Robert A. Teegarden's Blog

September 11, 2012

It’s time that students and their parents strike!

Teachers can strike.  Cafeteria workers can strike.  Janitors can strike.  Support personnel in schools can strike.  Why not the students?  What happens when students don’t show up?  Who really gets hurt in a strike?

These are the worst of times, to quote the bard.  There is no best.  Because no matter what, no matter if there is a settlement, no matter when, students are hurt irreparably.  The effects cannot be undone; it’s like a lifetime scar.  You see most kids are in second grade only once (save for a few).  And when asked about it in the future, some of these strike victims will have to say, “Second grade was the toughest two years of my life.”

The energy and momentum of a new school year cannot be regained.  It’s unconscionable for these adults to pull this kind of a stunt in September.  It’s effective as a political tool, I’ll grant you that.  But it’s immoral.  It violates every ethic of their profession.  If I were the mayor I’d immediately set up a hot line to seek other teachers willing to work for the $75,000 pay.   I think he could fill those spots in a second.  Since the union broke its own contract, I’d leave them on the street.  Time for a new cast of characters really dedicated to kids.

I think it’s about time students go on strike for better teaching, better learning opportunities, more challenges, less fluff in the curriculum, competent administrators, and guarantees in their educational outcomes like those promised by the teachers’ union to their minions.  Do students have clout?  You betcha.  Schools are paid on what is called ADA, Average Daily Attendance.  If your child is not in school, schools don’t get paid.  If schools don’t get paid, teachers and staff don’t get paid.  And the longer you’re out of school the more it begins to hurt.  So let’s organize and get going, because nothing is going to improve because of this strike.

I have to note an interesting article I found over the weekend where police types were concerned about the possibility of rival gang members being placed in the same school.  They were doing all that they could to make sure this didn’t happen.  Imagine that, criminals get choices in education that law-abiding kids can’t.  Go figure.  Break the law and get school choice.

One of the major stumbling blocks, according to the union representatives, is job security.  Keeping your job is a function of your competence and nothing else.  If you can do the job and do it well—you keep it.  If you don’t, find another job.  That’s like saying to a kid, no matter what you do in four years, no matter your grades, just for being there you get to graduate.  Wait, I’m sorry, that’s what a diploma measures today.

Out of the mouths of babes: Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said, “We must do things differently in this city if we are to provide our students with the education they so rightfully deserve.”  She’s right.  But the “differently” doesn’t include the union.

I’ve often wondered about teacher picket lines in front of schools.  Whom are they picketing? Students? Parents? Other teachers who disagree with the strike? Administrators?  While they make an impression on them, it can’t be the students.  They’re just the little widgets on the assembly line that they manipulate from 8:00 to 2:30 p.m.  about four days a week for nine and half months a year.  It might be the parents because a strike is a political act.  Maybe they’re trying to influence these parents to support them no matter what.  It might be the administrators, but then, they might have to work with these same folks at the conclusion of the strike.  But, heck, that didn’t mean anything before the strike and it shouldn’t be different after; you see, the union steps in between the administration doing their duty and the teachers doing theirs.  And when things don’t go right, whom do they blame? Administrators, that’s right.  They should fire the union instead.  It must be the other teachers who don’t agree with the strike.  All that energy expended to disallow First Amendment freedoms.  That’s shear thuggery.  Oh, I forgot, this strike is in Chicago.

Even wonder why “some schools stay open” during a strike?  Cash flow.  Remember that ADA figure above?

The second stumbling block, according to the union, was teacher evaluations—it was tied to student performance. Let’s see, Johnny starts this year at 3.1 as a third grader.  At the end of the year he’s grown to a 4.1.  He’s gained 10 months of growth for 10 months of work.  Some would say that’s par for the course.  But if a teacher has 20 students and their average only 3.2 months of growth for 10 months work, what do you think the school should do?  And the union is fighting over student progress…

The Machine—on unions.  Here’s a short piece that explains the unholy, immoral and un-American status of teachers’ unions.

By the way, did you know that 39% of the Chicago teachers have their own kids in private schools.  When they say, “It’s for the kids,” maybe they’re confusing their own for the ones in front of them.  In order to clear up this confusion, I think there out to be a law that says that if you work for the government, especially as a teacher, that your own kids have to go to government schools only.  That should clear up the confusion about loyalties.

Well, what’s a student to do?  Strike.

September 9, 2012

It was a Lot to Do about Nothing

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 4:41 pm
Tags: , , ,

A major disconnect occurred at the Democratic National Convention last week.   There was a disconnect between President Obama, the majority of US citizens, and his own Democratic Party members in the persons of their platform committee.  You see, after public criticism started to seep into the DNC inner sanctum about its obvious omission of any mention of God in their stated platform (let alone the intentional omission of any mention of the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel), delegates to the platform committee were hurried into the hall for a vote to vote for God and Jerusalem, at least that they be included in the official platform.  President Obama specifically sought the actions.

Before we advance to far into this mess, let’s settle on some facts that are undeniable:

  1. Jerusalem was named capital of Israel between 1010 and 970 BC, the reign of King David.  It was confirmed again on December 14, 1949.
  2. The planned (original) DNC platform made no mention of God or Jerusalem.
  3. There are at least four references to God in the Declaration of Independence
  4. God has been God forever. For those who don’t believe, it’s a lot to do about nothing; for those who do believe, no proof is necessary.

According to a recent Gallup poll, more than 9 of 10 Americans believe in God.  The DNC left any mention of God out of their platform (agenda).  An early release of their platform generated criticism that finally reached the Charlotte contingent.  President Obama requested the procedure to amend the party platform.  Here’s where it gets interesting.

Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, was called on to oversee the procedure to seek an amendment to the platform.  Three times he called for a voice vote to alter the platform.  The crescendo of nays grew with each subsequent vote.  Only a fine forensic analysis could give an answer to which vote carried, but many spectators indicated that they just weren’t sure which way the vote went.  The problem for Villaraigosa was the seeming factual vote against the idea was contrary to what Obama wanted.  Indeed, the television images captured showed delegates in strong opposition to both ideas.  But the vote carried.

Villaraigosa indicated that this was “a lot of ado about nothing.”  When confronted by reporters that they just didn’t hear the necessary 2/3rds vote in support, his response was a terse, “That’s nice to know.  I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.”

In essence, Villaraigosa said that he didn’t care about the vote of those citizens in the arena—he had a different agenda.  Surely both he and Obama realized the political implications inherent in a yes vote. 90 percent of the American people have a faith and it wouldn’t do well to run up against them.  But Obama’s own followers expressed their opinion; but it too wasn’t heard.  The chair overruled.  If the facts don’t agree with reality, change the facts.

Villaraigosa was also saying that in his world, might makes right.  He’s the chair and he’ll arrange the data, challenge the impressions, or even lie about the results in order to please his lord and master.  He got the job done.  He was actually proud of the “decisive way (I) he handled that.”  Facts are selective to him.  According to him, truth is relative to the power of the chair.  Imagine taking a vote on God!  What temerity.

I feel sorry for the people of El Pueblo Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula.  I felt sorry for the vast numbers of California citizens when Villaraigosa exercised these same Chicago-style tactics when he was Speaker of the Assembly.

“It was a lot of ado about nothing,” Villaraigosa ended.  The platform? The inclusion?  The process?  God?  Except for God, maybe he’s right.  All of these words, all of these promises, all of these platforms mean absolutely nothing.  If the chair can alter a vote on his own say-so, imagine the government in the mind of his party leader.

City Employees Exempt from Fines for Running Red Lights

Filed under: American,Civics,Good Administration,Government — by Robert @ 1:03 pm
Tags:

 A recent article in the Rochester, NY, Democrat and Chronicle noted that Rochester city employees seem to have a serious tendency to run red lights. But when cited, the city argues that the individuals “may be disciplined” but are exempt from paying fines.  The article is of note for it outlines the beginnings of a slippery slope that will evolve into chaos on the streets and further distance “government employees” from the citizens they are sworn to represent.

Wrong.  Bad policy.  Back the red-light truck up.  Don’t do it. Let the consequences fall. 

The offenders included folks working in public works, solid waste or refuse, building services, cemetery, library vehicles, animal services, police vehicles, including the police chief himself.

I might consider some variance for police officers in the performance of their duties, but public works, solid waste, building services, cemetery, library and animal services—definitely not.

I used to admire our state highway patrol officers.  They were the “barons of the boulevard.”  They were highly trained, honest, moral citizens with a badge.  They didn’t flaunt that badge in your face.  They served the public (citizenry) well.  On one rainy night in Oakland, California, while I waited in traffic for a serious accident ahead of me, I watched one of these “barons” pull off a miracle.  Six lanes of traffic were to be merged into one and this officer had to place flares on the rain-slick overpass.  Rather than step out of the protection of his cruiser, he dropped the lighted flares from his window as he crossed three lanes.  Once he got to the end, he proceeded in reverse and, using his mirrors, he gently “popped” each flare with the right rear tire to scoot it across the concrete to exactly the right spot to merge the upcoming traffic.  I was impressed.

But I’ve noticed since then how sloppy our government employees drive.  I’m told that police are allowed a five mile-per-hour speed over the posted limit without the use of their red lights.  In other words, they can break the law up to a point.  But this “grace” doesn’t include red lights.  Weaving in and out of traffic with no red lights. No signals.  Speeding in excess of five mph over the legal limit, again with no lights.  Tail-gating.  I won’t even get into a comparison with the want-to-be, pretend, Napolitano-nympho TSA agents

The law of the land in New York is if one runs a red light, one pays a fine.  Period.  And that’s the way it should be; Richard Nixon taught us all that NO ONE is above the law.

Did you know one can perform a citizen’s arrest on a police officer who breaks the law?  I wouldn’t recommend it because of the retaliatory potential of an armed group of individuals, but it is possible.  But this is my point.

The one thing we all have in common when we’re on the highways is that we’re all citizens.  We’re all doing what citizens do—supposedly obeying the laws.  There are private citizens and pubic citizens commissioned to protect and serve.  If a citizen breaks the law there are consequences and those consequences must fall; otherwise, we start sliding toward tyranny and then anarchy.  After all, if a government employee doesn’t have to pay a fine for breaking the law, what should anyone else?

The Rochester article does give a couple of clues as to the real problem.  Here are just a couple of tidbits to consider:

“But Sheppard said most do involve emergency responses, and typically are rolling stops on right turns.”

If they are an emergency response, then red lights should be on.  How do we know this isn’t just a mad dash to the donut shop?  These “rolling stops on right turns,” sometimes referred to as a “Hollywood stop,” are still a violation of the red light ordinance.  Sheppard is making excuses for a lack of discipline. “Most involve emergency responses?”  How does he know when he cannot remember what he was doing when he was cited.  No, this is kind of like saying it’s a matter of national security—which is another way of saying “butt out.”

“There also was a stretch in April when city employees recorded 24 violations in 27 days.”

Common Sense tells you why. They got away with it. If there’s no consequence, the behavior continues.

“Two vehicles – one in animal services and the other in solid waste – were ticketed four times. The data doesn’t show whether the same employees were driving each time.”

I know ignorance is bliss, but I’m sure they have a check-out system that tells them exactly who was driving the vehicles in question.  If not, they’d better design one real quickly.

“He said some employees already have faced discipline, which can escalate from a note in their file to suspension to termination. The disciplinary process varies by bargaining unit, Redon said. Those terms allow for assessment of damages up to $100 but do not address monetary fines, said Mike Mazzeo, president of the police union, who suspects any discipline will need to be negotiated.”

This is the most troubling part of the report.  This says that the law of the land can be trumped by a union contract, kind of like how the teacher’s union operates.  The disciplinary process is the prerogative of the employer.  But the consequences of the law still stand.  Run a red light and you pay a fine.  Do it enough and you loose your license/privilege to drive in addition to whatever your employer demands.

The union already is upset that public safety aides, not police officers, review violations to determine whether tickets should be issued. And Mazzeo questioned the value of cameras, as intersections with cameras have yet to show a noticeable decline in violations.

This is a classic case of demonizing the messenger when we don’t like the truth in the message.  Citizens should be making these reviews, not police officers.  These citizens are just as capable to determine if someone breaks the law.  Likewise, the union officials can’t see the value of these cameras in the first place because, according to them, they don’t show a decline in violations.  Of course they don’t, especially when the greatest offenders get off scot-free.  But they sure catch a picture of the violators!

Union officials are NOT arbitrators of the law.   Run a red light and you pay a fine.  The only exception is if your red lights are flashing and you are on an emergency.

August 22, 2012

California’s Proposition 32—The Common Sense Proposition

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government — by Robert @ 8:52 am
Tags: , , ,

Voting in America, in California, is the fundamental franchise for all citizens.  Being able to vote in an election is that one privilege that crosses all boundaries, all social-economic and age groups.  Whether you are a female, male, young or old, rich or poor, regardless of your background, occupation or nationality, as long as you are a legal citizen you can vote.  You should vote.

Voting allows the individual citizen the opportunity to have their voice heard.  No other government seeks to hear the voice of the citizen in a like manner.  Vote.  This the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Notice it doesn’t say government of the business, by the union and for the corporation.  People are the heart and soul of government in America. Period.

The California Constitution says the following about voting:

ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECAL

SECTION 1.  All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

SEC. 2.  A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

SEC. 2.5.  A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

It’s so very simple.   Who votes?  People.  Whose voice is heard in elections? The people’s.  Whose voice is counted in an election?  The people’s.  Notice that the Constitution says nothing about organizations, unions, or groups being able to vote.  Only individual citizens have the right to vote.  It’s their voice that is to be heard and no one else’s.

Unfortunately we’ve allowed groups to influence that process over time.  While they don’t directly vote, these organizations and groups have undue influence in the voting process.   Proposition 32 wants to return the process to normalcy.  Proposition 32 wants to return the franchise of voting to the people, not outside influences.  This only makes simple sense.  If people are the ones doing the voting, then it is only the people whom should be heard.

Proposition 32 simplifies the process:

▪       Proposition 32 bans corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates.  Only bona fide citizens can make those contributions.  It’s their voice that will be heard from the voting booth.

▪       Proposition 32 bans contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them.  This is patently common sense.  The way it stands now, businesses that win contracts from politicians for whatever reason are able to give back contributions to those very same politicians.  That’s absurd.  That’s taking government money (your money) and giving it back to the politician through an intermediary (the contractor). That’s hidden graft.

▪       Proposition 32 bans automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics.  If an individual citizen which to contribute to a campaign or a candidate, let them do so.  Don’t force it.  Don’t force the taking of one’s salary in exchange for the privilege of working there.  That’s a form of bribery.  Allow citizens to choose their causes and choose their candidates. After all, it’s the citizen who is going to vote and no one else.

Here’s some interesting facts about the current status of the Proposition 32 campaign: d

Those in favor of Proposition 32 (who contributed at least $50,000).

Donor Amount
Thomas M. Siebel $500,000
Charles Munger, Jr. $357,169
Edward Bloomfield, Jr. $300,000
Larry T. Smith $260,000
Jerry Perenchio $250,000
Citizen Power Campaign $225,000
William Oberndorf $150,000
Protect Prop 13 (HJTA) $125,000
Lincoln Club of Orange County $110,000
Frank E. Baxter $100,000
Timothy C. Draper $100,000
William L. Edwards $100,000
B. Wayne Hughes $100,000
Howard F. Ahmanson $50,000
Charles B. Johnson $50,000
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. $50,000
Nicoletta Holdings Company $50,000
Robert J. Oster $50,000
Richard J. Riordan $50,000

Those against Proposition 32 (who contributed at least $50,000).

Donor Amount
California Teachers Association $8,185,700
California Professional Firefighters $2,100,000
California State Council of Service Employees $2,037,500
AFL-CIO/Working Families $1,300,000
Peace Officers Research Association of California PAC $965,000
California School Employees Association $550,000
SEIU $502,762
California Faculty Association $500,000
Thomas Steyer $500,000
AFSCME $450,000
California Federation of Teachers $300,000
Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Public Safety First PAC $250,000
United State Pipe Trades Council $250,000
International Association of Firefighters $200,000
Professional Engineers in California Government $125,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association $100,000
San Bernardino County Safety Employees’ Benefit Association $100,000
John Perez Ballot Measure Committee $100,000
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California $100,000
United Domestic Workers of America $100,000
California State Legislative Board $50,000
United Food & Commercial Workers $50,000

Notice the difference?

Those favoring Proposition (and who contributed more than $50,000)—those favoring giving citizens back their franchise–were people, were citizens.  Four of the 19 were fraternal organizations.

19 of the 21 against the proposition are unions or their PACs.  Get the picture?

So, it’s pretty much a common sense proposition.  Do you want to vote for corporate, and union graft and influence in your government?  Or do you want a government that speaks for the people?  Guess what… you get to choose… at least for now.

August 20, 2012

What Makes Him do the Things He Does?

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 4:29 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

Wyatt Earp: What does he need?

Doc Holliday: Revenge.

Wyatt Earp: For what?

Doc Holliday: Bein’ born.

August 13, 2012

The Ten Commandments of a Poor President

Filed under: Civics,Elections,Good Administration,Government,Obama — by Robert @ 9:14 am
Tags: , ,

The Ten Commandments of a Poor President

  1. Refuse citizens, media, cabinet members a share in the decision-making process.  Don’t let them know how you got “there.”  Use pithy remarks and slogans to hide your real agenda.
  2. Issue edicts undergirt only by one’s own presumptive authority.  Make sure these are issued in the dead of night or at the worst, late on a Friday afternoon.
  3. Suddenly change fundamental stated objectives in the midstream of your administration.  In the vernacular, this is called practicing “bait and switch,” say one thing, but do another—consistently.
  4. Permit political pressures and threats of self-serving individuals and groups to alter the practices that have been proven time and again to meet the needs and desires of the total community. Practice and promote political-correctness. Refuse to go beyond party-politics to find the “truth.”
  5. Allow the changing world to change yourself, your philosophy and your convictions such that you cease to exemplify the attributes that characterized you when first discovered.
  6. Initiate, implement through edit transforming innovation without any preliminary testing and approval through pilot programs.
  7. Place all blame for failure upon colleagues, other government agencies, predecessors and the people-at-large and demand full credit, personally, for all obvious successes.  Use an ad hominem wherever possible.
  8. In all modes of outside communication express a sense of possessiveness concerning “my” cabinet, “my” administration, “my” policies, “my people”, “my” programs, “my” ideas.
  9. Exhibit personal qualities not consistent with the behavior and character of a well-educated, roundly developed person—qualifies such as selfishness, greed, mendacity, dishonesty, intolerance, and immorality.
  10. Separate yourself entirely from  all government programs and operate only through edict and paper communication from a cloistered office.

 

Ten Commandments of a Good President

  1. Express in every word and action a high degree of integrity, honor, professional competence, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and balanced judgment.
  2. Involve all appropriate parties in policy-formation activities without surrendering  or overstepping the decision-making responsibilities that must be assumed by all involved.
  3. Develop within the country a clear and accepted understanding of the philosophies and practices which have been adopted as institutional foundations.
  4. By thought and action reveal yourself as a knowledgeable proponent and disciple of a rational governance philosophy.
  5. Be a leader and teacher par excellence with everyone you meet.
  6. Build a staff of individuals offering a varied and comprehensive array of outstanding abilities, prepared and able to press vigorously toward the attainment of designated goals.
  7. Be extremely generous with praise for others when efforts are successful, and quick to accept managerial responsibility when progress is less than admirable.
  8. Spend a large portion of your time outside the enclaves of one’s office, meeting citizens in un-planned and un-rehearsed opportunities.
  9. Exhibit courage and firm leadership when important principles are attacked, even when such defense imperils one’s own personal welfare.
  10. Be a faithful energizer of the people’s policies.

July 27, 2012

Obama creating African-American education office – WRONG.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is creating a new office to bolster education of African-American students.

The White House says the office will coordinate the work of communities and federal agencies to ensure that African-American youngsters are better prepared for high school, college and career.

Obama is announcing his election-year initiative Wednesday night in a speech to the civil rights group the National Urban League as he seeks to rally black voters. Aides say his executive order, to be signed Thursday, will set a goal of producing “a more effective continuum” of programs for African-American students

Obama’s recent announcement about creating a new office to bolster the education of African-American students is a perfect example of why politics and education should never meet and why government agencies in America should get out of the business of education. The very suggestion of such an office is an affront to the American citizens in the black community because it relegates black students to the Jim Crow days of the antediluvian South, just before the Civil War and 58 years before Brown v. Board of Education (1954).  And there’s an answer to the needs in Obama’s own USDOE and staring him right in the face.  His decision to create such an office demonstrates how he will use anything, even children, as grist for his political mill.  But Obama’s efforts and announcement does admit one thing.  America’s government schools ARE failing students in the black community, among others as well.

Immediately one has to ask, “Why now?” Obama has been in office for three and one-half years.  Why does he wait this long to create such an office?  The much-tauted Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, has had the same time to establish programs and offices to meet these cited needs.  Have things deteriorated that much in such a short period of time?  Not in turns of educational outcomes, unfortunately.  It seems Mr. Obama is using students to regain lost prestige and influence in the Black community of Americans who have lost faith in their leader due to other unpopular political moves recently.  Politics and education just don’t mix.  But Mr. Obama hasn’t learned that lesson.

Some would argue that the entire US Department of Education (USDOE) was established for the very purpose Obama outlines.  Every mandate, every grant, every so-called “competitive grant” from the USDOE is designed to favor young American citizens of color. The department has failed consistent with the failure of their charges. Millions have been spent on programs, offices, equipment, and the employee of thousands of adults but not one cent in achievement or academic  results.  If all this money-spending had succeeded, then why the need for yet another office?  Millions of dollars have been spent but that money failed to achieve results except in two areas—private schools and voucher programs.

Besides the usurpation of the college grants program, the largest federal program for the USDOE is The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (of which the No Child Left Behind is only the most recent iteration). NCLB has spent over $130 Billion in the past six years to create level playing fields in America’s government schools, programs designed specifically to assist the poor among us. It has failed miserably—except in one area.  The only place where the learning gap between kids of color and all others in the US has closed has been for those attending private schools!  The services rendered under NCLB for poor kids and kids of color attending private schools have had a demonstrable effect: they gained academically. The success occurred because the grants/services went to institutions that knew how to use them.

But now Obama wants to target Black American students with a new office.  He’s basically creating a separate-but-equal office just for Black students.  I thought separate-but-equal was outlawed de facto and de jure in Brown v. Board of Education back in 1954. It was found to be illegal to create a separate program just for black students, separate from all others.  How about the rest of America?  Will he create an office for Hispanic students when he needs their parents’ vote?  How about Syrian-Americans or Muslim-Americans? Will they also get an office?   The very purpose of education is to bring kids out of that singular experience that is theirs into the greater whole of mankind’s experience. You know, e pluribus unum.  Obama hasn’t learned that lesson as well.

The greater irony in this case is that the answer lies right in front of him: the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in Washington, DC.  The OSP provides a voucher to needy students (kids of color) to attend the school of their choice, usually a private school. In order to give these students this opportunity, the political dynamics required the buy-out of the local teachers’ union.  But the program succeeded because the students succeeded.  Indeed, the USDOE’s own research has demonstrated the success of the OSP program. The students in this program were “better prepared for high school, college, and career.”  But Obama defunded the program.  Twice.  He put these kids and their families on an educational roller coaster than is unconscionable. Just as they were making progress he pulled the rug out from under them.  The problem was that they were succeeding and he wasn’t.

Education, while valued at a national level, is NOT a Federal issue. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any reference to schooling… NOWHERE.  It’s not their job.  Likewise, when the USDOE was established under the then Carter administration, the lawmakers included exacting and express restrictions on the office from influencing and/or interfering with schooling at the local level in any way, shape, or form.  This includes creating “a more effective continuum,” whatever that means. That descriptor is vague enough to drive a truck through: it could allow anything.

More money is not the problem, that’s been proven time and time again. American schools have plenty of money; they just don’t spend what they have wisely. Classroom size reduction is not the answer, that’s been proven by research over 270 times. Early Childhood education isn’t the answer; Headstart research has demonstrated that all the skills learned in their program were lost by the time the student reached second grade in the government schools. A new bureaucracy is not the answer, that’s been demonstrated year-after-year since 1965.  Separating kids off into separate-but-equal programs is not the answer, let alone for the fact that it’s against the law. Mandates from Washington are not the answer; that’s like crowd control from the air—it never works.

The answer lies is in competition and parental choice at the local level.  Give parents the opportunity to choose what is best for their kids and they will. And those students will succeed.  We don’t need new offices, new systems, and more regulations.  Simply distribute the funds available per child each year and stick it into the backpack of every school-age student and have their parents decide where they should go.  All kids, regardless of their background or color, will succeed. The key is to get government out of the business and out of the way.

July 23, 2012

Penn State NCAA Penalties: Not Good Enough

Filed under: Education,Ends of Education,Sports — by Robert @ 10:19 am
Tags: , , ,

The NCAA’s so-called sanctions against Penn State for the Sandusky/Paterno et al criminality simply doesn’t go far enough, not by a long shot.  Here’s the premise of the NCAA’s statement about their sanctions:

“No price the NCAA can levy with repair the damage inflicted by Jerry Sandusky on his victims,” he said, referring to the former Penn State defensive coordinator convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse last month.

The NCAA concerned itself with collateral damage from this situation, mostly to the future.  The damage control seems to concern itself with present players, potential players and possible future activities.  It’s’ hard to undo what has been done.  But the point is this: the Penn State “culture” abandoned right reason and common sense morality in favor of its reputation and win-loss record.

Yes, Sandusky has been found guilty in a court of law. But the court records and the independent research indicate a far deeper and more troubling culture of deceit and cover-up. The sanctions admit that this “culture” goes deeper and has a much longer history than that advertised in the Sandusky trial. It’s to that “culture” that I address the following.

Penn State sanctions

• $60 million fine
• Vacation of wins from 1998-2011 (112 wins)*
• Four-year postseason ban
• Players may transfer and play immediately at other schools
• Athletic department on probation for five years
* Joe Paterno record now 298-136-3; fifth on FBS all-time list

$60 million fine         The NCAA said the $60 million was equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA ordered Penn State to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for “external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.”

With two or three phone calls, Penn State will have donors lined up to cover those costs.  But how does this address the deeper, institutional and “cultural” roots of such a disaster.  This behavior didn’t happen over night.  Records indicate that this took time.  How many more victims are out there who haven’t come forward?  If there is an institutional mindset that protects child abuse, what other kinds of “lesser” abuses have or are taking place as we speak?  If the Penn State win-at-all-costs “culture” shields these things, what else is being protected?  No, the roots go deeper.

Vacation of wins from 1998-2011 (112 wins)          I suppose that this is really the meat of the NCAA’s authority in this situation; it’s the best they choose to do. But it doesn’t make sense.  So the records are adjusted to reflect what?  You didn’t play fair? You weren’t living up to the NCAA rules and regulations?  From the point of view of the victims, I’d say, “So what?”  Future scholarships for players are not given based on the track record of the school.  They’re given for present performance, period.  But the sense of history here does indicate the need to go deeper into the culture that allowed and protected this kind of abuse.

Four-year postseason ban    There’s big money in the post-season play-offs.  But this attacks only the pocket book, not the “culture” that gave rise to such heinous behavior.  Penn State could easily arrange its own post-season games, eliminating the potential loss.  But the beat goes on.

“There is incredible interest in what will happen to Penn State football,” Ray said at the news conference. “But the fundamental chapter of this horrific story should focus on the innocent children and and the powerful people who let them down.”

The Big Ten fully supports the NCAA’s actions, saying in a news release it is officially hereby condemning and censuring the school for “egregiously” failing on “many levels — morally, ethically and potentially criminally.”

Of course they would.  But this is like the politician saying, “It’s for the kids.”  What they’re really thinking about is their own football possibilities.

Players may transfer and play immediately at other schools        Now this makes sense.  Present and future students may transfer immediately to other schools IF they are wanted and IF they have room. This acknowledges some of that collateral damage.  But what does this do for the victims known and unknown?  How does this help the “culture” that seems engrained in this institution?

Athletic department on probation for five years                This basically says don’t mess up for another five years. If you do, then this suspension/probation turns into what?  Expulsion?  The five years should be institutionalized a bit deeper.

Joe Paterno record now 298-136-3; fifth on FBS all-time list       Like the vacating of the school’s record, this is an empty gesture.  Leave the dead to bury the dead.  One cannot deny past victories or losses; they are a matter of history.  But so is the history of the institutional culture that allows these crimes to be committed.

There are some noble gestures directed at children:

Penn State’s proceeds from Big Ten bowl revenues from the four years, amounting to an estimated $13 million, will be allocated “to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children,” the conference said.

But these gestures are only that: gestures…

Penn State, in a statement released less than an hour after the sanctions were revealed, said it will accept them and that the “ruling holds the university accountable for the failure of those in power to protect children and insists that all areas of the university community are held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity.”

Individuals and institutions don’t “bounce back” from tragedy, nefarious or otherwise, until they’ve hit rock bottom.  Penn State is at rock bottom, whether or not they recognize it. Now that needs to be institutionalized so that they can start over.  $60 million in finds, an erasure of past victories, future post-season closures, and probation are not rock bottom.

Except for some minor hand-slapping, these rulings don’t go anywhere near holding “the university accountable.”  What the Penn State should have added is, “In accepting these sanctions and in order for us to eliminate the viral infections of the past and build on what is right, we will not compete in intercollegiate football for four years. There will be no football at Penn State for four years.”

July 20, 2012

Time for Impeachment

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government — by Robert @ 3:14 pm
Tags: , , ,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. (Declaration of Independence)

The US Constitution limits impeachment to “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” who may be impeached and removed only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Then President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office with only the threat of impeachment. His crime: lying to the American people about a cover-up that included all the branches of the US intelligence and justice departments.

Now we have a POTUS who has gone way beyond a cover-up, though that offense will be in the bill of particulars or in discovery.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once stated, “Facts are stubborn things.” Well, the following facts are stubborn things. They’re stubborn because they cannot be denied.

(The italicized portions are from the Declaration of Independence.)

Treason       

  1. He asked permission of the United Nations in order for us to go to war, a war not authorized by Congress.
  2. He has made efforts (through Secretary Clinton) to subsume the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to a UN Treaty.
  3. He was the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, while he acted as president.
  4. His administration gave British Trident missile codes to Russia.

Bribery

  1. He forced British Petroleum to pay $20 billion to a slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the BP oil spill. There is no Congressional oversight.
  2. Votes for ObamaCare were purchased with the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and the Department of the Interior increasing water allocations to California’s San Joaquin and Central Valleys.
  3. He gave taxpayer funds to Solyndra (along with a few others).

High crimes and Misdemeanors

  1. He accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards.  The screening process to preclude foreign money was (somehow) turned off.
  2. Domestic donors to his campaign were able to contribute over the legal limit.
  3. He produced a fraudulent birth certificate to disclaim questions about his birth.
  4. He does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
    1. A candidate for the office of president (and presumptive office holders) must be natural-born citizens: at the time of birth, both parents must be citizens of the United States.

i.      By his own admission (POTUS) his father was native to and a citizen of a foreign country.  He is not eligible for the position.

ii.      Continued willful obfuscation of the facts surrounding his birth and the documents that could prove otherwise is a cover-up far and away great than that of former President Nixon.

  1. He is using a false Social Security Number.
  2. His Draft Registration number is false.
  3. He violated the bankruptcy laws by awarding the United Auto Workers with a share of GM and Chrysler during their bankruptcy proceedings.
  4. He summarily fired the Chief Executive Office of General Motors, a violation of the Constitution.
  5. He lied to American citizens about being able to keep their healthcare coverage if they went with ObamaCare.
  6.  He told the EPA to set carbon emission standards without the direction and/or oversight of Congress.
  7. He instituted the “Brown Shirts Mentality” when he instituted a website that asked Americans to report on other Americans about ObamaCare, using taxpayer money.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

  1. The appointment of “czars” (over 30) is questionable at the very least. It bypasses the Senate and the representative nature of this Constitutional Republic.
  2. He violated contractual law when he cancelled 77 oil field development contracts previously approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
  3. He has used tax payer funds and government offices for political gain. One such example is the use of the DHS to determine the political affiliation of Americans making FOIA requests about his administration, with subsequent DHS refusals and delays.
  4. He conducted a war against Libya without Congressional authorization, a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973.
  5. He lied again to the American people when he said there were no US troops in Libya. His later admission was that they were just “logistical troops.” (Sound familiar: “There are no US troops in Laos.)
  6. His cover-up and use of “Executive Privilege” to shield his administration about his knowledge of and direct involvement with the Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

  1. On New Years Eve 2011, he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent

  1. His role in the economic looting of America since he took office is unprecedented. Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
  2. He authored and urged the passage of what is known as ObamaCare, telling the citizens that it was not a “tax” but a penalty for non-participation.
  3. His use of signing statements shows his desire to rule by executive fiat. This is a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

  1. He has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
  2. He has allowed US Attorney General, Eric Holder, to ignore his violation of US immigration laws by the creation of immigration sanctuary cities.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither

  1. He has directed his Attorney General to sue any state which seeks to secure its borders.
  2. He enacted law without Congress by providing amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws.
  3. He and Secretary of State Clinton misappropriated $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help his homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to “social justice”.
  4. He acted in April 2009, at the G20 meeting, to expand the Special Drawing Rights that now gives the IMF more control over the US economy, more authority than the duly-elected representatives of the citizens.
  5. He allowed the FCC to assume authority over the internet, in direct violation of a federal appeals court that DENIED the commission that authority. In December, the FCC voted and passed the first federal regulations on internet traffic.

He has obstructed the administration of justice…

  1. He allowed the DOJ in 2009 to stop enforcing federal drug laws in regards to marijuana.
  2. He allowed the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a law of the land at the time.
  3. He issued an Executive Order on July 12, 2011, attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of US citizens in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona
  4. When Eric Holder refused to prosecute two New Black Panther Party members for brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia, He did nothing. This is a voter Civil Rights violation.
  5. There is new evidence that he obstructed justice by giving preferential treatment to his uncle, Omar Onyango, found guilty of overstaying his visa since 1989 and having received a DUI during this time; the uncle received a deportation stay from the Obama administration and, despite a court ruling to the contrary, received an “emergency” driver’s license.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments…

  1. He attempted to bypass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling by “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment.
  2. He bypassed the Senate by appointing Richard Cordray to a new unconstitutional agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  3. He bypassed the Senate in order to appoint three people to the National Labor Relations Board.
  4. He allowed Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant waivers to No Child Left Behind however, this is a law enacted by Congress and neither Obama nor Duncan have the authority to authorize that.
  5. He violated the policy of the Senate when he appointed Donald Berwick as CEO of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  6. Obama allowed the bailouts to grant money without the authority to do so. “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7U.S.Constitution
  7. Obama allowed Operation Castaway to occur, which allowed firearms laws to be broken through coercion of legal gun dealers.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  1. He allowed his Secretary of Defense to place US troops within the jurisdiction of the United Nations.
  2. He and his Secretary of State have maneuvered to subordinate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to a United Nations treaty on arms control.
  3. He allowed Interpol to operate in the US without the proper oversight by Congress, the FBI, our US courts or even local law enforcement.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…

  1. He interfered with a high profile murder case in Florida by taking sides.
  2. He allows the DHS/TSA to routinely violate the 4th/5th Amendment rights of Americans at airports, train stations, and VIPER checkpoints.
  3. His administration changed a welfare program into a government handout to not citizens by promoting Food Stamp Assistance in alien newspapers.
  4. His Attorney General has failed to address the voting rights of American citizens on the island of Guam, an American territory.
  5. During his tenure the American Olympic committee was allowed to outsource the manufacture of team uniforms to China.
  6. He failed to rein in his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, falsified her statement, given before the entire “international community,” claiming “200 men, women, and children” were deliberately massacred, when in reality it was the Syrian military restoring order in the face of armed terrorists.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends

We, therefore… do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people… solemnly publish and declare… that they are absolved from all allegiance… and that all political connection between them …ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The Moral Dilemma and Obama

Filed under: American,Civics,Elections,Government,Language — by Robert @ 2:59 pm
Tags: , , , ,

One of the telling problems of politics is the disconnect between what a politician says and does from one moment to the next.  We hear a speech that inspires and enervates.  We then hear an off-the-cuff remark that bewilders and is contrary to the speech.  The dilemma for the citizen in 21st century America is getting to know a candidate and/or politician from the words and actions revealed.  Why they reach the conclusion they reach is as important as the conclusion itself because it reveals how the person thinks and what they value.  Why does Soetoro-Obama do this or say that?  What does he really mean?  What does he really value? Part of the problem is modern technology.

When a political leader speaks formally today, s/he often uses a teleprompter or, at least, prepared notes.  It’s very seldom that an informal give-and-take takes place.  Why?  In the formal setting the politician is working from a well-prepared script.  The problem is that this script was probably written by someone else. In the informal tête-à-tête the politician is naked before the world. These latter words reveal the real person behind the words.  You really don’t know what a person is thinking from a prepared speech. One measure of a politician’s strength would be to see how often s/he works from a script or speaks extemporaneously.  How often does this person speak directly to the people? How does Mr. Obama stack up when he working from a script versus when he’s not?  Notice a difference?  It’s obvious that the level of moral reasoning by the scriptwriter is radically different from that of Mr. Soetoro-Obama.

One such scale used to measure cognitive moral reasoning was authored by Piaget.  Piaget studied and wrote of many aspects of moral reasoning and judgment.  But all of his research narrowed down to a two-state theory.  Moral dilemmas are handled by under-10 and 11-year-olds far differently than those older. In other words, there are two stages of development: 10 & 11-years-old (and under) and all people older. Children 11 and under regard the laws and rules of order to be fixed and absolute.  These rules are handed down by God and/or adults and they cannot be altered.  The older group sees that rules are not necessarily sacred and/or absolute, but they are tools that human beings use to form social groups and get along.

The younger group measures rules by what might happen if; what would happen if I break that rule or follow that rule.  They see the world in terms of consequences.  The older folks tend to see the world of choices in terms of intentions.  For some of them, one’s intentions can trump the severity of breaking a rule/law. That’s why intentions are a major part of most capital crime investigations. What was their intention? Was there an intention to deceive?

A second author on moral choice was Lawrence Kohlberg.  Kohlberg took the extensive research of Piaget and analyzed it even further. In his famous doctoral research, he observed the responses (moral reasoning) of 72 boys from Chicago all dealing with the same dilemma.  From those interviews and subsequent research and writings, Kohlberg developed his Six Stages for Moral Reasoning.  “Moral” here doesn’t mean a bag of virtues.  It’s the intellectual value one places on why one chooses to do or not do a particular act.

Here’s a chart of those stages:

Pre-moral or Pre-Conventional Level

Stage 1: Love of Pleasure, Fear of Pain or Punishment-Avoidance   and Obedience

Decisions are made strictly on the   basis of self-interest.  Rules are   disobeyed as long as one doesn’t get caught.

Stage 2:    Egotistic-Reciprocity or The Exchange of Favors

Others may have needs, but   everything is subordinate to the satisfaction of my needs first and foremost.  

Conventional   Level

Stage 3: The “Good boy” or “Good Girl” stage

Chooses to do or not do things in   order to please others.  Very concerned   about maintaining interpersonal relationships.

Stage 4: Law and Order

I choose not to do this or choose   to do that because it’s the law of the land.

Post-Conventional or Principled Level

Stage 5:  The Social   Contract

Rules/Laws are part of social   agreements. While these laws should be followed by all, they can be changed   from time to time.

Stage 6: Universal Moral/Ethic Principle

There are transcendent principles   that are higher than or more encompassing than particular laws in time and   space.  There is a deep inner   conscience.

Subsequent stages are “better” than the previous.  “Better” here doesn’t mean “gooder” in the sense of a good/bad thing. It means more-encompassing, more intellectually honest.  A person who reasons as level 3 includes levels 2 and 1 into a higher order of reasoning.  Likewise, a person thinking at level 5, the Social Contract, necessarily includes the preceding levels 1-4.  Each stage of cognitive moral reasoning is a more encompassing level; the very “motion” of the chart itself goes from the narrowness or solitude of the “I” to the much broader idea of the “they”, the one to the many.

People don’t necessarily move to “higher” stages of moral growth simply because of age, nor can they skip a stage.  A famous 60-some-year old politician once said, “I don’t know how they can do this to me after all I did to them” the night he left office.  Clearly, that’s a level 2 kind of thinking.  But a person grows from one stage to another by intellectually dealing with moral dilemmas, that is, grappling with the moral content of an issue. If folks don’t engage moral dilemmas, they remain morally stagnant.  Most children outgrow level 2 by the time they are in second grade. This was once called the “age of reason.”  Most American adults reach level four thinking, acting at level three.  Some reach post-conventional thinking. Kohlberg noted that Socrates, Plato, Ghandi, Jesus, and some of the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., were all examples of level six thinking. They were all killed by level four type folks.  There is a price to pay for having an individual moral compass.

There are averages for the cognitive moral development of most folks, but there are exceptions.  Kohlberg found that “normal” folks usually think one level above where they tend to act. In other words, while folks might be talking about Law and Order, their actions demonstrate clearly that they’re really thinking of how they can please another. An interesting sidelight study was that Kohlberg found that criminals tend to act one level above their reasoning; that is they did a “law and order” kind of deed, but when questioned they noted their prison record and time off for good behavior. Criminal “types” think and act the opposite of law-abiding citizens.

Let’s give Mr. Soetoro-Obama a dilemma and see by his actions at what level he’s probably operating.  The dilemma is this:  He wants to run for a higher political office.  The office has a strict criteria for candidates: both of his parents must be natural born citizens at the time of his birth in order to qualify.  He knows he doesn’t qualify but he really wants this office. He’s been offered the possibility by several of the richest and most influential men in the world. If he reveals his birth certificate, he’s ineligible. Should he reveal this fact or not?

Mr. Soetoro-Obama decides to move ahead and keep that information from his constituents.  In fact he spends close to $11 million to hide that fact and avoid discovery.  He wants the job opportunity.

So the question is this: At what level of moral reasoning is this decision?

Stage 6: Universal Moral/Ethic Principle?      No.  In order to be transcendent, all actions and thoughts have to be transparent. It’s all out there for folks to see.  There’s nothing to hide.  The very act of hiding eliminates this level. His actions to secret information reveal the lack of moral reasoning at this level.

Stage 5:  The Social Contract?                       No.  An example of this Social Contract would be the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States; they reach for higher values, higher principles.  But the Constitution is the very document that outlines the expectation for this office.  If he chooses to hide the facts of his birth and upbringing, then he is not rising to this higher level of post-conventional thinking.  His actions are contrary to the expectations of this stage.

Stage 4: Law and Order?                                No.  The law of the land outlines the expectations for his office.  He submits a false document to suggest compliance with the law. He’s able to think about the expectations at this level, but his actions are not consistent with what society offers as was is legal and what is a sense of order. His choice to violate the law is not for some higher good.

Stage 3: “Good boy” or “Good Girl” stage?  No.  One might argue that he chose to do hide his eligibility in order to please his backers.  But is he very concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships with the people this office serves?  No.  There is evidence that he’s at least toying with his level of moral development.  He did alter and amend the official histories of his predecessors in order to attempt admiration for his own supposed accomplishments to date.  He’s starting to think about this level but his actions aren’t there yet.

Stage 2:  Egotistic-Reciprocity or The Exchange of Favors Stage    Possibly. Others may have needs, but everything is subordinate to the satisfaction of my needs first and foremost.  His control of media events directs all attention to him; he continually takes credit for others’ work and achievement. He accepts awards where he has done nothing to earn them.  When others challenge the facts of his eligibility, he attacks the author with ad hominem remarks. Clearly he works at this level because of the many favors he grants to only those who have supported him.  

Stage 1: Love of Pleasure, Fear of Pain or Punishment-Avoidance and Obedience Stage?   For sure.  The very reason he spends so much money, time and energy on hiding his credentials is that he might get caught.  Then what?  Decisions are made strictly on the basis of self-interest.  And like Piaget’s early stage thinker, his decisions are based on consequences, not intentions. The egotistic love of pleasure in holding the position is more important than the honest revelation that he simply is not eligible for the same.

Kohlberg hoped that people would advance to the highest possible stage of moral thought. The best possible society would contain individuals who not only understand the need for social order (stage 4) but can entertain visions of universal principles, such as justice and liberty (stage 6). But neither of these can be obtained if, as an adult, one has the stagnated moral development at the level of a six-to-11-year-old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.