The Eye of the Storm

The Eye of the Storm

Thundering gray waves explode on the shore.

An endless army advances, retreats,

Explodes, Furious. 

The roars of the warriors deafen,

Spending themselves on the dark cold beach.

Snarling ashen clouds spew 

Wind and rain battalions 

Against all that stands.

Sand for bullets

Shrieking hordes descend 

Lightning.

Crack. The spine of a tree shatters.

Splinters.

Ghostly outline of the Chapel Bell

Motionless in the din.

Ancient, rusted, frozen clapper.

Forever joined and silent 

Firm amidst the fury and violence.

In the warm afternoon sun the boy and girl kneel in the sand

Building a sandcastle beyond the reach

Of gentle rolling waves caressing the golden shore.

Peals of laughter rise on the summer breeze.

Beyond, the sapphire bay shimmers

Under the warm tropical sun.

Suddenly a wave, larger, more powerful,

Rolls out of the sea and up the beach. 

The boy and girl run, squealing.

The yellow plastic pail, caught in the water is

Drawn away, unseen into the sea.

The boy and girl return to their work.

Looking.
A tear forms.

Then dries in the gathering breeze.

Rain beats down. 

Thunder on the rooftop.

Sheets of wind-driven water

Like nails into the sodden ground

Advance in ranks along the boulevard.

Relentlessly. The water rises.

Swallows the bank.

Over the roadway into the yard.

Deeper and deeper.

A tree limb captured, a lawn chair

Swept toward the bay.

Screech.

The ancient oak sways.

Dancing in the storm.

Water rises up, cold, dark

Above the stone steps 

Worn smooth from years of foot treads,

Immovable under the scourge

Of the advancing flood.

Splash.

Two kids land in the sparkling blue water

Shrieking joyfully as they play.

The inflated ball bounces high out of the pool

Off the tiled deck and out of sight,

Then fetched back and put into play again.

Splashing and squealing the children go.

With a sudden scream one is pulled under.

In all the noise no one notices

Until he explodes back out of the water

Exacting his revenge as

The golden sun drops behind the oak trees.

With a sigh

I turn from the window.

Crack.

Lightning strikes

Rending tree limbs 

Exploding. Burning shrapnel splinters

Through the broken glass.

Sheer curtains ignite. Fire spreads.

Through the kitchen

Up the stairs. Flames devouring

Consuming all that was there, is there.

Memories, history turns to ash.

Through the flames the chimney stands.

All else falls aside.

Stone piled up one on one

Reaching toward the sky.

Stubbornly standing still in the battle’s din.

The log pops in an explosion of sparks

Lifted up, dancing on the fall breeze, 

into the night sky.

The sun has set on the autumn leaves.

The children snuggle under blankets

Around the campfire grandpa made.

There to sing songs and toast treats

Warm. Cozy in each others arms.

With a snap another log breaks 

Sending burning cinders toward their feet

But quickly swept aside. 

Then another song is sung, a story told

Around the campfire grandpa made.

Eyes closed, silently, I sigh

As I put down the album.

Older, tired, bruised and broken.

Still standing.

I never knew

We live in the eye of the storm.

Poem: A Mother Cries

A Mother Cries

 By Rob Hesler

Hot dusty breeze.

Nestles Crunch wrapper flits by, carried away.

Brown puddles from the early evening rain fill the potholes.

Light poles all askew, dark. Dead.

One light blinks on. 

Off. 

On. 

Off.

Somewhere a mother cries.

Red and blue lights strobe.

A neon light blinks

Lotter  Tick ts He e.

Another says More than a billion served.

The windows all are dark. The sign says Hiring.

Somewhere a mother cries. 

A cowboy on his horse. Full stride. 

Marlboro man making money.

High above the dark gray street in living color

the billboard says

Even Me? Get tested.

And somewhere, a mother cries.

There is another sign

Behind the eight foot high chain-link fence.

Elementary School it says.

Sirens wail. Horns blare.

Another sign. See a crime, call.

Somewhere, a mother still cries.

In the dark alley two eyes peer out.

Experienced eyes. Been here before.

Cautious eyes. Expecting the worst.

Weary eyes from all the other times.

Head lights pass. Twelve-year-old boy.

Somewhere a mother keeps crying. 

Finger twitches. Up.

Down.

Up.

Down.

Then still. Forever.

Dark red stain across the cold gray pavement

Still wet from the early evening rain.

Somewhere a mother starts crying.

...

Next Week

Another raindrop. Plunk. On top of her box.

The angry gray clouds swirl overhead
so low.
They reach down to engulf him.
The breeze off the lake is cold. So cold.
Blink.
He pulls the blanket tighter around Joey and Anne Marie.
He holds them. Brave troopers.
He feels nothing.
He blinks once. Again.
But the scene in front of him shatters. Someone spun the kaleidoscope.
Blink. Blink.
Then clear. Her box comes back into focus.
Dark shapes circle around.
The priest. Words but no sound.
Raindrops on the wood. Plunk.
Plunk, Plunk.
It began long ago. It happened so fast. An unusual disease.
Very bad the doctor said. But there was one hope.
The insurance lady said they'd call back. Next week.

They tried to explain to Joey and Anne Marie. But words can’t explain.
It’s an unusual disease. Very rare they say.
And she said they would call back. Next week.
Rain beats down against the top of her box.
Blink. Blink.
The days dragged on. They flew by so fast.
She was always so brave.
She maintained her belief.
She was better than him.
Blink.
Blink.
The insurance lady said, “Maybe next week.”
The rain slowed.
Plunk. Plunk. Plunk.
She kept going to work. She couldn’t work anymore.
Doctors gave her new pills. They waited for more.
She grew smaller and smaller.
Then faded to black.



Blink.
The lady said they would call back. One more week.
Plunk.
Another raindrop on top of her box.

What is Success?

Have you ever felt like a complete failure? Ridiculed by your friends, laughed at by your family, scorned by your dog! Perhaps the key to ensuring this never happens again is by revisiting how you define failure, and therefore, how you define success. Do your definitions empower you or do they weaken you? Most of us employ disastrous definitions of success and failure which make the accomplishment of success impossible from our own perspective. Over time our repeated perception of failure leads us to eventually give up on our dreams and settle for far less than our potential because we don't want to fail anymore. We'll take even self-destructive actions if it means we can avoid what we have come to identify as failure.

I know what you're thinking. "But Rob, surely it can't be that easy, can it? If I just revise my definition of failure, then BAM!, I'm instantly a success? After all, in the end isn't it just results that count? Either we win or we lose. Success or failure. I can't just declare winners losers and losers winners without totally deluding myself, can I?"

One of my favorite coaches on leadership and success is the late John Wooden. Coach Wooden led the UCLA men's basketball team to 10 national championships in 12 years, including, at one stretch, 7 in a row. This was an unprecedented accomplishment at the time and, may be equaled, but never exceeded. He probably knows a thing or two about success. He developed his own definition and rules about success that, at first, seemed ridiculous to me. One rule that his father taught him home on the farm was "never try to be better than somebody else." Can you imagine that? Here is a man who made history coaching his teams to beat others more consistently than any other ever, and one of his fundamental life-rules was - "never try to be better than the other guy."

Another rule from Dad was to always learn from others, and a third, never cease trying to be the best you can be. These are all rules that are in your own control. Coach Wooden says that if we spend to much time on things we can't control we will lose control of the things we can.

From these simple rules Coach came up with his definition of success and here it is:

Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to become the best of which you are capable.

That bears repeating. Success is peace of mind (and internal state to you) which is a direct result of self-satisfaction (another internal state) in knowing you made the effort (you and no one else made the effort) to become the best of which you are capable. Nowhere in that definition does it mention others or does it mention outcomes or results. There is no winning or losing. When asked about the most successful players he ever coached, one would have thought Wooden would answer with players whose names everyone knows, like Kareem Abdul Jabaar, or Bill Walton. But instead he mentioned two virtual unknowns who never found NBA success. He said that when he first saw them practice as college freshmen he thought, "If we ever need these two as starters then the program will have fallen on hard times indeed." However, by the time both finished their UCLA careers they were starters on national championship teams. What made them great successes was not their level of talent or the number of victories, but rather, they took the talent they did have and became absolutely the best they could be.

If you adopted Coach Wooden's definition of success would it change how you feel about experiences in your life? Would you enjoy life's journey just a little more if this was your definition of success rather than one requiring "victory?"

I once coached an optimist baseball team of twelve year-olds my son Andrew played on. The league was set up so that all the new kids ended up on the same team. I had to play a child at second base who couldn't throw to first because it was too far. Yet we started off with thirteen kids who showed up all season, practice and games. They gave it their all. When the season started they couldn't make an out or score a run. The first inning would go on for a while until the opposing coach would declare 3 outs so my kids would get a chance to bat. But gradually as the season went on those players got better and better. I can still hear their cheers the first time they got three outs in one inning. By the end of the season they were actually competitive with the other teams. They didn't win a game that season but I was so proud of every one of those kids. They did their best at every practice and every game. And I know, looking back on that season, every one of them felt like a success.

Coach Wooden liked this poem and I will end with it:

At God's footstool to confess

A poor soul knelt and bowed his head.

"I failed!" he cried. The Master said

Thou didst thy best. That is success.

Man was it a hot time inthe Florida Keys!

Would I die for Osama bin Laden?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” (Mt 5:38-48)

Do I love the terrorists who piloted those three planes 10 years ago? Do I pray for them and those who would be like them?

Do I love the radical suicide bombers in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Israel or London? Have I ever prayed for them?

Do I love the abortion doctor or the mother who used his or her services and do I pray for them?

Have I ever prayed for the politician who makes decisions I see as ruinous or anti-American? Do I love him or her?

These were hard words for me when I heard them this morning and set me to some serious reflection about my own hypocrisy. Angry demonstrators are screaming at each other in Madison. TV personalities are calling their political adversaries evil. Political discourse in this country is dominated by hyperbole and lies instead of honest debate. And the anger grows and grows. It makes me wonder what the atmosphere in the country felt like in 1860 leading up to the Civil War?

Before today I can’t say that I ever prayed for Osama Bin Laden, or Mohammed Attah. I haven’t prayed for Sarah Palin or John Boehner or Florida Governor Rick Scott. Can I honestly say I love them? And, what does that mean? Should I compromise on my closest held values because I love my adversary? If I love Osama Bin Laden does that mean I don’t want him hunted down and brought to justice? If I love the mother who just terminated her pregnancy does that mean I think her abortion was right? Does it mean I think the doctor acted morally? What does it really mean to say I love my enemy?

I, for one, don’t know the answers to these deeply personal questions. And as I look around at friends and family I don’t see too many people even asking these questions. We all seem to be too busy feeling angry and shouting. I know I have been. That’s why this reading from Matthew struck me so strongly this morning. Though I don’t know the answers, I don’t think it means that we all become pacifists or surrender to our adversaries and enemies. Also in Matthew Jesus was quoted as saying "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.” But when his time of death came he didn’t summon legions of angels to wipe the high priests and Pharisees from the face of the earth as he easily could have. He walked humbly to his death carrying his own cross in order to save many of the very same people who shouted “crucify him” the night before. Would I likewise die for Osama bin Laden? Would I die to save an abortion doctor? Could I actually do that?

I know it’s human to be angry and hate. But it’s not divine.

Image by Narayan Mahon for The New York Times

I'm a Liberal, I'm an American, and I'm not Stupid!

It was a telling moment as Marco Rubio, a photogenic tea party favorite and newly elected US Senator from Florida took the podium with his wife and small children in formation behind him and delivered his victory speech last Tuesday night. He provided a crystal clear presentation on just what the teapublican party has now come to represent. And he provided crystal clear evidence that the chickens have come home to roost after several decades of allowing the right to define what is an American liberal. In fact, over those decades many liberals, me included, ran from the label (I tried to go with progressive for a while). Now the very idea of liberal for a significant percent of the population has come to be equated with a slew of anti-American actions and philosophies. The truth is that we, liberals, must shoulder part of the blame. And we, liberals, have to take the mantle back by clearly defining what the our philosophy really is and proudly shouting it from the rooftops, from our blogs and twitters and status updates over and over again until it penetrates the lies and misrepresentations that have been left unchallenged for so long.

In talking about the political views of President Obama, Bill O’Reilly defined something called “progressivism” earlier this year as: “Progressivism wants to take your stuff. That’s it. That’s what it is. They want to take your stuff.” In the same broadcast Glenn Beck added: “I will go a step further. They don’t just want to take your stuff. They want to control every element of your life.” It seems like that’s pretty scary stuff to be associated with, very Un-American. And, speaking of scary, I wish I had a nickel for every time liberals have been equated with marxists, communists, socialists and even fascists. Because we want to take everybody’s stuff and control everyone’s life we, therefore, must have a big federal government. By extension then, government is evil and anything done by government is evil. And the liberal’s favorite tool, a massive federal government is also totally incompetent at anything it tries, ever. Evil and incompetent. There is another entire vein of thought that liberals must be stupid or we would all become conservatives. Of course that argument might run into a little turbulence from those accusing liberals of being an east coast group of over-educated elitists. For the liberal, welfare has apparently become the opiate of the masses. And so the litany continues. Liberals are both evil and masterful manipulators of the American people bent on taking everybody’s stuff and controlling everybody’s everything, and, simultaneously naïve fools not smart enough to understand how the real world works and thus leading the country to ruin. Got it?

So in the face of this overwhelming “evidence” against the merits of modern American liberalism, I’m forced to ask myself, “Why am I a liberal? Is it in fact a character defect? And, if so, is there a cure?

The answer to these questions for me is really pretty easy. By training I am an economist and, as such, I have a deep and abiding respect for “the market.” Theoretically I accept that there is no better way to allocate resources and distribute wealth than through the operation of the market. Practically, the twentieth century is full of examples of countries trying to operate some other form of economic system only to lead to economic catastrophe. But, (you probably figured there would be a ‘but’) as any economist will tell you, the market only results in the most efficient allocation of resources and wealth based on the initial allocation of resources and wealth. If you change the initial allocation then the market will find a new “most efficient allocation of resources and wealth” different than the one that resulted before. If you change the initial allocation again, you will again get a different final allocation. In fact, for every initial allocation, there is a different final allocation. Therefore, the question I had to ask myself was, “What is the most just initial allocation?” (I’m always asking myself a lot of questions.) Is it just and equitable for whole segments of the population to be trapped in poverty and lack while another tiny segment continues to amass ever more and more wealth? This is, in fact, the central question that separates teapublicans from liberals in America today. This is the question of “social justice.” And the concept of social justice is as American a concept as “free speech” and “separation of church and state.”

One of the many myths (aka lies) perpetuated by the right in America is that a group of long dead men commonly known as “The Founding Fathers” we conservative/libertarian types who created a constitution in order to prevent liberals 200 years in the future from being able to interfere with corporations’ ability to make profits. In fact, the founding fathers actually fought bitterly over many of the exact same issues about the role of government in a capitalist society we fight over today. In fact, one father, Thomas Paine, wrote an essay entitled “Agrarian Justice” written in 1796 in which he lays out his argument on the need for redistribution of wealth to promote what he called agrarian justice and we call Social Justice.

In this fascinating essay Paine explains that prior to cultivation of land (what he calls civilization) extremes of wealth and poverty didn’t exist.

“To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.

Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.”

Paine isn’t arguing against progress, but only looking to redress the great inequality created by economic progress. Because of agricultural progress populations in many cities exploded. This made it impossible for society to revert to subsistence living (the natural state) because there were now too many people and too little land in the cities for this. Therefore the masses became dependent on those who owned the land (and eventually he adds personal capital as well; “Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.”) Those who owned the land and improved it to provide food for the masses became wealthy from the land. And Paine defended their right to become wealthy because of the service they provided. The problem arises, according Paine, because in the natural state God had created the land to serve all the people. The wealthy land owners only deserved the wealth coming from the improvements they made to the land, and not from the land itself which naturally belongs to all. Therefore the wealthy owe something to the community which he calls ground rent. In a natural state “every man would have been born to property.” And, “every person born into the world after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.” This is what Paine refers to as Agrarian Justice.

Paine further explains that this transfer payment to the “dispossessed” is a right, not a charity.

“But it is justice, and not charity, that is the principle of the plan. In all great cases it is necessary to have a principle more universally active than charity, and with respect to justice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or not.”

What was required was a redistribution of income managed by the government. Paine then laid out a proposal to provide a stipend to all individuals upon reaching 21 years of age, as well as an annual stipend for the elderly and disabled (social security). All laid out in 1796. I heard a rumor that Paine’s essay on health care reform was lost in a fire. Just a rumor. But it would just seem like common sense.

So when someone tells us that we need to return to the values of the founding fathers our answer needs to be yes. Just like at least one founding father we believe in social justice and need to retake America from the corporate elitists and apologists.

God Bless America, founded on Liberal Principals.

Happy Anniversary Baby!

It was 37 years ago last fall that I sat in Mrs. Peel's Spanish class far more interested in pulling on the braids of the freckly faced brown haired girl who sat in front of me than in conjugating verbs.  (Maybe I should have paid attention - I live in Miami now.  Caramba!)  We were 12 years old.  I was still pulling on those braids 36 years ago. And again 35 years ago.  Then, again 34 years ago.  (Look out, I was getting ready to make my move.)  Finally, 33 years ago last fall I began flirting with that freckly faced girl during study hall in the media center and getting yelled at by Ms. Callahan for making too much noise showing off.

And just 32 short years ago (yes, it took a whole year) that freckly faced girl finally gave up on me.  She asked me out on our first date.  I kissed her for the very first time.  I liked it.

She was my Juliet.  My freckle face Maria.

Then 27 years ago today that girl lost her mind and agreed to marry me. (Wow!)

Since then the years have flown by faster than I could have ever imagined. (I remember laying side by side in the playhouse behind her Mom's talking about how great it will be to grow old together - but I never thought it would really happen!)

There have been ups and downs, fights and make-ups. (I remember that one time she got mad at me like it was yesterday.) She gave me four amazing children who are all smart like her (and good looking like their father).

We’ve had our victories and we've had our failures, fat times and lean times over all these years, but through it all I always knew that if I just turned my head slightly I would see that freckly faced girl right by my side.  (The Florida sun is great for those freckles.)

Thank you Debbie.  I love you. 

 (Hurry home. I miss you.  And can you pick up some shiraz on the way? Oh, and we’re out of laundry detergent. And cat food.  Shampoo.  Did you pay the water bill? Where is . . .)

John Wooden - The Greatest Coach Ever!

Listen to this inspiring speech from the greatest coach of all time - John Wooden.   

Just click on the video to the right and adjust you volume.

Damn Teachers! Ruining American Education.

The Florida Legislature just passed a bill yesterday putting the blame for the struggles of public education exactly where it doesn’t belong – on the backs of teachers. And until policy makers begin to take a real and honest look at the problems facing education in America today and stop going to this ‘easy out,’ things will not get better. It’s so easy to simply declare that if teachers did their jobs and actually taught our kids (instead of whatever else they’re doing, which is never actually clarified) then everything would be fine. But the easy road is rarely the right road (thanks Dad) and in this case it is fundamentally flawed for three basic reasons: first, it implies that typical teachers are overpaid based on the results they are getting, second, it assumes that teaching children to score high on standardized tests is the best way to educate, and three, it completely ignores the serious socio-economic forces at play in our communities today that have a direct effect on the classroom.

First let’s look at teacher pay in Florida. I don’t know when the idea started that teachers are overpaid, but suddenly you can’t attend a public meeting without hearing about how teachers are paid outrageous salaries with extravagant benefits while ‘real people’ struggle to make ends meet. Is there evidence that this is true? In Florida, the average salary for someone with a bachelor’s degree in any field is $41,701 per year. Surely a teacher’s pay must be much higher, right? Wrong. The average teacher with a bachelor’s degree earns $38,452. Approximately two thirds of all teachers have only a bachelor’s degree. In the case of teachers with masters degrees, the average teacher earns $46,622 compared to all people with a masters degree who earn $55,200 per year. In both cases, then, teachers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.

But I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “But Rob, the teachers get all kinds of great benefits, and their counterparts in the private sector don’t.” Well, what does the Bureau of Labor Statistics have to say about that? Among ‘professional and related’ occupations which include teachers and the private sector groups we are comparing to, 77% of the private workers have pension plans while 91% of public school teachers have such plans. And health care? 82% of private professional workers have health care compared to 89% of teachers. So what do the numbers show? Teachers earn less than their private counterparts, and only have marginally more access to benefits than their counterparts. We have to conclude, in terms of overall compensation, teacher compensation rates including benefits is right in line with their private sector counterparts.

Then the question is, are we getting quality performance in return for the money we spend? Recently the State of Florida instituted a school grading and accountability system to evaluate the performance of our public schools. The system grades traditional public schools and public charter schools (the last ‘great answer’ to America’s education woes) with a letter grade just like our kids receive. Considering the drastic measures the State is set to take against teachers, the obvious conclusion is that most schools must be failing, right? And the answer is? 51% of school districts in Florida earned a grade of A on the state assessment. An additional 39% earned a grade of B, while 7% received a C. That totals to 98%. Last year the State told the teachers, “This is what we are going to grade you on.” 98% of the time the schools received at least a C by the measures they were given. If, on your job you reached your performance targets with at least a grade of C 98% of the time and your boss came back to you the following year and said, “We are going to cut your pay based on merit because you are not getting the job done,” what would your response be? The only sensible conclusion is that, if the schools are not performing as well as we would like, the reasons have to lie elsewhere rather than with teachers. Where else? Well let’s see. The legislators set mandatory performance criteria which the teachers met 98% of the time with at least a grade of C. My simple little brain tells me if the teachers were successful in meeting criteria which didn’t give the legislators the results they wanted, maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with the legislators and their criteria. Maybe we shouldn’t change how we pay teachers. Maybe we should look at how we pay legislators.

The second issue is whether teaching children to take standardized tests is really the best way to teach? The American Society for Quality interviewed the creators and designers of standardized tests and asked this question. The answer was a resounding “no.” There is so much emphasis on testing today that the test has become the end in itself. Forcing teachers to teach to a standardized test as their primary function has clearly resulted in score gains. But according to experts, these gains are ephemeral. Since there isn’t a corresponding increase in deeper understanding and critical thinking skills, then simply changing the test eliminates most or all of the gains. Some critics argue, therefore, that we need to change the test to a “better test.” Clearly testing has its place in education or the benchmarking of progress would not be possible, but simply making “the test” better does not seem to be the answer. If it was, then the standardized testing craze the nation has been going through for the last 10 years would be showing progress. Measurement is key, but the most important aspect is deciding what to measure. Perhaps the real answer lies in defining effective measures that can be standardized and used throughout the school year to measure real educational progress in a way that can be compared across schools. Then maybe, the teachers will be able to get back to the teaching of reading, math and science rather than more test taking skills.

And third, blaming the teacher for performance in the classroom completely ignores the tremendous socioeconomic challenges that are happening outside the classroom. This is not to make excuses for anyone in terms of their ability to succeed. Show me somebody with a challenge and I will find someone who overcame that challenge to achieve greatness. But it’s also true that statistically, a class with twice the number of single parent families, with parents working multiple jobs to pay the bills, with a fraction of the number of high school or college grads, and many other conditions, will underperform a class without similar challenges. That is not the teachers fault. It may be a fact that schools have to find ways to overcome such socioeconomic challenges, but to put all of that burden on the teacher is unreasonable and will drive many good teachers right out of the field. And it Is the students from these classes who will be left behind in disproportionate numbers when vouchers suck the top performers out of these schools to private or parochial schools. Reasonable people can debate whether the school classroom is really the best place to address the challenges such children have, but the reality is that these children are there already and something needs to be done.

Until policy makers start looking at these other issues rather than for an easy way to say “we did something,” then the problem won’t be solved. Teachers are doing the jobs they’ve been asked to do. The numbers show that. The policy makers now have to do their part in putting together a system that can win for our children. My beloved Dolphins once had arguably the greatest passing quarterback to ever play the game matched up with great receivers in the “Marks Brothers.” But in the end, after more than twenty seasons, Dan Marino had exactly zero championships. That fact didn’t diminish his talent. But the reality was that the team management never put him into a complete system that could win it all. Football is a game. Marino is wealthy and successful today. But the education of our children is no game. Their future and the future of our great country hangs in the balance.

OMG - I can't believe this has happened!

I woke up this morning at about the regular time. I didn't know why at first, but I was feeling quite anxious. I went through the normal ablutions and dressed. Turned on the morning news (Scarborough - I love to get a good mad-on in the morning) and suddenly it hit me! I knew why I had a pit in my stomach the size of a surgical sponge left behind by an underpaid doctor. Just before falling asleep last night I had heard the news. It was going to change our world as we know it. Things would never be the same. The earth had shifted off its axis, and I'm not talking about the Chile earthquake, that was a small quake compared to this. Congress passed health care and it was going to Obama for his signature.

I didn't know what to do. The sense of dread was all-enveloping. As I paced from room to room I tried to imagine what my life would be like now. Death Panels! I asked aloud to the empty room how something like this could happen in America. America! Socialism! Should I move? Where to? Will I still be allowed to move? I heard some are going to Costa Rica. Where is Costa Rica? They must have great health care. Note to self: find out where Costa Rica is.

I began to feel suddenly ill. Oh no. I can't get sick now! I should pray. Yeah, that's what I decided to do. I would pray that I never get sick and that I can find Costa Rica. Maybe I'll just die suddenly. That won't be so bad. Then I began to feel a sore throat starting. No!

And then it happened. Without any warning! One second to the next. As I faced the window, dish towel twisted between my hands so tight I could feel the circulation getting cut off, the sun came up. Oh glorious golden sun with rays of warmth stroking my face. And then I knew without any doubt that everything was going to be all right. (I did throw up once or twice but that was from relief and not even worth mentioning. Oh, well, never mind.) Congress passed health care last night and this morning the sun still came up. And now I really believe that it will go down again tonight and rise again tomorrow. I went to work and drank coffee and took my breaks, went to lunch, had more breaks and drank more coffee. It was just like last week and the week before that. Maybe all those terrifying predictions won't come to pass. Maybe everything will be all right.

Now, where is my world map? Costa Rica?

Check out another great column from Paul Krugman.

Medicare: Great Success of American Socialism?

So now we have all reached agreement that, whether you support the philosophy of the program or not, Social Security provides an example of a major federal government program that has been well run for the past 70 years despite warnings in the 30's that it was socialism and would lead to the downfall of the American system as we then knew it. The fact that there is currently a demographic challenge facing the program doesn’t repudiate the past successes realized by the beneficiaries. 13 million seniors and 1 million children are not living in poverty today as a direct result of the program. And, I for one, think Noona and Ompa have earned the right to retire with some dignity after 40-50 years of working service to America rather than having to labor until they drop into their graves. (But yes, they can work if they want to. “Welcome to Walmart.”)

Now lets turn to another great success of American socialism (one that I am sure we can all agree on), the single-payer medical system for seniors - medicare. I am going to look at the program’s success from 3 areas, guaranteed access to medical care and providers, improved quality of life for seniors, and administrative efficiency and cost containment. Prior to medicare only half of American seniors had health insurance. The private insurance industry was either unable to provide coverage, or unwilling to accept the risk of insuring seniors in an affordable manner. And, worse, the greater the need (the sicker grandma was) the more unaffordable was the insurance. The federal government, through the guarantee of Medicare coverage, established protections for all seniors that ensure that everyone –including those battling costly illnesses– have access to covered services. Medicare also reduced the disparities in access to care among racial and ethnic groups, disparities which were widespread prior to enactment. With the financial burden of healthcare removed, studies show that seniors are far more likely to have a regular doctor and receive preventive care than the population at large, they are less likely to go without necessary prescriptions, and far less likely to postpone care until they are forced to go to a far more costly emergency room.

Medicare has also been instrumental in improving quality of life for seniors. Seniors are now living longer life spans as a result of medicare, and far more of those years are higher in quality as a result of regular preventative care. Medicare has also been another factor in reducing poverty since much of the expense of health care, especially insurance premiums and costs associated with serious illness, has been eliminated. The great debt that can often follow the death of life partner in the form of medical bills has been eliminated. The result is one less major area of worries for Nana and Papa.

Cost containment and efficiency is one area of medicare success that is rarely pointed out. Medicare has proved to be more successful than private insurance in controlling the growth rate of health care spending per enrollee. Average annual costs under medicare per patient has grown by 9.6% compared to 11.1% for private insurance companies between 1970 and the year 2000. A comparison of cumulative growth in per enrollee payments for personal health care between Medicare and private insurance shows that private insurers’ costs grew 44 percent more than Medicare from 1970 to 2000. In addition, the private health insurance sector administrative costs – 9.5 percent of total costs – significantly exceed Medicare’s 2 to 3 percent administrative spending. And you won’t believe this, but the farther away from the private market in health care, the better the financial performance. Original Medicare also outperforms Medicare health plans – for example, on average, Medicare Advantage plans spend 15 percent of their revenue on administrative costs, while some Medicare Advantage plans spend as much as 32 percent on administration.

A final indicator that Medicare is another great success of American Socialism is the tremendous popularity the program has among its beneficiaries. Just ask any politician if they want to mess with medicare benefits. Medicare stepped in where the free market refused or was unable to go. Despite the challenges of providing health care for the most needy, vulnerable segment of the population in healthcare terms, Medicare has financially outperformed the health insurance industry in the provision of care. This is why we need to support a single payer system for all Americans like most of the first world has today, including the elderly in this great country.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/index.cfm
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/collection/medicare

Tremendous Success of Social Security

Given the alarms raised by so many about another social program (health care) that will be an enormous drain on national resources and create another enormous bureaucracy destined for failure like all of the others, I thought it would be useful to cut through all of the vague “talking point” so-called-analysis of these other programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security. Are they the failures that critics say they are? Or do they deliver as promised?

I will start with Social Security because I recently read that more people believe in UFO’s than that social security will be around when they are ready to retire. There are two primary groups who are the targets of social security benefits, children and the elderly. The statistics regarding the impact on children surprised me. 5.3 million children under the age of 18 live in families receiving some form of social security payments, either survivor benefits, disability benefits, or retiree benefits to someone else in the house. After the earned income tax credit Social security lifted more children out of poverty that any other program, responsible for getting 1 million children out of poverty. In Alabama, for example, the poverty rate among families with children would have been 16.9% instead of 14.6% if there were no social security benefits. For New York the poverty rate for the same group was 15.3% instead of 16.8%, and here in Florida, 14.3% instead of 15.6%. This doesn’t even explore the impact social security benefits for children has had on reducing the severity of poverty or in paying for college or other important outcomes, but only on the direct poverty rate.

The picture for seniors is far more startling. Census data shows that nationwide, Social Security benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors age 65 and older above the poverty line. These figures reflect a three-year average for the period from 2000 through 2002. The data indicate:

• Leaving aside Social Security income, nearly one of every two elderly people — 46.8 percent — has income below the poverty line.
• Once Social Security benefits are taken into account, just one in twelve — 8.7 percent — is poor.

In other words, without social security, half of the seniors in America, the greatest country in the world, would be living in poverty. This analysis looks at disposable income (which, as with children, includes any other type of public transfer payment – food stamps for example - or private income) and compares it with the federal poverty line, which is now $9,060 for a single elderly individual, or $11,418 for an elderly couple. So it’s not as though grandma is exactly living high on the hog with her monthly check. In Alabama the poverty rate among seniors would be 53.1% without social security instead of 13.2%. In New York, without social security the poverty rate would have been 44.4% instead of 8.4%, and here in Florida, 50.2% instead of 8.7%. How do you spell success?

But wait just a minute there Robby, all that may be fine and good, but Social Security is facing a catastrophic shortfall that will bankrupt us all and undermine the US economy forever, leaving the Chinese and French to pick over our bones, won’t it? Actually Bubba, that’s not quite the case. The most recent Social Security trustees’ report estimates that Social Security faces a total shortfall over the next 75 years of 0.56 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is slightly less than the estimated cost over that same period of extending the 2001 and 2003 (Bush) tax cuts just for the top 1 percent of households: 0.6 percent of GDP. (Currently, households in the top 1 percent make more than $450,000 per year.) Extending all of the tax cuts (not just those for the top 1 percent) would cost 1.95 percent of GDP over the next 75 years, if their cost is not offset through spending cuts or other revenue increases. That is three and one-half times the size of the Social Security shortfall over that period. And of course, it must be pointed out that the projected shortfall is not, in any way, the result of mismanagement by the “bureaucracy” but rather, a result of all of our parents getting “jiggy with it” after the war. If not for the demographic imbalance resulting from the baby-boom there would be no concern about the financial future of social security whatsoever.

So, if one is looking for an example of government failure and bureaucratic abyss-ness, one had better look elsewhere. When it comes to lifting children and seniors out of poverty, social security has been a spectacular success.

Disgusting Racism

I posted this picture (from last weeks 9/12 demonstrations) here because I wanted a reminder why slime balls like Lintball, and Slantity, and Beck (doesn't even rate a nickname) are so dishonest and revolting. They have been screaming all week with outrage that if anyone dare criticize President Obama they are unfairly tagged as racists. Lou Dobbs, frustrated at being called racist, even asked, "Is America ready for a black President?" They see these images, they know this is happening, and they promote this attitude. Clearly, not everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. In fact, I am quite certain that an overwhelming majority of Obama critics are not racist at all. But when they stand side by side with these people and say or do nothing, even to the point of denying this vile hatred exists, then their inaction and silence is tacit endorsement. And then their arguments lose all moral standing. Reject the bull shit story-line that the left is a movement of hatred. This image is hatred. This image is disgusting. Real Americans will not allow this to continue.

This is a great article. Please read it all.

By Ashley Fantz
CNN

(CNN) -- Posters portraying President Obama as a witch doctor may be racist, organizers of Tea Party protests say, but they reflect anger about where he is leading the country.

A Tea Party rally protester holds a sign with President Obama depicted as a witch doctor.

The posters, showing Obama wearing a feather headdress and a bone through his nose, have been popping up in e-mails, on Web sites and at Tea Party protests for weeks.

The image has stoked debate and cast attention on the rallies, which have drawn people Tea Party organizers describe as on the fringe and not representative of the overall movement. Their general viewpoint, leaders say, is that there's been too much federal government intervention, particularly concerning health care and taxes.

The witch doctor imagery is blatantly racist, critics contend.

Others remind that presidents get made fun off all the time, and the election of a black president has only made racially charged political satire more sensitive.

While not denying the crudeness of the image, Tea Party organizers stressed that those who carry the signs are a few "bad apples."

"That [witch doctor] image is not representative at all of what this movement is about," said Joe Wierzbicki, a coordinator of the Tea Party Express, a three-week series of protests across the country.

The anger the image portrays, however, "says to me that a lot of people in this country are angry about the direction that the administration and Congress are taking us," he said.

"And you're going to see a wide expanse of those people," he continued. "Some are going to be more extreme. Most of them are going to be in the mainstream of American politics, as evidenced by Obama's falling poll numbers."

An incendiary image such as witch doctor detracts from any hope for a cohesive message at the rallies, where many appear not to be associated directly with either the Republican or Democratic parties, said W. Joseph Campbell, a media professor at American University.

And previous infringements of good taste don't make it acceptable to Photoshop the president into a witch doctor.

"It's true that presidents before have had to endure some rough stuff, and there's nothing wrong with satire," Campbell said. "President Bush was morphed into Hitler. That was not excusable either. Just because it's happened in the past doesn't mean there isn't a line and it can't be crossed."

As a politics and African-American studies professor at Princeton University, Melissa Harris-Lacewell typically advocates discussion about the racist overtones in images or language bandied in public discourse.

"But I'm concerned in the age of Obama, too many of our public conversations about policy have been limited to a kind of investigative effort to determine whether opposition to him is based on race or substantive disagreement," she told CNN. "The problem is, it can be both."

Harris-Lacewell points out that Obama made his African father a part of his campaign narrative. Now his critics are trying to mock that heritage.

"This witch doctor image is racist in a very specific way because of his proximity to Africa," she said. "You can imagine there would have easily been a time when [Jewish New York Mayor Michael] Bloomberg would have been portrayed in anti-Semitic ways. You can go back to political cartoons when Irish Democrats were mocked, Italians were lampooned."

Spelman College history professor William Jelani Cobb, who has written extensively about race and politics, points out the original Boston Tea Party was driven by colonists who frequently declared that they had been "enslaved" by the king of England. The men who led that revolt dressed up as Native Americans when they dumped the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.

Hard to pin down and a seeming catch-all for general anger at the government, the modern Tea Party movement is grounded the belief that the federal government should stay out of state business. But "states' rights is also an argument with a history tied to racial segregation during the civil rights' era," Harris-Lacewell said. And so it comes full circle.

Cobb said Obama's election has also rekindled the historic rancor some whites feel against successful blacks.

"There is lots of connective tissue here," said Cobb. "The Atlanta race riot of 1906 was partly about this. The upsurge of riots at the beginning of the 20th century was driven in part by the fact that blacks were perceived to be moving up in society -- at the expense of whites.

The Atlanta race riot, which left 25 black people and two white people dead, was sparked by a series of false news reports about black people committing crimes, inciteful rhetoric from white politicians and an overall fear by whites that blacks were starting to make progress socially and politically in the south.

"Now we have a black president, which means, on its most basic level, that a black man has more power than any single white citizen in this country," Cobb said. "Whether people want to admit it or not, I suspect the Tea Party crowd believes that the currency of whiteness has been devalued."

There's another wrinkle to the witch doctor controversy. Obama was mocked by some critics as the "magical negro" during the campaign because he was perceived to be a solve-all to nation's problems.

"This is an echo of the theme during the campaign when his opponents would ask 'Who is Barack Obama?" Cobb said.

"At that point, it was part of a somewhat cynical attempt to depict him as vaguely foreign and unknown," Cobb said. "But now that he has control over actual policies, those views appear to have hardened, metastasized into something more vitriolic.

"Caricature is part of politics, but racist stereotyping isn't."