Go to College, Go Directly to College...

http://www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com/ - Click on the link to go directly to my page to comment. Thank you! - Shawn


This post is dedicated to my good friend, Monserrat Bran and to her Ethnic Studies class, who inspired me to talk about the plight of the educated.
____________________________________________________
 
So, you want a college education, huh?  Excellent!  That desire for higher knowledge will enslave you.  There is nothing big banks appreciate more than young people and their parents stuck between a rock and a hard place.   
 
Student loans are criminal, period.  There is no sugar-coating it, and there certainly is no disputing it.  College tuition and other related costs are even outpacing rising costs in health care.  Student debt has risen a whopping forty-four percent in the last four years (huffingtonpost.com)!  This debt is creating a new group of educated drones that will slave away for Corporate America, never one day working for themselves or their families.  They will continue to accrue interest and penalties, and god forbid they ever lose their job or can't find work. 
 
The banks in this country received money at almost no interest from the federal government, to repair their failing businesses.  The fact that those same bankers caused their businesses to fail on purpose makes no never mind.  These bankers who hate socialism so much surely enjoy the protection of the New York socialist police force, while the public stands just outside their front door.  Much like the former slave owners in the Jim Crow era, these bastards keep reinventing ways to keep the oppressed down.
 
Ryan Grim from the Huffington Post quotes Reverend Jesse Jackson.  Jackson says, "If banks can be bailed out at one percent, why not students? If the government can borrow money at below-market interest rates, then so should students."
 
Jackson has an excellent point, but I am willing to go one step further.  Why can't the benefits of primary public education be extended to college?  When are we going to say, "Enough is enough, we need to make education our number one priority?" 
 
Yes, free education sounds like a pipe-dream, but that is because our political climate clouds the mind.  As a nation, we feel that our leaders cannot do anything "big" anymore.  We are justified in that line of thinking because our leaders are failing us time and time again.  We need another "New Deal" with the public that focuses on making sure that we are able to handle the global economic challenges in the twenty-first century.  President Obama got the ball rolling with his overhaul of the Student Loan Program, but that is only the start.
 
If we can sink trillions of dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and a host of other Middle East nations, we can certainly afford to educate young adults. 
 
Which brings me to the next problem with education; students aren't getting their money's worth.  They are paying heavily into an education system that continually leaves them behind.  Education is lacking in this country, especially when it comes to basic civics.  That is to say nothing of the fact that we are clearly behind in math and science as well. 
 
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute created a basic civics quiz.  Click on the link, if you would like to take the quiz (http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).
 
If you scored better than forty-nine percent, congratulations, you scored better than the average college senior.  Anyone in a classroom anywhere will tell you that forty-nine is an "F" anyway you slice it.  Did you score above fifty-five percent?  Congratulations, you know more about civics that the average American college professor!  I will not brag by telling you what I scored on it, mainly because I am embarrassed for our country.  People like me should not be in the top one percent educationally.  If I moved to Europe today, I would not hold a candle to the average European on civic knowledge of their country.  The average college student can't hold a candle to the average European on civic knowledge of our country.  That is sad. 
 
I mentioned a dedication to an Ethnic Studies class in Southern California.  They are currently trying to grasp an understanding of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Before they can do that, they need to be able to grasp and understanding of civics.  It is amazing to me how many Wall Street protesters have no idea what their civil rights entail.  New York City police are currently finding loopholes regarding Miranda Rights.  The Supreme Court was very detailed and specific about being questioned without being read rights.  The police insist that they don't need to read rights because they are not interrogating the protesters, they are simply asking questions.  I fail to see a difference here.  Lack of civic knowledge is exposing these protesters, many of them college educated.
 
What is the cause of the lack of education, and how do we fix it?  The cause is a dirty back room deal between Washington and Corporate America.  Corporate America demands drones who are just educated enough to do a job and to buy products.  Higher education makes one question the methods of the corporation.  This is unacceptable in the corporate eye.  So, from day one in school, children are given one-size-fits-all exams that reveal nothing about the child other than his or her ability to memorize useless information for a short period of time (see No Child Left Behind Act). 
 
Basic work skills are taught in school which makes school boring.  The emphasis is always on the "how" and not on the "why."  One plus one equals two, but name one single elementary math class that will tell your child about the origins of math.  Actual learning is denigrated and ignored.  Information is meant for the next test, not for a lifetime.  This is the main reason every single American who passed seventh grade was tested on the Constitution, but by the time he or she reaches college, cannot pass a basic civics exam.  Our grasp of civics is so bad that people running for president of the United States don't know basic civics.
 
I have a good job right now that does not require any further college education to either keep or move up.  So, when I went back to college, people were puzzled.  They were asking me why I would go back to college if I can't make more money doing so.  Never once did they realize that I want to learn more.  It is important to me to continue to be more knowledgeable, period.  Not so I can make more money, or get a better job, or hand a plaque on my wall at work.  My primary objective is to learn and then to pass on what I have learned to others.  This objective helps us grow as a society (see Thomas Jefferson).  
 
But, we live in Corporate America where everything is for a profit.  You need a college degree so you can make money, but first agree to hand that money over to us before you make it.  That statement in a nutshell is what the average college graduate faces today.  Your parents make $50,000 a year?  Sorry, no free money for you.  Your banker makes $150,000,000 a year?  Here is an interest free loan that you can do with what you want.  
 
The education system, like the health care system, the housing system, the credit system, the welfare system, and almost every other system we have in place has been infiltrated and destroyed by Corporate America.  Your government has not only allowed this to happen, but they have actively assisted.  Now, unfortunately, school is nothing more than a machine pumping out mindless workers.  If you think I am wrong, find an A+ student in high school or college and ask them what the Lincoln-Douglass debates were about.  Ask them about monopoly laws and why they originated.  Have them talk to you about women's suffrage, or civil rights, or anti-trust laws.  See what responses are given.
 
Last but not least, the education system is suffering from inequality.  The poor, immigrants, and other minorities are increasingly ignored, and then told to "pull up their bootstraps."  My question is, "How can they pull up their bootstraps, when you have relieved them of their boots?"  
 
Education starts at home, and when we are forcing Mom and Dad to work two jobs a piece to support a family of four, we are doing it wrong.  Contrary to popular belief, overspending on frivolous items is not causing poverty.  Elizabeth Warren found in a study that Americans are actually spending less frivolously today than they did fifty years ago.  People are kept in the poor house by home mortgages, education, and health care costs.  Health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country, and if we don't do something about education soon, it will surpass health care by a long shot.  
 
In conclusion, I have laid out the case for comprehensive education reform.  This issue is at the center of Occupy Wall Street's agenda.  It is indicative of a system that is fair only for the rich and powerful.  When do we wake up and realize we are being bamboozled?  When do we stand up and demand that something meaningful, other than budget cuts, be done for education?  
 
 
Please comment on the blog site with your score to the quiz!  Facebook page coming soon!    
 
 

Works Cited

 

Grim, Ryan. "Students Gouged on Loans While Banks Get Free Money." October 26, 2011.   huffingtonpost.com. web. 

 

Warren, Elizabeth. "What's Hurting the Middle Class." September 2005. http://bostonreview.net/BR30.5/warrentyagi.php. web

Are the Protests Effective?

http://www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com/ - Click on the link to go directly to my page to comment.  Thank you!

By: Shawn Johnson (a.k.a. The Liberal Voice)

The "Ninety-Niners" are making progress.  Wall Street's insults, hurled from inside their corporate safe-havens cannot stop the people from demanding justice.  Even police brutality cannot stop the protests.  In fact, the police brutality allowed the protestors to bring their case to the media.  But, how will this end?  What does the protesting mean in terms of real, tangible change?  And, do the people really know what meaningful change is?

The answers to these questions, unfortunately, are not what I or Occupy Wall Street would like to hear.  The people are still not smart enough, and Wall Street is well prepared for the backlash.  The requests of Occupy Wall Street shoot way too low.  The corporatists did however underestimate this particular group of Americans to a certain extent, but they are back on their game now.  

The Tea Party originally gained momentum by bashing Wall Street.  Polling suggests that Americans overwhelmingly agree with taxing the rich and making Wall Street pay for their horrific lack of humanism.  Now, Occupy Wall Street is at the same crossroads that the Tea Party was in 2009.  The Tea Party stupidly, because of nothing more than sheer ignorance, switched gears and bought the line of bullshit they were fed by the Republicans.  As a result, the Tea Party threw their lot in with corporate America, and they actually became a political asset to the very banks they set out to destroy.  Occupy Wall Street will probably avoid the same mistakes because the issues they are passionate about are real and they aren't going away.  

The catch twenty-two is Occupy Wall Street will have longer sustainability than the Tea Party message wise, but they may not have longer sustainability monetarily.  Wall Street bankers have the money, and they will allot it to those that are hell-bent on eliminating democracy in favor of unbridled corporatism.  Wall Street realizes early on that Occupy Wall Street is a movement involving a younger, more informed, less fearful group of citizens.  They cannot be as easily manipulated.  So, Wall Street will act accordingly and keep their billion dollar foot on the throats of the poor and working poor by buying off the politicians that can create meaningful change. 

Unlike the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street doesn't have the ridiculous prejudices and fears of minorities, gays, and anyone with modern plumbing.  So the old, "Look at President Muslim McBlacky trying to take your freedom" isn't going to fly with this crowd.  Most of the protestors voted for Obama knowing full well that he was a Muslim terrorist from Kenya who falsified his birth records in 1961, in the hopes of someday winning the presidency.   

Occupy Wall Street is not afraid of the government trying to take their bible and their gun, or death panels, or communism and socialism, or rappers in the White House.  They aren't comparing anyone to Hitler, and they know exactly who is responsible for the economic meltdown (Funny how the corporate owned media calls them unorganized and confused).  They are measured, reasoned, and even a few of them are topless.  Some are over-the-top, but for the most part they are everyday normal citizens who are fed up.  I guess the media would think they were more normal if they wore tea bags on their head and dressed like George Washington  visiting a gay bar.

Wall Street is not fooled, and they will not be beaten.  They have already threatened to pull millions of dollars from the Democratic Party if Democrats even remotely get close to this movement.  The banks pull the strings, and they realize that this is not a democracy anymore.  The bankers are ecstatic that Occupy Wall Street took so long to get going.  They must be thinking, "Oh my god! I can't believe they actually thought Barack Obama would hold us accountable!" Now, Wall Street is flourishing while people are suffering.  The insurmountable odds against Occupy Wall Street are staggering.  The real question is, "Are people poor enough yet?"  The real answer is probably, "no."

It is not Occupy Wall Street's fault that their movement will probably not have a tangible effect on policy.  The piss-poor policy has a thirty year head start.  Herman Cain said in the Republican debate last night, "[Don't blame Wall Street. Blame yourselves]."  I am paraphrasing what he said, because he basically answered a yes/no question to that effect.  I hate to tell you, but while Herman Cain is wrong in context, he is technically correct.  Wall Street is capitalism; Wall Street is predictable; Wall Street is immoral.  They are what they are.  The American people did not figure out the fact that Wall Street will always do what is profitable.  Americans determine what is profitable through policy and consumerism.

I am going to jump on Herman Cain's bandwagon, but in a completely different context.  The financial meltdown is indeed the fault of Wall Street and the Bush Administration, but the greater evil is the responsibility of each and every single baby-boomer in this country.  Their parents understood what creates and sustains an economy, but the message was not relayed.  If you have ever spoken to certain Baby Boomers, the "I know everything in the world" attitude will rear its ugly head.  Most of them absolutely refuse to learn from their ancestors.

If you don't have a job right now, do me a favor and look outside.  If there is a Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, etc. sitting in your driveway, it is your fault that you are unemployed.  Look at where your clothes are made.  Look at where your computers are made.  Every damn gadget you have is now made somewhere else.  Every piece of furniture in your house is made somewhere else.

After the Great Depression, President Roosevelt spent the first two terms of his presidency getting America back to work.  The country understood that good strong union labor was the key to keeping manufacturing here.  America took that attitude into World War Two, and as a result, we were able to create an economic boom that instilled prosperity in the country.  The baby-boomers reaped the benefits but didn't understand how "sausage is made," to coin a phrase.  They developed a desire for cheap crap and a lot of it.  Hence, operations moved overseas.  As a result, America went from the number one exporter of goods to the largest importer of goods. 

I talk to people every single day who have no idea why the stock market is so volatile.  It is because the stock market is no longer based on actual goods.  There is nothing being made to consume, therefore the stock market is based on the mood of Wall Street.  Are you kidding me?  A common news report sounds like this, "Wall Street is scared today so the Dow is down two hundred points."  Constant boom and bust periods that are happening daily now, are not the norm in an intelligent economy that is based on the exchange of goods and money.  "'I give you product A, and you give me money backed by something.' 'I hire your neighbor to make it, your other neighbor to ship it, and a third neighbor to deliver it to your doorstep.'"  The result is your three neighbors have a job, and they have enough money to buy something from you.  So, the cycle of economics continue.  Government steps in and makes sure the products and money are legal and safe and everyone wins. 

But, the Baby Boomers dropped the ball on this prosperous system and decided to only look at it from the consumer point of view.  "'I give you product A, and you give me money backed by nothing.' 'I hire undocumented immigrants, from Korea but living in China, to make product A out of cheap crap, and I sell said cheap crap to you at a ridiculously higher markup.'" I then hire a foreign shipping company to send it to America, and only then do I hire your neighbor to deliver it to your doorstep.' 'The best part is it will break in less than a year, and you will have to buy another one.'"   

What the Baby Boomers failed to grasp is the amount of money it costs to buy cheap crap.  They only look at a price tag and conveniently ignore the other factors involved.  Corporate profits are up, but wages are down, and the amount of money consumers are saving on the initial purchase of their Wal-Mart specials, they are more than spending it again by having to rebuy the same item over and over again.  So, we have eliminated two out of three jobs from the process, and the consumer has become poorer.  This is supposed to be a fair, decent system?

I will get a fight from idiots who claim that foreign auto companies employ American workers.  But, here again, their argument is very short-sighted and doesn't tell the whole story.  Foreign auto companies receive billions of dollars in government subsidies in exchange for placing their assembly plants in southern states where the laws are lassiez-faire to say the least.  They hire non-union labor and pocket tax payer dollars to create cars which they can sell for less (big surprise).  The government with the support of the "Boomers," (Boomer is my buddy Jesse's word for retard so it applies in this case) has used this tool to boost corporatism and destroy the safety net that helped us for so long. 

Click on the link to verify my claims: -----> http://washingtonindependent.com/22236/cars

That brings me to my second point.  "Boomers" have dropped the ball on policy.  They have confused democracy with capitalism.  Democracy and capitalism are separate and definitely not equal ideas.  Democracy is what the founders had in mind; capitalism is what Wall Street has in mind.  Capitalism benefits the few; democracy benefits the many.  "Experts" who continue to claim that economies are complicated, refuse to explain why.  The complicated nature of an economy is by design.  Anything those in power do not want you to understand will ultimately become so complicated, even those in power end up not understanding it.  If you need evidence, ask a stock broker to explain derivatives to you so they make sense.

The complexity of this issue is why Barack Obama was actually short-sighted in his previous legislation.  The reason that the American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009 did not drop unemployment below eight percent as originally predicted is because it wasn't large enough.  Laden with tax-cuts that do not stimulate anything except corporate hoarding, the "stimulus package" failed to create the job growth we would have liked.  But, if you look at everything in more black and white terms, you will end up with a simple answer.  The simple answer is to create legislation that brings manufacturing jobs back to this country.  Start exporting again.  The best part is, FDR already laid out the road map to economic expansion.  But, it is going to take understanding and education from the consumers.  Buy American, support strong union labor, and force politicians to legislate favorably to American companies employing Americans and disfavorably to companies that consistently operate overseas.  Until then, expect your wages to decrease or disappear while your corporate masters' wages increase. 

In conclusion, we must realize that protesting can only be a first step.  Eventually this movement will need real power, which in today's "America" means money.  The Supreme Court ensured that everything we do politically will revolve around money.  Money allows corporations to manipulate the public with false promises and faux patriotism.  I am pretty sure Americans are not willing to give up on their safe "all-American bullshit."  So, to answer the question, "'Are the protests effective?' 'The answer is, "Yes, but not enough.'"     

       

Obama Still Doesn't Get It

Oh Barack, when will you learn?  Listen to the people; not your corporate donors, not your handlers, and definitely not the Republicans.  The people have taken to the streets demanding that something be done by somebody.  I stood with them the other day in Chicago and demanded accountability from Wall Street.  We marched and chanted, "We are the ninety-nine percent! Arrest the bankers! We want our houses back!" 

I spoke with a few of the marchers and asked them what they were upset about.  They told me stories about being unfairly unemployed, losing homes and racking up debt, and having to give up on the dreams they once had in order to put food on the table.  They are tired of being poor, while the rich stole their money and way of life.  They want it back! 

Because Americans are not very bright, and certainly not very worldly (I am including myself in this group), they do not actually know what they are asking Washington to do.  They don't actually know how to solve these complex issues.  But, if you pay close attention, Mr. President, and you ignore the ridiculous rhetoric of the right wing, you will ultimately realize that these people are demanding liberalism.  The good news for you is that liberalism works.  Liberalism is the way out of this mess.  How do I know?  Because it is how we solved an even greater economic mess after 1929.

Now, we cannot call it liberalism because "liberal" is a "dirty" word in Washington, and once you use the "dirty" word, the cause loses all meaning.  And, if you ask the people in the crowd if they are conservative or liberal, most of them don't actually know.  They say dumb things like, "I am a moderate, or I am an independent."  They say these things because they are "safe words," but the truth is, these people don't have one conservative bone in their body.  Oh, and by the way, neither does the average Tea Party member.

Like the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street has been created out of disdain for America's willingness to accept fascism.  The Tea Party, laden with idiots, were duped into fighting for the very fascists they were purportedly trying to destroy.  Occupy Wall Street has a chance to avoid this same fate, mainly because they aren't old white racists trying to relive the 1950's.  But, they need Mr. Obama to tell them what they are fighting for...liberalism.

Liberalism doesn't say that the richest one percent should be taxed at thirty-eight percent which is the current proposal by the Obama White House.  Liberalism says that the richest one percent should be taxed at seventy to ninety percent.  During the most productive period in our economic history, that is exactly what the rich were taxed.  Thus, we became an economic power house.  Now, the rich didn't actually pay that tax rate, just as they don't pay the thirty-five percent they are taxed at currently.  But, those high tax rates made sure that there was enough to go around.  It forced the super-rich to reinvest into this country.  "Redistribution of wealth," as the Republicans call it, is vital to the creation and sustainment of the middle class.  It is not "class warfare" as the "two word slogan Republicans" like to say.  Class warfare is better defined as a group of mega-rich citizens who have the audacity to plunder what little the most unfortunate among us have, not because they need it but simply because they can.         

Liberalism also says that each American has a right to a roof over their head, food on their table, and health care.  If you ask the Wall Street protestors or Tea Party protestors about these things they both shun them as a "free handout."  But, ask a Wall Street or Tea Party protestor if it is ok to abolish Medicare and Social Security, and they overwhelmingly say, "no."  Medicare and Social Security give Americans democratic socialism, also known as liberalism.  Between the two programs they guarantee that seniors have a right to a roof over their head, food on their table, and health care. 

Both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party think that the biggest banks stole our money, and the executives of these banks should be promptly arrested and placed in prison.  They believe that the tax dollars spent bailing out these financial institutions should be returned to the people.  Don't look now, but these views are not shared by conservatives, yet Tea Partiers are certain that they are conservative.  Turning the Tea Party into "corporatists" was all too easy.  Corporate America played on their ridiculous fear of minorites, and it worked like a charm.  Instead of blaming the Bush Administration, which would have been the correct course of action, the Tea Party focused their time and energy blaming the usual enemies of corporations, immigrants and the poor.  Basically anyone without more money to give these greedy bastards is to blame in the corporate capitalist view.   

Every single safeguard and protection we enjoy as a nation was put into place by liberals that weren't afraid of right wing fascists.  From banking regulations, environmental protection, civil rights, abolishment of slavery, Medicare, Social Security, free education, and many other services and protections, liberals either directly created these programs or paved the way.

Mr. President, for liberalism to make its comeback, we need a leader that is not afraid to defend its tenets.  So called "jobs" legislation with more ridiculous tax cuts is not going to get it done.  "Universal health care" that isn't "universal" is not going to get it done.  A measly three percent increase on the top one percent isn't even going to begin to address the huge budget shortfalls created by the "Bush tax cuts." 

Overhaul of the conservative, corporatist system that we have is going to take real leadership and real ideas.  You will probably be reelected playing the middle of the road, but only because your opponent will be a nightmare.  If you had been a true liberal from day one, you may have actually kept the bargaining power you need now when things are at their worst.

If you had proposed single-payer health care, the compromise would have been the public option.  If you had proposed a fifty percent tax on the rich, the compromise would have been forty percent.  If you had proposed a jobs bill with no tax cuts, the compromise would have been tax cuts for the working class.  When Representative Alan Grayson proposed a zero percent tax rate on the first $35,000 they make, why didn't you support it?  The only thing he asked for in return was to make the Pentagon foot the bill for the unneccessary wars we are fighting.  The bill also included fifteen billion dollars in savings to help pay down the national debt.  It was simple, liberal, and best of all, it would have helped millions of Americans you claim to champion.       

And, why do you get a pass on completely ignoring the poor.  In your speeches, you have had many references to the middle class but almost none to the poor.  If your goal was to simply be reelected, you should have stayed in the senate.  As the president, you have a greater responsibility to the country than to your reelection campaign.  As president, you have the ability to lead us back to the strong middle class that made this country great.  For that sir, you need to become a liberal.  It is time to truly join the ninety-nine percent.  As you promised, you should grab your walking shoes and march with us.

The news media says that Occupy Wall Street will fizzle out if they become synonymous with the Democratic Party, because they will be just like the Tea Party.  The news media once again fails to grasp reality.  The real reason the Tea Party is no longer given credence is because their "cause" is a falsehood, and their candidates are lunatics.  They are poor people trying to destroy Robin Hood.  The Tea Party's demise has nothing to do with their association with the Republican Party.  In fact, the only reason the Tea Party was given any air time at all was because of the rich corporations who played them like marionettes.  If the Tea Party was a real threat to the corporate establishment, do you really think the corporately owned news media would back them like they did?

Occupy Wall Street is on the right side of history, and they should latch onto the Democratic Party and bring it back to the liberal left.  The only problem is they need to be told that they themselves are liberal.  Mr. Obama, you need to be the one to let them know that they are liberal, and it is right and decent to be liberal.  Then, and only then, can you use true liberal political capital like your great Democratic predecessors used in order to create fifty years of prosperity.  You won your first election in a landslide by announcing that you were the opposite of George Bush.  It is time that you actually become the 180 degree opposite of George Bush, not just a more intelligent and reasoned version of the same. 

Americans need to be led in the right direction.  Do you think that the Civil Rights Amendment would have been passed without President Johnson pressing the issue?  For the last thirty years, we have allowed the conservative corporatists to lead the masses.  In the words of Martin Sheen (President Jed Bartlett) on the West Wing, "A leader never says, I have to find out where those people are going so I can lead them." A leader like Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson grab the bull by the balls and say, "I may lose the battle, but I will win the war."  Meaning, that if one sticks to principle and doing what is right, the change he so desperately wants to instill may not happen right away, but it will happen.  And, when it does happen, it will create real tangible change that will allow the liberal "ninety-niners" to take their country back.