Blog Archives

A Precarious Concept

5/27/2020

Our republic has survived for almost 250 years. Benjamin Franklin had hoped for the best, but he had doubts we could sustain it. Most of us call what we have a democracy, and that’s good enough for me even though it is in fact a representative democracy.

Whatever it is, it seems to be difficult to duplicate.

Take Russia, for example. I thought when the yoke of communism was broken there was a chance for democracy as we know it. But before long that country reverted to near dictatorship.

It’s not alone. Many countries have dictators. In fact, it seems to be the preferred form of government. The long history of powerful kings ruling over the masses supports this.

Sounds crazy, I know. Cruelty abounds in dictatorships. Those opposing risk their lives and often lose them. Usually the elite reap all financial benefit while most of the population lives in poverty.

So why is it so popular? I think there are at least two reasons, each based on human foibles.

First, it seems people yearn for a leader that tells them what to do, what to think. When they find someone willing to do that, they will accept without question whatever they are told. My guess is it gives them a sense of security knowing there is a person they can look up to who isn’t conflicted with the doubts they themselves possess. It relieves them of independent thought and responsibility.

Second, it appears people need to feel superior to someone else, even if they aren’t. Dictators seize and manipulate this weakness, pandering on the fears of many against a different class. Examples abound. Think Hitler and the extermination of Jews, gays, and other groups. Or, closer to home, governors and other political figures keeping their jobs by enforcing slavery and Jim Crow laws.

There are, however, many nations that take pride in democratic principles: England, much of Europe, India, indeed several countries around the world.

But what country is the jewel of the concept? The one whose very founding involved shaking the shackles of a king? The United States of America!

After all, our long (long in our own minds at least) history of democracy has withstood all challenges without tarnishing its basic ideals. Our country is safe from the threat of dictatorship. Our principles of decency and a people’s government are too strong.

Or are they? Remember the basic tenets of humans: love of a powerful leader and the need to be superior to someone else.

I think we are in trouble. We have a president who exhibits classic characteristics of dictatorship. For example, he is one who spawns hatred by accepting the legitimacy of hate groups. Who lies to increase his own power. Who commands adoring crowds that swallow every bit of the nonsense he spouts (love of a powerful leader). Who belittles the free press in manners similar to dictators throughout the ages. Who weakens national institutions designed to hold a president in check. Who seizes the court system by packing it with ideologues not committed to impartial jurisprudence. Who belittles immigrants with policies of hate (need to be superior to someone).

If you think these have nothing to do with the possible loss of our democracy and the beginning of a path to dictatorship, I fear you are sadly mistaken.

Ben Franklin was right. He probably wouldn’t put it this way, but democracy is a precarious concept and all it takes is the right person to destroy it. Yes, it can happen here.

The king in waiting has made gigantic strides during the last four years. With new confidence and declining moral imperatives on him and his followers, four more could be all it takes.

2 Comments

A Stacked Game

5/20/2020

0 Comments

It’s never a good idea to have both branches of a deliberative body be controlled by the same party, especially if the chief executive also is a member of that party. It becomes even more important in this age when those in power feel no compunction to represent all constituents and have no moral fiber to stand up for what is right against party bosses.

The situation is at its worst if the majority is so secure it is not threatened by elections, which is more likely in state legislatures than in the national theater.

If that’s the case, as it is in Florida, watch out.

First off, since opinions of constituents need not be considered, the legislators can do what they do best: Cozy up to moneyed interests and act like the good puppies they are.

Florida is a state split almost equally between left and right. However, gerrymandering gives Republicans almost a two to one majority in the House and a comfortable lead in the Senate. This means that the views of half the population can be squashed without fear of reprisal.

That ignored half tries hard. They communicate with legislators, they attend legislative committee meetings in vast numbers, they hold press conferences, and they participate in organized protests.

How does this play out?

The legislators might take notice of the opposing voices. And then they ignore them. And what motivation do they have not to? They are firmly in charge and know whatever they do will most likely be backed by their buddy, the governor.

Consider a controversial bill proposed by the majority party. There’s a good chance it will be a flagrant attack on principles held dear by at least half the population. There will be a demand by the opposition to be heard as the appropriate committees discuss and vote on it. One still is allowed to testify at these hearings.

But the legislators don’t like it, especially as some of these bills receive significant media attention. While they really don’t care how people feel, they still don’t wish for negative publicity. Hence, they do what they do so well: They limit opposing testimony—or make it go away.

How? Well, there are a couple of tricks that involve scheduling shenanigans for the hearing considering the controversial measure. The idea behind both is to include discussion of a number of other bills, most not nearly as important as the one that has riled the populace and motivated many to testify.

The session might be scheduled from one to six. The hearing room is packed, people arriving on the dot so they can be heard. The lesser bills are discussed first, seemingly without end. Then someone announces it’s six o’clock. What? But the bill the people are concerned about never came up. They drove four hours to give testimony. Too bad! Many can’t afford to return to the next hearing of the committee, whenever that might be.

Or the bill of interest might be scheduled earlier, but suddenly for some reason it’s tabled. Not going to be heard today. Disappointment reigns and the thwarted opponents leave the hearing room. Then, what do you know, a little later the bill is untabled but, of course, those wishing to speak against it have long gone.

Think these are unreasonable scenarios? Both have occurred during the latest legislative session in Florida.

These are not the only outrageous actions taken by party members when they rule supreme. They will:

Take money from a mandated fund to use for other purposes.
Slip bills into others late in the day (like around 11:00 p.m. of the last day of the session).
Not allow even a discussion of bills proposed by the opposition.
Make it more and more difficult for citizens to develop constitutional amendments to appear on the ballot (although amendments proposed by the legislators can sail through).
Extend the session to finish the only job they are required to complete, passing a budget, because they spent too much time on the other nonsense.

Most of these antics would be much more difficult if the executive and legislative branches weren’t all held by the same political party. I would feel exactly the same if they were all in Democratic hands.

With split control, there is at least hope for compromise to advance reasonable legislation. Although, I have to admit, the current division at the national level seems to be bringing out the worst in everybody.

But the split does make it harder to pass some awful bills. Maybe that’s all we can hope for.

0 Comments

College Education—Part 3

5/13/2020

0 Comments

My undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering. I also have a master’s in the subject. My dad was an electrical engineer and it seemed as if I was destined to follow the same path. Not because of any pressure. There was none. I didn’t realize options existed, and it seemed an entirely reasonable goal. After all, I was competent in high school math and science. Why not?

As it turned out, I was a terrible electrical engineer. I never really understood the workings of vacuum tubes, transistors, circuitry. I had a good friend who got me through the required labs. He became a great engineer and has had an interesting and successful life as such. I feel lucky to have recently reconnected with him.

Fortunately, computers were coming into being. One part of that field was mathematical in nature, and as a result my interest turned to mathematics. I’ve never been sorry.

My point is, my life’s work has been in a field I did not initially study for.

I am not alone. Many of my friends from college also changed their focus. Usually still in the scientific area as was the case with me, but not always. I read that 75% of college graduates are working outside their field of study.

For those of us who made a change, there came an investment of time and money to make it possible.

Could it be that age 18 is too early to form a decision about the field in which to concentrate?

MIT seems to think so. An article entitled “The first-year experiments” in MIT Technology Review from December 27, 2019, pages 18-21, gives interesting statistics.

First semester students there have been graded pass/no record to ease fears of not doing well at the school with the formidable reputation. General Institute Requirements (GIRs) include a rigorous first year of math and science, and most students tried to get these courses out of the way using the early eased grading. The problem, as a consequence, is they were forced into a strict regimen of courses with no time for experimentation. Complicating matters further was the expectation a student declare his/her major in the spring semester of the first year.

A survey showed 30% of first-year students didn’t feel ready to do that. Furthermore, 26% of sophomores, juniors, and seniors believed they didn’t have the flexibility to change majors. And, in another survey, 20% of seniors indicated they would have considered different majors.

As I understand it, MIT is now employing student input and design classes to recommend solutions. More flexibility is currently available and “discovery” classes have been developed for early students to explore different areas. Three GIR courses can be delayed and still take advantage of the pass/no report benefit. It remains a work in progress, but the problem is taken seriously.

Different schools will deal with this dilemma in different ways. But it is indeed a problem and must be recognized as such. I base this on my own experience, on that of so many of my friends, and on decades of contact with students.

If schools truly are interested in preparing students in the best way possible, they should concentrate on finding methods to get them ready for the careers that they want in the long run and which will bring them joy.

This is a quandary that should not be solved by legislators. You know, the group who have been to school and therefore are experts on education. But that’s exactly what they often attempt to do. Unfortunately, they don’t solve; they muddy. For example, they have put limits at state universities on the total number of class hours a student can take at reduced in-state tuition rates.

This seems so wrong to me for at least two reasons. First, because a student unhappy in a major may not be able to afford a change, which always requires additional courses (with the higher out-of-state fee). Second, because it’s sending the message that intellectual curiosity is a bad thing that must be discouraged, the opposite of what education should foster.

It’s a complicated world we live in. We shouldn’t be making it harder to learn what to do in it.

0 Comments

How Can They Live with Themselves?

5/6/2020

0 Comments

During a lifetime we all make mistakes, wish we could undo a previous action. But most of us are decent and try to do the right thing, the kind thing. Sadly, that isn’t true for everyone. And I’m not speaking of hardened criminals or those with seriously damaged psyches.

Today we concentrate on those who have the authority to better conditions for all citizens, but they do not. In normal times they create enough problems. In emergency situations such as COVID-19 their actions result in devastating consequences. I used to call these individuals leaders, but that’s a misnomer. Now I just say they have power. They are, of course, in executive and legislative positions in national and state governments.

We have seen incompetence in national leadership that has allowed a terrible threat to become a horrible one. Depending on the state, we have seen governors of both parties lead with strength or twiddle their thumbs. In my state, our governor needed approval from his master in Washington in order to act.

The authorities in my state and many states have governed for years in a manner that ignores and degrades the poor and vulnerable of our population. This type of control has emboldened the basest and most selfish segments of our society.

What they have done is abhorrent to any thinking individual with a modicum of conscience. But gerrymandering, support of a significant portion of the population, and indifference from many of the rest of us let them get away with it.

Now the coronavirus has exposed the flaws of their past actions. Here are a few.

My state, Florida, rarely rates high in any category. However, in the matter of unemployment insurance it is among the top in having the worst benefits. An individual who has lost his job can expect a massive $275 each week for a total of 13 weeks. Those would be the lucky ones, the ones whose jobless claim could be processed—and was not denied. The current crisis has exposed the state’s unemployment system for what it is: an expensive underdeveloped platform set up to not deliver. We can thank many people, but much credit is due our former governor and current state senator. He hates the unemployed and worked hard to gut the unemployment compensation system while he was governor. Recently he expressed contempt for the $600 weekly payment in the national payout bill because he didn’t want someone out of work to make more than when working! I guess it helps such thinking to be a multimillionaire.
For years Florida has had a fund mandated by statute to be used for affordable housing. For years prior to the current one Florida legislators have robbed most of those funds to provide important state initiatives such as tax breaks for big businesses. The devastation caused by the virus has put more and more people out of work and the money for help with housing is woefully inadequate.
My state has proudly declined to participate in the expansion of Medicare allowed by the Affordable Care Act, even though the federal government would pay most of the cost. That has worked out well in the current crisis, hasn’t it? Those not covered who seek help will have their care paid locally one way or the other. Those who refuse to ask for medical assistance because of lack of insurance will become sicker, resulting in even more local costs.
The experts tell us individuals confined to their homes for extended periods are more likely to become depressed. One can expect suicides, already a major problem, to increase. One of the most effective methods is gunshot. No problem obtaining firearms in my state. The legislators love ‘em and pass laws to encourage their availability and use. Gun stores have been doing a roaring business, considered “essential” in the current crisis.
The second of our state senators wants to get the economy rolling again, soon, and we are starting. I understand the need. It’s a terrible dilemma, especially with so many out of work. I’m glad I don’t have to make the call balancing the risks of lifting sanctions against not lifting them. I do sympathize with those in that position. But I do not accept the insensitive statement by the senator that, yes, people will die, but it’s the price for opening the economy. Another action with consequences!

The mean spiritedness of so many of our legislators and executives is hard to comprehend.

How can they live with themselves?

0 Comments

A Precarious Concept

A Stacked Game

College Education—Part 3

How Can They Live with Themselves?

Author

Archives

Categories