservative christian school.  To listen to Santorum though you would have thought he somehow lost his faith commitment there but you wouldn’t be able to tell from his espoused views today.

So what’s really going on with Rick and other right-wing extremists that attack any higher education that doesn’t replicate the mission statements of Bob Jones, Oral Roberts or Falwell’s Liberty Universities?  Is it, as Santorum implies, a deep abiding orthodox view of his faith.  One that prompts him to assault some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the world.  Could it be a political slight of hand to garner the religious vote, or a little bit of both?  Could Santorum also be an unperceptive proxy for some to keep “the masses” just smart enough to support legislation that works against most people’s own self interests, allowing the reins of political and financial control to remain firmly in the hands of a select few?

 

Control Through Fear

My 3rd grade teacher at St. Cecilia’s elementary grade school in the sector south of Dallas called Oak Cliff, was Sister Mary Florence.  Normally I would not recall a teacher’s name this far back unless there was some event imbedded in my mind that kept it there.  There was such an event.

During catechism classes one day, Sister Florence was describing in great detail, the punishment of hell for those who died with sin-stained souls.  Such a concept was, to say the least, terrifying for us at our young age.  And though it would be years later before I began to question the dogma of the church and some of the more unlikely elements of the faith, I found myself asking a question of Sister Florence that day which showed signs of this future trait, along with how rigid fundamentalists protect their turf from critical thinking that challenges dubious and arcane views.

Allowed to ask questions on the subject if we raised our hands, I proceeded to question whether the notion that such a fiery death was a reality.  Hoping, as only a child my age would, that God may have other ways to punish “sinners”, I simply asked, “what if there were no hell Sister?”  Before I could get the second half of my question off of the tip of my tongue – “how then might God makes us pay for our sins?” – Sister Florence had grabbed the yard stick from the chalk board behind her and with eyes fiercely glaring at me walked briskly down the aisle to my seat.

She commanded me to put my hands out, “palms up” and then gave them several healthy raps with the wooden ruler.  I still recall the redness and the sting to this day.  When she had finished her punitive act she put her face within about six inches of mine and said “Don’t ever think there isn’t a hell or you may well wound up there.”

Years later, in a related matter, as a married, adult member of an evangelical Methodist church (yes, Sister Florence, I left your precious Catholic Church) I was sitting in a bible study class.  I don’t recall the exact topic but I do remember the man leading the instruction that day.  He was a gentle, kindly person with deep convictions about the religious orthodoxy of christianity.  Many questions about the how we come to believe what we do within our faith system had been filling my head in the months leading up to that point.

I wish I could recall what exactly was said by the bible study leader to spark the question.  All I seem to remember is that it had a bearing on what he felt we “know” and what I saw more of as what we “believe”.  I also remember presenting myself as a “devil’s advocate” and then said something along the lines of “we might want to remember that we truly don’t know anything that can be ‘proven’.  It is our strong belief in our faith that gives us a personal sense of knowing that we have a relationship with God, Jesus, etc.”  The purpose of this comment was to remind everyone, including myself, that our religious doctrines are not absolutes that should go unchallenged in our search for spiritual “truth”.

He was taken aback by this question but avoided responding to it, until in the next Sunday’s bible study class.  He began the session by declaring that as christians we are obligated to affirm that we “know” that Jesus Christ was real and is our personal savior and that without affirming this we are a mockery to our faith.  Our study of the faith, he said, was to be based on this “knowledge” and should not be challenged.  He gave me a glance when he said this and I knew this had been intended for me.

In both these experiences I learned that challenging traditionally accepted views was not only frowned on but was deemed worthy of punishment or subject to being ostracized.  Critical thinking towards traditional relIgious precepts has always been considered heretical by the Church for reasons that have more to do with the leadership retaining their authority over their “sheep” than it does with living a sinful nature.

 

Diversity Threatens Our Comfort Zones

Religious liberty ... but only for the right kind of christians?

So what is it about Santorum that predisposes him to view higher education as an evil that robs our children of what he feels are their basic conservative roots.  It could well be something much like I myself  experienced when I first went to college and had my southern conservative views not equally shared by people outside my comfort zone.  Most young adults experience a culture shock when they attend a university where diverse views are freely and openly expressed, something not commonly experienced on one’s home turf.

Local politics dictate the subject matter in most home school districts, and prior to that, social values are often firmly entrenched by the family.  The limited view one has of the world is quickly broadened once they enter an institution that not only has a faculty brought in from around the country but from around the world as well.  It is this broader perception and scope that colleges originally served which many parents sought for their children who had been brought up in the rural confines of early America.

But in earlier times the population was not as ethnically and religiously diverse as it is today so “straying from their roots” was pretty much an unknown concept at that time.  America though, like the rest of the Western world, has changed and with that change the white, anglo-saxon protestestant view of things no longer carries the weight it once did.  In order to serve a widening cultural diversity and view life in more contemporary terms, colleges became truly universal in their scope over the more parochial views held in the 18th and 19 centuries.

There are of course those christian colleges that instill christian fundamentals within their students.  Many have prayer calls during the day and bible study is required.  But if christian parents and local churches have done their job properly, a child’s “faith conviction” is apt to survive their experiences at non-religious institutions of higher learning.  The report from Factcheck.org seems to indicate this.

For those kids whom Santorum claims fall away from their religious moorings after attending a secular university, the problem may not lie with what they learn outside their tight knit social structure at home.  It may in fact be symptomatic of those kids whose religious teachings were so extreme as to lack substantial credibility and failed to stand up to close scrutiny by more astute skeptics.  Such “falling away” could also be a reflection of how poorly a child’s mentors back home were seen walking the walk they preached to youthful ears.

 

Control Through Educational Curriculum and Costs

Whatever the reason, it is clear that Santorum is less concerned about what kind of message he sends to those who hear him deride higher education, than he does about appealing to that emotional aspect of politics that continues to divide this nation.  Of all the equalizers we have as a society, eduction should be esteemed rather than berated.  To narrow the focus of education along strict religious concerns hurts us as a country that already ranks far below other industrial nations.   

Santorum’s remarks can be seen as an attempt to assimilate his evangelical views more into the law of the land, but they may also serve a need to insure that today’s youth are exposed to only “the right kind of education”.  That is to say, that type of education which enables what Adam Smith referred to as the “vile maxim”, promoted by powerful wealthy interests.  Santorum’s words are familiar to those who have studied the evolution of public education in America.

“Mass public education is one of the great achievements of American society. It has had many dimensions. One purpose was to prepare independent farmers for life as wage laborers who would tolerate what they regarded as virtual slavery.

The coercive element did not pass without notice. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that political leaders call for popular education because they fear that “This country is filling up with thousands and millions of voters, and you must educate them to keep them from our throats.” But educated the right way: Limit their perspectives and understanding, discourage free and independent thought, and train them for obedience.”   SOURCE

Santorum’s message then, on the surface, appeals to fundamentalist christians, but could equally serve those goals of people like the Koch Brothers, members of the Carlyle Group and many of those who run the nation’s most powerful corporations who control the legislation coming out of our state governments through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

 

Education That Serves the Special Interests of a Few

Colleges and Universities are no longer seen primarily as centers of learning but as a business who serves the profit motive.  Less regard is being given to the quality of education and more to the business model that aims to see higher returns on their investment.   The serious cuts to education at all levels does nothing to inhibit the wealthiest from continuing their education, while putting a financial strain on middle and lower income families.  “Tuition increases trap students into long-term debt and hence subordination to private power”  notes linguist, philosopher and political activist, Noam Chomsky.

Where education becomes less accessible to the children of all family income levels there is a grave possibility that any industrial nation may devolve into the feudal systems of the middle ages; where most act out there life as indentured servants to a wealthy gentry.  By calling for people to withhold their financial support for colleges that don’t meet his seal of approval, Rick Santorum aids and abets that effort that reduces our democracy to an oligarchy that he seems to answer to.

Which shall rule—wealth or man; which shall lead—money or intellect; who shall fill public stations—educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital….   - Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Justice, Edward G. Ryan, 1873



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers