Range of ideas to consider for helping the US transition from revolution to a more stable environment.

#294: Making America Great Again #4, Ban Charter Schools…and Busing.

19 Saturday May 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date.

Note: most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters (see link at top of page). You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

Greenie: “Before the break, I said I thought at first Jordan’s idea of reinstating conscription was stupid. Then I came around and supported it.”

JC: “And…?

Greenie: “Well, here’s an idea that you guys might think falls in the category of stupid. I think we should ban charter schools.”

JC: “What’s your logic? Something wrong with charter schools?”

Jordan: “Supporters claim charter schools are more effective than public schools at educating students. So what’s wrong with their argument?”

Greenie: “My view is charter schools are band-aides, not solutions. Charter schools are an excuse to divert money from public schools to the private sector. Or even worse, charter schools are part of a plan toward eliminating public schools altogether. But charter schools don’t solve any real problems.”

JC: “Not that I disagree with you but why do you think charter schools are a band-aide?”

Greenie: “Because charter schools address symptoms and not causes. Let’s not be naïve, a certain percentage of public schools have real problems. And those problems need to be fixed.”

Jordan: “You’re saying that charter schools don’t fix the problems. Why not? Aren’t students better off moving from public schools to charter schools?”

Greenie: “Some students, probably, but not all. What about the kids who don’t go to charter schools and remain in public schools? Many are worse off than before the other kids left…plus there’s less funding for the public schools because taxpayers must fund the charter schools.”

Bag of Money JC: “We need to get more specific about the issues. Besides we know that merely throwing money at schools does not necessarily make schools better.”

Greenie: “You want specifics? Start with quality of teachers. I know we all grew up in a different era – some probably liken it to the Stone Age by today’s standards. But think about the quality of teachers we had from first grade through high school…and especially high school.”

Diagramed Sentence JC: “I agree that many were top-notch, especially those teaching math and English. To think we were so motivated we used to diagram sentences for fun!”

Jordan: “Why do you think the teachers were so good?”

Greenie: “Party because women had fewer career opportunities than today.”

JC: “True, but we had some great male teachers as well.”

Black School Teacher Jordan: “What about teacher pay?”

Greenie: “Much better proportionately than pay today but still less money than the private sector.”

JC: “What about respect? In an earlier era, teachers seemed to be respected by almost everyone…including politicians.”

Jordan: “Good point. I really get frustrated with some politicians in North Carolina. Republicans have let teacher pay lag behind the rate of inflation. What’s even worse, when teachers marched on Raleigh recently for higher pay and more support for students, a long-term, high-profile Republican called them thugs.”

JC: “Nice, huh? Calling your teachers thugs. What an a-hole.”

Greenie: “See why I said charter schools were a band-aide? Charter schools do nothing to address some of the fundamental problems of public education.”

Why Jordan: “OK, I’ll be the bad guy. Why do we need free public education? What percent of the public thinks education should be privately provided and not publicly provided…forget who pays for it?”

JC: “That kind of question makes my head hurt. Jordan, you know as well as I that what made this country great was not a bunch of open land, not a bunch of resources…not even a great constitution. None of those mattered unless you had one thing…”

Greenie: “…an educated populous. And how did the US populous become educated? Not just an education for the elite but an education for everyone, including immigrants, many of whom arrived here illiterate. They were educated through a free public education.”

Jordan: “So your premise is until the country sets a goal of free, quality public education for everyone…and then begins to make that happen again…we’ll not make real progress toward making America great again. Right?”

Greenie: “You got it. Allowing charter schools avoids forcing society toward restoring free, quality public education for all.”

School Bus No JC: “While we’re throwing out ideas about education, what about banning busing? Busing seems like a waste of time and money.”

Greenie: “Busing is a waste. I agree the goal should be to eliminate almost all busing.”

Jordan: “Ok, what’s the first step in making this plan work?”

Greenie: “Simple. Commitment. If people commit to free, quality, public education for all, then the problem is more than half solved. With such a commitment, all the other issues can start to be addressed rationally.”

JC: “What about support from politicians?”

fife-drum%201 Greenie: “Tell me how a politician is going to campaign against free, quality public education for all? That type campaign, especially in this post-Revenge Revolution environment would be suicide.”

Jordan: “Greenie, I really like your idea. Simple and easy to understand.”

JC: “You got my vote too. And now I’m the one who needs a break.”

(Continued)

#293 Conscription for All? Well, Yes, for All Those Younger. Some Guidelines.

12 Saturday May 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

Greenie: “Ready for another idea how to really make America great again?”

JC: “Yep. We could beat to death the idea of federally funded elections. Why don’t we tackle something less controversial?”

Greenie: “You mean like Jordan’s suggestion to bring back conscription?”

JC: “Why not? The alt-right crowd insists that only those who salute the flag, serve in the military and own guns are patriotic. I’m sure the alt-right will support conscription.”

Greenie: “Reinstating conscription should be a slam dunk. I learned that term watching the Final Four. Anyway, think of all the hard-liners who’ve had stellar military careers.”

Jordan: “You mean like Trump, Limbaugh, Hannady, and the former right-wing truthsayer, Bill O’Reilly.”

JC: “What a list of potential endorsers for conscription…except I don’t think any of them served in the military.”

Greenie: “Hold on. Trump went to military school. If you don’t think that was tougher than being in the real military, just ask the Donald…whatever.”

Jordan: “What’s as bad as their military experience is their education. O’Reilly is the only one with any kind of education. Limbaugh and Hannady aren’t even qualified to blow stuff out their you know what.”

Gre Fart enie: “Jordan, pulleeeze. Be a bit more diplomatic, will you?”

Jordan: “Well, Limbaugh dropped out after one year at some Missouri teacher’s college and Hannady bounced around three different schools and never did graduate.”

JC: “Alright, lets remove tongue from cheek and get serious. What are the benefits of conscription?”

Jordan: “First, let’s be clear. Conscription would allow either military service or non-military service with Federal agencies approved by the Selective Service.”

Greenie: “Just so I understand, you including women?”

JC: “Why not? If combat military service is not required, then why not include women?”

Turtleneck Jordan: “For now, we’ll include both men and women.”

Greenie: “How long do you have to serve?”

Jordan: “Two years…and then some sort of standby reserve in case there’s a crisis. But the reserve wouldn’t require any weekend training or anything like that.”

Greenie: “Eligibility at what age?”

Age 18 Jordan: “Eligible at 18 but must begin service by say age 26. A person could get a deferment to attend trade school or college but would need to start by age 26.”

JC: “What if a woman got married and had a kid…or just had a kid? Would she still have to serve?”

Greenie: “Now, I’ll ask, ‘Why not?’ She could always service in a non-military capacity. Just giving some people an easy way out doesn’t seem fair.”

JC: “Then what kind of jobs would qualify outside the military?”

US Map Lower 48 Jordan: “Federal agencies that have operations in most parts of the country. Agencies that serve people locally or work with the states to service people locally.”

Greenie: “You mean such as EPA, part of Interior, Education, HUD?”

Jordan: “All those agencies work.”

JC: “What about FEMA?”

Jordan: “FEMA’s a good add.”

Greenie: “Think how much more effective FEMA could be with a staff highly trained to help manage disaster relief.”

Jordan: “Same with EPA. There are lots of areas where an ‘EPA corps’ as it were, could help gather data or fix an issue before it becomes difficult and costly to solve. Just like that old commercial, ‘pay me now or pay me later.’ But later is almost always much more expensive.”

Greenie: “Are all the jobs we’re talking about outdoorsy kind of jobs?”

Jordan: “Not at all. The military has lots of jobs for non-combat personnel…and many are like office jobs.”

Whining JC: “I can hear it now. Some people are going to claim what we’re proposing will be taking away jobs from others. Or worse yet, conscription will interrupt little Johnnie’s or little Susie’s career that mommy and daddy paid so much to prepare them for. How are we going to counter that argument?”

Jordan: “Give mommy and daddy the Bronx cheer. Really, there’s a number key benefits that stem from conscription. Most obvious is helping fix some of the country’s problems that kept getting put off by politics. #2 benefit, being forced to live in a disciplined environment, at least during the ‘basic training’ period; #3, being forced to learn to work with a team. I’m always amazed at how many young adults have never really been forced to work in a team. Even if they end up in a non-military job, everyone who goes through some type of basic training will have a much better understanding of the value of teamwork…and an inkling of how the military works. #4 benefit…”

Number List JC: “…Let me try. #4, forced diversity. Exposure to a wide range of people and backgrounds never hurt anyone. Maybe we, that is societal we, could become a bit more civil if we understood others’ perspectives. Brilliant statement, huh?”

Greenie: “We know what you meant. This idea of conscription is starting to seem obvious but I know better. What about exemptions from serving? You know, exemptions for some serious medical condition…like bone spurs. I mean is everyone going to be forced to serve or will the loopholes be large enough to drive a truck through?”

Jordan: “Clearly, some people will be unable to serve. But the program should start with the assumption that everyone serves and then carve out as few exemptions as possible.”

Uncle Sam JC: “You know, the time might be right to reinstitute conscription. Since the Revenge Revolution people seem more willing to explore old and new ways of trying to solve problems.”

Greenie: “I admit, when you first mentioned conscription, I thought, ‘that’s really a stupid idea.’ But, as I said, I’m starting to come around. Good idea, Jordan.”

Jordan: “Glad you think so. The idea of conscription, like the idea of federally funded elections, seems to have a foundation that’s sound and can contribute to really making America great again. But each idea needs a lot more work on the details. And, now, please excuse me. I need a break.”

(Continued)

#292 Federally Funded Elections. Benefits and Framework to Start

29 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Affordable Solutions, Common Sense Policies, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

Greenie: “Jordan, that’s quite a list of ideas about how to make America great again. We’ve got to call this project something else but let’s not spend time on that now. Which item on the list seems like a good place to start?”

JC: “To me the idea of Federally funded elections seems feasible. Don’t a bunch of other countries…maybe most other countries…fund elections? So why can’t the US?”

Jordan: “Alright, let’s think about what has to happen to make Federal funding a reality.”

Greenie: “For sure Congress needs to pass some type of law, then appropriate the funds.”

JC: “I’m no legal scholar…and no comments please…but it does seem as if there aren’t any real legal barriers. Political barriers, yes, but not legal barriers.”

Greenie: “What about the Citizens United case? Does a law authorizing Federally funded elections trump the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United?”

Jordan: “Any law mandating only Federal funding for Federal elections likely will be challenged in court and then head back to SCOTUS. However, there doesn’t seem to be any glaring reason why a Federal funding law wouldn’t be upheld…thereby overriding the Citizens United ruling. I just don’t see how such a law would affect 1st Amendment rights. But like you, JC, I’m no Constitutional law scholar.”

House of Reps JC: “Let’s say there’s no major legal issue. Then how should Federal funds be allocated to the candidates?”

Greenie: “There’s already a formula for allocation. Maybe neither the most logical nor the most fair but one that’s clearly defined – the Electoral College.”

Jordan: “Seems like a good place to start. Assume that Congress allocated $10/person for federal elections. The current US population is what 330 to 340 million? Call it 340 million, so that means $3.4 billion is available to help fund federal elections.”

Greenie: “Is that for presidential elections or off-year elections too? Seems as if off-year elections should have a different number.”

JC: “What about Senate races? Senators are elected every six years, House members every two years.”

Turtleneck Jordan: “Good points. Try this. Presidential elections get the full $10/head funding. Off-year elections get $5/head allocated.”

Greenie: “So in a presidential election, the presidential candidates would get $1.7 billion and the House and Senate candidates would split $1.7 billion, right?”

Jordan: “For the Congressional seats, I think we need to give candidates for the Senate more money that candidates for the House. Other than a few low-population states, Senators have to cover a lot more territory than House members. What if we gave the Senatorial candidates 2x the House candidates?”

$Math Class$ JC: “Let me try the math. If I remember Ester’s Algebra class, that would be 200X+435X=$1,700,000,000. Using my hand-dandy phone, x equals almost $2.7 million. So Senate races get about $5.4 million and House races about $2.7 million.”

Greenie: “The numbers for Senate races seem low. Maybe Senators should get 3x.”

JC: “Did we decide if the amount of money was for each race or each legitimate candidate?”

Greenie: “While we’re at it, what about funding primaries? What about 3rd-party candidates?”

Jordan: “We didn’t decide. Assume the $10/head is for each candidate in the general election. So the cost is now $20/head…plus the primaries.”

Greenie: “I know I recommended using the Electoral College but there might be an easier approach. Candidates for the House get say $5/head for everyone in their district. Senators would get $5/head for everyone in the state. Presidential candidates would get $5/head for everyone in the US.”

JC: “What about the primaries?”

Greenie: “Give each candidate ½ the amount of the general election — $2.50/head per candidate. Whatever the general election number is, cut it in half for the primaries.”

JC: “3rd-party candidates?”

Greenie: “If the candidate can get signatures for x% of the registered voters…it has to be a reasonable percentage…then the 3rd-party candidate is entitled to the same funds.”

JC: “Isn’t this idea getting awfully expensive? We might be pushing $10 billion, maybe more.”

Greenie: “Now, JC, I mean really. What’s a few billion in a trillion-dollar Federal budget – a rounding error? I agree the approach seems expensive until you begin to add up all the hidden costs with today’s approach to funding elections…and all the backroom deals connected to the funding.”

Jordan: “Point well taken, Greenie. Part of the selling job for this idea will be to have a credible 3rd-party estimate the current cost of elections, including all the dark money.”

JC: “Cost aside…and I agree even though it seems like a lot of money, the amount is really a rounding error…what I like about the approach is forcing candidates to be more judicious with their spending.”

occupations_lawyer Greenie: “Because funds will be limited, the approach will likely also force candidates to get out on the campaign trail and meet the voters. Maybe we’ll get fewer negative ad blitzes and more time on the campaign trail.”

JC: “You think this approach will eliminate lobbyists?”

Jordan: “Probably not. I don’t have a problem with lobbyists per se. Some are actually very helpful. What seems to set people off is how certain Congressman force lobbyists into a pay-to-play game.”

gangster-cartoon-clip-art-540px Greenie: “Oh, you mean like South Carolina’s Mick Mulvaney? What chutzpah. He bragged to a group of bankers that before he became part of the Trump Administration, he only talked to lobbyists who paid him. Wonder if he stopped the practice when he became director of OMB and consumer protection bureau for Trump? Pardon me — that seems like a rhetorical question.”

JC: “I think the Revenge Revolution forced out most of the Mulvaney-like extortionists. A new approach to funding Federal elections should keep too many new ones from popping up…at least for a while.”

Jordan: “Alright, we seem to have the framework for Federal funding of Federal elections. Obviously the plan needs a lot more refining, but the idea seems feasible.”

Greenie: “Agreed. And if you both agree, I need a break.”

(Continued)

#291 Quit Whining, Already. How Do We Turn Around This Ship?

22 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Lessons of Revolution, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.

JC: “I agree that Paul Ryan could have set an example of leadership for generations to come. But, what did he do?”

bully-clip-art Greenie: “He retired from the House. I guess you call it retired if not seeking in November 2018 qualifies as retiring.”

JC: “Whatever you want to call it, he bailed out. Seems like Ryan ran away from the bully Trump. Not what you call a good example for future generations, and not what you call a good ending to your political career.”

Jordan: “Enough of Ryan and McConnell. I’ve got an idea.”

Greenie: “You’ve got an idea? JC, did you hear that? Jordan has an idea.”

Jordan: “Why do I hang out with you guys? Such abuse.”

JC: “C’mon, you love it. Now what’s the idea?”

Jordan: “Looking in the rearview mirror and analyzing the past with a critical eye is important, but as we’ve talked about before, it’s hard to drive very fast by always looking in the rearview mirror.”

JC: “Tell that to some of the cable news talking heads. A lot of them can’t stop driving fast and looking backwards at the same time.”

Greenie: “Let’s keep in mind the past does provide some guidance to the future. You do agree with that, don’t you, Jordan?”

Jordan: “Very much so. And that’s the foundation for the idea. I think we should provide to the post-Revenge Revolution members of Congress a list of suggestions.”

JC: “What kind of suggestions?”

Jordan: “For lack of a better phrase, because I hate to say it, credible suggestions for really how to make America great again.”

Greenie: “I agree with the idea, but please, we need a different slogan. I mean, we don’t need to reincarnate the Donald.”

JC: “You guys serious? What makes us qualified to suggest anything to Congress? Granted none of us is the dullest crayon in the box but what gives us special insight?”

Turtleneck Jordan: “For one, Greenie’s articles about the Revenge Revolution. We might have more understanding about the causes of the Revenge Revolution than anyone in Congress, especially incoming members or staffers.”

Greenie: “I vote, yes, let’s make a list of suggestions. If nothing else making the list will be cathartic…and will make us seem smarter at parties.”

Jordan: “JC, you, in?”

JC: “OK. How do you want to start?”

Greenie: “Why not have a brainstorming session? You know, just blurt out ideas and write them down. We can sort the list later.”

Number List (Following is the list from the brainstorming session about how to really make America great again. Over the coming blog entries, a number of these ideas will be discussed in more detail.)

True leadership starts at the top.
Congress needs to work as a unit and with independence from the Executive Branch. Not everyone in Congress will agree, nor should they agree, on every issue but Congress must function separately from the Executive Branch.
Relationship building is critical. Presidents and administrations that reach out, listen and act for the good of the people are far more effective.
Re-establish the independence of the judicial system. The White House and Congress need to respect the system, the law and quit trying to influence cases.
Public’s confidence and other countries’ confidence in the White House will take several administrations to rebuild – probably 15-20 years.
Adults with demonstrated skills should be selected as cabinet members.
Time devoted in teaching civics needs to increase in grammar, middle and high schools.
Conscription should be reinstituted. An alternative to military service would be a civilian corps.
Widespread infrastructure programs need to be initiated – think WPA approach.
Increase research and development sponsored by Federal government, with particular emphasis on pure research.
Reinstitute environmental and financial regulations…judiciously. Companies and industries have proved repeatedly an in ability to manage themselves.
Increase tax rates across all quintiles with the highest rate increases on upper incomes. Use part of revenue to fund infrastructure and part to help offset the negative long-term effects of Trump tax cut.
Make all elections for Federal office publicly funded with no private contributions. allowed.

Jordan: “OK, let’s take a break. When we get back, we can clarify the wording of some of the ideas, maybe add a few others. We also can start digging a little deeper on these ideas.”

(Continued)

#283 Creating Clarity from Chaos (Part 2)

25 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Commentary: The last two week’s entries are a bit different — a personal dialogue. No characters. No scenes in coffee shops or in the office. Just personal dialogue.

At the end of Entry #282, I gave no hint about a recommendation for reducing gun violence in America. The vagueness was intentional, in part, because I wanted to: (i) think through my ideas; (ii) recognize possible meaningful actions at the state or Federal level during the then upcoming week.

Yes, I know one week does not a trend make. But this past week helped solidify, at least for me, what action needs to be taken.

AR-15 First, it appears more and more people are realizing what the military and gun enthusiasts have known for some time – the AR-15 is not a sport rifle, is not a hunting rifle but is an assault weapon designed for killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

My conclusion and recommendation: sale and ownership of AR-15’s and similar military-grade weapons need to be banned. The ban would apply to new sales through dealers or between private individuals. Further ownership of any AR-15 (and other designated weapons) would be banned. No grandfathering.

Weapons currently in private hands would be returned to authorities for disposal. Owners would receive some compensation for turning in the weapons. Those not turning in designated weapons would be subject to a felony conviction and losses of rights associated with such a conviction.

The only sales of AR-15’s and other designated weapons would be to the military. An attempted sale of such weapons to any other individual or entity would carry an automatic felony conviction and void any compensation for turning in the weapon.

Complicated Why such a harsh recommendation? First and foremost, these type weapons are not needed outside the military. For those who insist on firearms to protect self and/or property, hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols are more than adequate. For hunters, using AR-15’s is hardly sport, even if hunting elephants, lions, tigers or bears, which you shouldn’t be doing anyway.

Aside from the lack of need for these type weapons, I am recommending the approach because compromise will not begin to solve the underlying problem of ownership of military weapons in civilian hands. This baby cannot be cut in half.

The NRA and the hard right have such a warped sense of reality on this issue that a compromise would only migrate efforts to reduce gun violence from outlandishly unworkable to extremely unworkable. The NRA’s approach to any effort to address the problem is to offer No Rational Alternative.

Reagan Banning assault weapons is not unprecedented. Beginning in 1994 Federal law banned the sales of newly manufactured assault weapons. Former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning “semi-automatic assault guns”. The law passed with bi-partisan support. Congress let the law expire in 2004.

The law had many loopholes, which reduced potential effectiveness. Part of the justification for not renewing the ban in 2004 was the lack of clear evidence that crime had been reduced. Well, I’ll tell you what. Put enough loopholes in any kind of regulation and people will find a way around the regulation, thereby negating its intended purpose. The justufucation for not renewing the ban seems as ill-conceived as using a sieve for a drinking cup and wondering why you can’t get much water.

The NRA and hard right, as both are prone to do, have created alternative universes to help justify their position. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is a good example of an alternative universe.

What is the wording of the Second Amendment? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, sha Constitution ll not be infringed.”

Why was the Second Amendment added to the Constitution? At the time the US had a very small standing Army, debt from the Revolutionary War was high, and the Federal government had very limited resources and virtually no taxing power. To have an effective militia meant that the states and its residents needed to comprise most of the troops (think today’s National Guard.) In addition, there was concern about defending the country against a foreign invasion (e.g., war with the British didn’t end until the War of 1812) and individuals settling the west were fighting Native Americans.

Rifle Flint Lock In that context, the Second Amendment seems perfectly logical. Guys, get it? The regular citizens of the country made up the military when the Constitution was written. And, if you’re a strict “Constitutionalist” and interpret the Constitution as originally written, the weapons were single-shot flint locks, not AR-15’s.

Look, if you want to get your jollies and fire AR-15’s, 30-calibre and/or 50-calibre machine guns, toss hand grenades and other things that go boom, then join the Army or Marines. You might feel a little differently after you’re the target of someone firing these weapons. Not quite as much fun.

Does the proposed ban on military-grade weapons have a chance of passage? What about those who believe that a ban on these type weapons is only the first step of many that will allow the Federal government to take complete control of one’s life. Out with the democracy and in with socialism.

House of Reps Get serious conservatives. If you understood government, you might realize that you already live in a country where the government allows you basic rights. That piece of property you think you own? Your right to ownership is a function of government. The freedom to travel? That freedom is a function of government. Hate to burst your conservative bubble, but the freedoms that you have are because the government lets you have those freedoms.

David Brooks, a conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times, recently suggested that to make progress closing the gap on certain social issues we need to respect the other side’s point of view. I agree…and on most issues I think the approach will work. On the issue of working to reduce gun violence and why recognizing that ease of access to and ownership of assault rifles is a major contributing factor, I’ve tried to listen, as have many others. But when you’re dealing with people whose position has no rational support…and dealing with people who are even unwilling to discuss the issues, I say, David, in this case you’re wrong.

The ultimate insult to rational people came this past week when many in the NRA and on the hard right claimed the students at the Parkland, FL high school where 17 fellow students and teachers died, were not students but paid actors. Sure Rushman. 17 people get killed. Some students protest because adults are either too lazy or too stupid or too brainwashed by you, Fox and others, to take no action. And you have the gall to claim the students are phony? No, Rushman, you’re the phony. The kids have guts.

Hey Hey LBJ I hope these students ask their grandparents to coach them about how the grandparent protested the Vietnam War. Then the kids can go to Washington, march in front of the White House and chant, “Hey, hey, Donald J! How many kids did you kill today?”

The students are the future of this country. Rather than mock them, we should support them.

Where does that leave us? Given the rigidity of the right and the No-Reasonable-Alternative NRA, the only significant step that I can think of to begin to change the culture of gun ownership and to begin reducing gun-related violence is to ban the manufacture, sale and ownership by non-military personnel or entities of all military-grade weapons. With the ban, no one’s right to own a weapon for hunting, sport or defense will be affected. Folks, we need only one military.

#267 What’s Supposed to Melt in the US Melting Pot? Discussion: Native Americans (Part 3)

08 Sunday Oct 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Lessons of Revolution, Possible Solutions

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation starts Entry #265.

(Phone rings. Jordan answers)

Jordan: “Jordan Abel. May I help you?”

Caller: “Jordan, this is Wolf Man. You left a voice mail and I’m available to chat if you have time.”

Jordan: “I’ve got time. Gelly is in the office. And I think you met Greenie some time along the way.”

Indian Wolf Man: “Met Gelly. Chatted with Greenie but never met her.”

Jordan: “As I mentioned in the voice mail, Greenie’s writing some articles about possible causes of the Revenge Revolution. She’s exploring the effect of long-term culture on current behavior. We’d like to talk about how changes in culture over time might have affected Native Americas. Ok if they sit in on the call?”

Wolf Man: “Of course.”

Jordan: “Wolf Man you’re on the speaker.”

Wolf Man: “Hi Gelly and Greenie.”

Gelly and Greenie (in unison): “Hello Wolf Man.”

Jordan: “Wolf Man, how are you and where are you?”

Wolf Man: “On my way to see another client. Give me some more details about what you want to discuss?”

Greenie: “One of the first steps is trying to understand how much of a particular culture has melted into the US melting pot…and also understand how much should not have melted. We’d like your perspective on how much culture of Native Americans has melted into the US melting pot.”

Wolf Man: “The short answer is virtually all of the culture of Native Americans has melted. How much of the culture should have melted? Not much.”

Jordan: “Why do you say virtually all melted? I mean Native Americas still have lots of land and seems as if lots of freedom to do want they want, right?”

Wolf Man: “If I didn’t know you so well, I’d think you were a dumb-ass white man. Pardon me guys but that type comment is so typical. But, I know you guys are sincere and I’ll tell you more.”

Greenie: “We’ll try to be more understanding. Tell us more, please, Wolf Man.”

Wolf Man: “The best way I can describe the difference in cultures between Native Americas and the white man is to compare how each looks at land.”

Greenie: “What’s the difference in perspective?”

Wolf Man: “Indian culture, and I think this applies to every tribe, is built around being ‘of the land.’ The land itself is an integral part of the culture…as are all the parts of the land — animals, water, vegetation. Native Americans are part of the land ecosysten and not separate from that ecosystem.”

Gelly: “And what different about the white man’s perspective?”

Wolf Man: “The white man wants to separate himself from the land. He wants to own the land. As an owner, the white man believes that everything on the land and all rights to whatever is on the land go with ownership.”

Greenie: “Interesting and insightful comparison. One culture seems very ‘group focused’ and the other culture seems very ‘self focused’. Never really thought about it that way. What has that difference in perspective meant for Indians?”

Trail of Tears Wolf Man: “Simple. The white man took the best land from the natives and then created reservations for natives on crappy land. The reservations had few resources, lots of bad water and created an environment of marginal subsistence.”

Jordan: “C’mon. Aren’t you exaggerating? Is it really that bad?”

Wolf Man: “Actually, life on the reservation is a lot worse than you think. Because natives can no longer be ‘of the land’ and survive, the tribes have become dependent on the Federal government handouts to survive.”

Money-clip-art Jordan: “So we, societal we, basically turned the tribes from being self-sustaining to being a welfare state, save a few tribes with highly profitable casinos. That analysis seems like such an exaggeration.”

Wolf Man: “It is not. In fact, it’s an understatement. I don’t of a tribe whose culture has not been decimated…and especially the ones with casinos.”

Greenie: “Wasn’t a change in the culture inevitable? As more and more people settled in the US, some dislocation was inevitable.”

Wolf Man: “Look, I understand to the victors go the spoils. But, in my view, the white man went overboard in screwing the natives. In my most cynical moments, I sometimes think the tribes would have better off being wiped out than subject to current conditions.”

Jordan: “That’s a bold statement. Is there any way to turn this around? Might be a long process but surely something can be done.”

Greenie: “Wolf Man, from what Jordan’s told me, you’ve been very successful. What’s your secret?”

Wolf Man: “My secret? A key part of my success – I wasn’t raised on the reservation.”

Gelly: “What’s so different about not being raised off the reservation? You had the same parents on or off? What’s the difference?”

Wolf Man: “No crab barrels off the reservation.”

Jordan: “Crab barrels? What are you talking about?”

Wolf Man: “Imagine there’s a barrel with a bunch of crabs. Every time one of the crabs tries to crawl out of the barrel and escape, the other crabs pull him back in the barrel.”

Greenie: “Are you saying when someone on the reservation starts to be successful, other tribal members hinder that effort? That seems so counter productive.”

Wolf Man: “Yep, you got it. The person gets pulled back in…or at least the others try to pull him back in”

Turtleneck Jordan: “I’m shaking my head. Wow, what a problem. Is there anything that can be done to change this attitude?”

Wolf Man: “Good question. Let me get back. Just arrived at my clients.”

Greenie: “The crab barrel is so opposite of how we were raised. Everyone pushed to improve their lot and your lot in life. I just have a hard time understanding the crab-barrel mentality.”

Gelly: “I can’t understand it either. The inability to understand a polar-opposite perspective…not necessarily the lack of desire to understand the other perspective but the inability to understand…might be a bigger contributor to the Revenge Revolution than we thought.”

Greenie: “Point well taken, Gelly. I need a break.”

(Continued)

#236 Primer Cha 1: You Can’t Drive Very Fast Only Looking in the Rearview Mirror

29 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Economics, Possible Solutions

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Gelly: “Jordan, I’ve finished editing the first few chapters.”

Jordan: “Good. Make any changes?”

Gelly: “I tried to make the text more current by including excerpts from papers you wrote later, especially during the early days of the Trump Administration. Hope adding the more recent information was OK.”

Jordan: Glad you added the updates. Thanks. Let me take a look.”

(Chapter 1 of Primer. PDF Download will be available after a few more entries. Text of download will be formatted in columns.)

Imagine this: You need to get someplace quickly. You jump in the driver’s seat and start the car. But the windshield is covered by one of those sun screens. You can only see by using the rearview mirror.

Question: How fast can you drive when you can only see out of the rearview mirror? Not very fast and not very safely.

Where do we start? By removing the sun screen blocking the window. Start looking forward instead of only looking to the past. Duh, the future is different from the past. Yes, learning from the past is important so check the rearview mirror periodically, but spend more time looking ahead than looking behind.

Yes, like all countries, the United States needs to update its approach to economic development. However, the US is facing a major fork…maybe forks…in the road. The combination of a bifurcated economy, concern about our competitive position worldwide and a polarized Congress makes prospects for long–term growth problematic. Without a change in approach the US could fall behind global competitors.

Think it can’t happen? Roughly 100 years ago GDP/capita in Argentina was about 80% of the US GDP/capita. Today, GDP/capita in Argentina is a little over 30% of US GDP/capita. Argentina made some bad strategic economic decisions.

But what about decision–makers in the US? Why are most people in public positions, elected officials and many CEO’s, seemingly reluctant to take a stand on issues outside what is perceived as “mainstream” – thus the analogy of not driving fast while looking only through the rearview mirror?

And why, in 2017, is President Trump’s solution to “Make America Great Again” based on ideas that might have worked when kids hung dice on the rearview mirrors? The ideas are great for nostalgia but they have no basis in today’s economic world, no recognition how technology has affected manufacturing employment and no recognition of the impact on jobs of emerging technologies.

And, no Donald, merely claiming that GDP will increase 4.0% or more each year will not make it happen, nor will claiming “clean coal” bring jobs to back to West Virginia, nor will tweets or tariffs. Nor will pillorying anyone, even well-respected office holders, who question the logic of these retro positions.

So, What Are They Thinking? Given that kind of back-asswards thinking, it is no wonder that many of us get so frustrated with some government policy decisions. Is it no wonder we get angry when a CEO gets a large bonus after laying off workers? It is no wonder we get angry when tax policy encourages companies to send jobs overseas?

Among voters left, right and middle, many decisions by government and business seem to make no sense. In fact, many decisions by government and business seem to be exactly opposite of the best interest of the United States and its citizens.

Does Back-Asswards Have Negative Consequences? Yes, most emphatically yes. In searching for answers to what seem to me to be counter-intuitive decisions, three situations came to mind: (i) the town where I was raised and received my primary and secondary education has been devastated by job losses; (ii) my first post-college employer and a company which was the heart of US manufacturing for decades, General Motors, filed for bankruptcy (in 2011); (iii) thinking and analysis have been replaced by babble spouting talking–head entertainers.

Rather than “pouting and shouting” or even worse, “tweeting” about these frustrations, I decided my therapy was to write a primer outlining how using basic economic principles, business principals and more practical, affordable solutions to help address some policy issues facing the US public and private sectors.

A few years ago I wrote a short paper titled “Why a Healthy Domestic Auto Is Important.” After distributing to a few friends and colleagues, I was surprised by how many commented they had not heard such rationale, agreed it made sense and as such changed their mind about whether the US government should have supported bailing out General Motors and Chrysler. (The paper is included in this primer.)

With that encouragement I drafted other essays, which will be part of the primer. My hope is at least a few people read some or all of the primer and begin to think more broadly and take action on those thoughts.

The primer is designed to be apolitical. The ideas are not exclusively left or exclusively right. Quite honestly, the ideas are so common sense and so basic that at times I am embarrassed to publish them. You would think everyone knew these fundamentals. But apparently not since many are not applied, not understood or lost in political rhetoric.

The primer is also designed to help describe what I consider the cause of the deterioration in the ability of US companies to compete effectively worldwide. Some essays are purely educational; others propose solutions.

As you read these essays, please (i) keep an open mind about the analysis and proposed solutions; (ii) consider how you can implement part or all of the idea, whether you are a member of Congress, a CEO, employee or citizen; (ill) discuss ideas with friends, family and colleagues. The early entries are intended to offer an understanding of some common economic principles and terms. Other entries include common questions, claims and arguments for/against a particular government policy or action.

When you listen to others make claims about what government policy needs to change, or make such claims yourself, then think about the context of the argument and if some additional data or analysis would change your position.

The primer is work in progress. The intent is to add chapters regularly as topics arise. I will update existing chapters for new information and any necessary corrections.

The primer is not a source authority on economics. I would never be so presumptuous. So, if you are schooled on these subjects, please scan the chapters. If nothing else, you can offer ideas on how to improve them.

I hope you find the primer thought provoking, entertaining at times and educational. Please send ideas other topics as well. This primer is the beginning of a journey. I need some guidance on where to go next. Thank you for your time.

For Your Information: If you are curious about my background, raised in Danville, IL, then a town of almost 50,000 (now closer to 30,000). Danville is about 120 miles south of Chicago. Like many Midwest towns in my formative years, Danville was a mix of industrial plants surrounded by farms. Danville offered a good mix of ethnic groups and religions. The public school system was well respected, producing more than its share of successful entertainers, astronauts, educators, doctors and corporate executives.

Education: Drake University (Des Moines, IA); Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Job locations: Detroit area (twice), New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Charlotte (currently).
Politics: Fervent independent. Have voted for wide range of Republicans and Democrats. Some in the south consider me a liberal. I remind them of the history of the Republican Party…and that the Civil War ended 150+ years ago, ending with a gentle reminder to “get over it.” I skip “you lost.”

#223 Rioters in Charlotte vs. Role Models (Part 5 of 6)

23 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Possible Solutions, Rebranding Black Community, Societal Issues

≈ 1 Comment

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC. Conversation for this series starts Entry #219.

Jordan: “So you want to know the 3^rd person on the list of role models for the black community?”

Matt: “Do I know the person?”

Jordan: “Probably not. But the person has an impressive set of accomplishments.”

Matt: “Well, how’d you find out about him…or her?”

Jordan: “Obituary in the NY Times.”

Matt: “I must admit, the obits in The Times make for fascinating reading. Remarkable people, and many you’ve never heard of before. OK, tell me more.”

Jordan: “Like Rock Man, the guy’s family is from the south and poor. Also, like Rock Man he gets into college and graduates. In fact, all nine children in the family graduate from college.”

Matt: “Impressive. About what year did he graduate?”

Jordan: “Entered college in the early 1950’s, probably 1952. Graduates in about 1956 from South Carolina State, which is a historically black college.”

Matt: “Then what?”

Jordan: “Next gets a divinity degree from Harvard, then off to Columbia for masters in I think psychology. The icing on the cake is a PhD from Yale.”

Matt: “Oh, is that all? I mean, whadda say other than, wow? Did he go into politics after that?”

Jordan: “Got very involved in the Civil Rights Movement working with church-affiliated organizations in New York City. He was also appointed president of Benedict College, which is a Baptist college. After Benedict he worked for the Ford Foundation until appointed president of Tuskegee University in 1980 or 1981.”

Matt: “Tuskegee has come a long way in the last few decades. The school really transformed itself to a credible research university.”

Jordan: “The 3rd role model, Dr. Benjamin Payton, initiated most of those changes. He was president for about 30 years. Think he retired in 2010.” (Link to Dr. Payton’s obituary, 16-10-23-223-obit-dr-benjamin-payton)

Matt: “Dr. Payton is clearly a great role model for the black community. But all three people could role models for everyone.”

Jordan: “I agree and that’s one of the reasons they are on the list.”

Matt: “The selections are great…but one thing that I’ve got to ask about. The storyline for all three seems to be a college education. You and I both know that not everyone is cut out for college.”

Jordan: “I agree that education is a common component. I think the overriding, and more important component, is determination. Each one was determined not to let the system or stereotypes get in the way. Rock Man agreed to become Mr. Mom so his wife could become a corporate executive. Would you do that? Lonnie Johnson was an engineer at NASA, a bit unusual itself, and then became an entrepreneur – first inventing the super squirt gun, then working on an advanced battery. Dr. Payton gets as many degrees as you and I combined and then turned a frankly so-so historically black college into a credible research university. Each one of these people broke the mold.”

Matt: “Each one belongs on the list. One more question about the list. And you probably don’t want to hear the question. Why exclude athletes as role models?”

Jordan: “First, sports for the black community are ok if…and this is the big if that seems to get overlooked in the conversation…”

Matt: “…let me guess the ‘if.’ Sports are OK if the athlete also gets an education, right?”

Jordan: “Spot on. To be OK, the athlete’s degree can’t be in some half-baked major where no real jobs exist.”

Matt: “Your OK if the athlete has a degree in a credible subject.”

Jordan: “And then the athlete uses the degree after the NFL or NBA career…and ideally during their career.”

Matt: “These days most athletes don’t work in the off-season…at least not at regular jobs”

Jordan: “I know. Think about this. What if athletes used their education in the off season to say, tutor kids? Tutoring kids not just in schools considered disadvantaged but all schools.”

Matt: “You mean like helping kids with reading, algebra, maybe even physics? What a pleasant change that would be.”

Jordan: “Imagine an NBA star coaching kids in English class and encouraging them to spend time studying rather than shooting hoops.”

Matt: “Interesting idea.”

Jordan: “And here’s my guess. Having a black NBA star spending just a few days tutoring kids in higher-achieving schools would do wonders to help begin to change the image of the black community among many whites.”

Matt: “If I heard you right, the NBA star should spend most of the time in disadvantaged schools but some time in other schools, right?”

Jordan: “Simple idea, huh?”

Matt: “Very simple…and could be very effective. Now, we need to end this conversation. I need to get to start writing articles for Greenie about how the riots in Charlotte…and elsewhere…contributed to the Revenge Revolution. I also think that even more important is having some articles that present practical ideas on how groups and communities can move ahead.”

Jordan: “Matt, these should be great stories for Charlotte…and a lot of communities. In the articles, please remind readers that progress can be made much faster by driving looking through the windshield and not trying to drive looking through the rearview mirror.”

Matt: “Jordan, as always, time together has been a pleasure. OK if I call back with questions?”

Jordan: “Of course. Matt, enjoyed it. Take care.” (End of this series)

#222 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 4)

16 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Personal Stories, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC. Conversation for this series starts Entry #219.

Matt: “I agree the conversation about the black community should be frank with no sugar-coating. But where should the conversation start? I mean, lots of issues.”

Jordan: “Why not start at the end and work backwards? What should the black community look like? An even better start would be to describe the characteristics of people the black community can look up to.”

Matt: “You mean describe characteristics of some role models?”

Jordan: “Role models as long they are not sports figures…no Michael Jordan’s, for example. Nothing against the Michael Jordan’s of the world but the black community cannot solve its problems through the NBA and NFL.”

Matt: “Then what kind of role models?”

Jordan: “My recommendation would be individuals most people haven’t heard of but who exemplify what I think the black community would like to become.”

Matt: “Who’s on your list?”

Jordan: “Three people. #1 is someone I know reasonably well; #2 is someone I’ve met a few times in business; #3, never met but awestruck with his accomplishments.”

Matt: “Let me guess, Rock Man is #1 on the list.

Jordan: “Good guess.”

Matt: “I remember meeting Rock Man and was very impressed…but I don’t know the whole story.”

Jordan: “Rock Man comes from a family of 6-8 children…I don’t remember the exact number but a lot. Eastern North Carolina. Parents are tenant cotton farmers with maybe an 8^th-grade education.”

Matt: “But Rock Man is a college grad, right?”

Jordan: “As are all 6-8 children. Everyone graduated from college and a few have graduate degrees.”

Matt: “I admit that’s very impressive for the family, but what else about Rock Man?”

Jordan: “After graduation he starts a climbing gym in Charlotte. Apparently he’s got the only black-owned climbing gym in the country…at least east of the Mississippi.”

Matt: “Mostly black clientele?”

Jordan: “Mostly white.”

Matt: “Well, how’d you meet Rock Man?”

Jordan: “Through a business colleague. I then started helping Rock Man with managing his business.”

Matt: “Still interesting but nothing too special about this.”

Jordan: “Within a few months, Rock Man meets a young lady who seems to be the perfect match – outgoing, high energy and smart.”

Matt: “They get married?”

Jordan: “He was balking until I beat him over the head. I kept telling him she was perfect for him.”

Matt: “So, they get married…then what?”

Jordan: “Short version. She gets a job at the local branch of an international insurance company. Performs well and gets on a fast track. In less than 15 years, she goes from glorified clerk in a branch to head of one of the company’s major international operations.”

Matt: “Wow, that’s impressive. Any kids?”

Jordan: “Two. Girl and boy. The girl is old enough to have college on her mind. She’s torn between Harvard and Yale. I keep pushing MIT but to no avail. The son is not yet on a hunt for college.”

Matt: “So what did Rock Man do while the wife is playing Ms. Corporate Executive?”

Jordan: “Rock Man becomes Mr. Mom.”

Matt: “Mmm, isn’t being Mr. Mom a bit unusual in the black community?”

Jordan: “I think it is unusual…likely highly unusual. Aside from migrating from poor cotton farmers…now I’ll use Rock Man’s terms…who were too poor to have a pot to piss in…to college graduate, what really impresses me about Rock Man is the willingness to change roles. Being Mr. Mom and supporting the kids seems so out of character for most black men that I thought he’d be an ideal role model.”

Matt: “Agreed. Who’s #2 on the list?”

Jordan: “Ever use one of those super squirt guns?”

Matt: “They’re a blast. We used to have water fights with those. Why?”

Jordan: “Know who invented the super squirt gun?”

Matt: “I confess. I have no idea.”

Jordan: “His name is Lonnie Johnson. Worked at NASA before the squirt gun became wildly popular. As I understand, he used the proceeds from the squirt gun to start a technology company.”

Matt: “What was the business?”

Jordan: “Advanced batteries. For the record, lithium air batteries. Trust me, a tough task.”

Matt: “Again, interesting story but why is this guy a role model for the black community…and I assume this guy’s black?”

Jordan: “Yes. In addition to starting a high-tech battery company, which is impressive by itself, he locates the company in a very rough part of Atlanta. Then he tries to hire as many neighborhood people as possible. He also recruits as many black engineers as possible. 15-20 years from now, I might question his bias toward black engineers. But today he should be applauded for making an effort to employ as many blacks as possible in his high-tech company.”

Matt: “Who’s the 3^rd guy?” (Continued)

#221 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 3)

08 Saturday Oct 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC. Conversation for this series starts Entry #219.

Matt: “OK, you’re suggesting the individuals in the black community in Charlotte, or at least the rioters in Charlotte, look in the mirror and acknowledge that they need to take charge of their lives.’”

Jordan: “You got it. Simple, huh?”

Matt: “So, if I’m part of the black community and decide to take charge of my life, what am I supposed to do? Where do I start?”

Jordan: “I feel as if I’m a broken record. Let’s start with the basics.”

Matt: “You mean like overcoming racism.”

Jordan: “Matt, Matt. You’re a reporter, a writer, and if I remember correctly a history major.”

Matt: “Yes…and so…?”

Jordan: “…and so you really expect racism to disappear? Expecting racism to disappear is sheer folly.”

Matt: “C’mon. Why sheer folly?”

Jordan: “I’m not sure why people don’t get my point. Racism has existed at least since the Egyptians enslaved the Jews about 6,000 years ago, and probably before that.”

Matt: “So if racism has been around at least that long, then why should people’s attitudes change now?”

Jordan: “Right. My advice to the black community – quit focusing on racism as an issue. Spend time and efforts on projects that can yield positive results.”

Matt: “Alright, my last comment about racism. You don’t think trying to eliminate racism, or trying to reduce it dramatically, is a worthwhile effort. Is that right?“

Jordan: “I’m a realist. As I’ve said many times, trying to reduce racism is like pushing on a string. A fruitless effort. Do a reality check. Every other…and, yes, I mean every other…every other ethnic group in this country has faced some form of racism. And many of those groups still do.”

Matt: “I assume your point is those groups didn’t focus on trying to reduce racism. Instead they focused on trying to get ahead. And when they did, most of the racism disappeared.”

Jordan: “How difficult is that to understand? If you know you can’t fix something, why keep trying? Quit banging your head against the wall and work around the problem. Whether any of us like it or not, racism is very likely here to stay.”

Matt: “Then where should the black community…at least those in Charlotte who rioted…where should they begin? What should they do?”

Jordan: “To start I’d make a list addressing three key items. #1, what’s the vision? Where do you want to be? #2, where are you now? List positives and negatives. Just a list of facts…and no finger-pointing, no excuses. #3, who might help the group achieve their vision? The only restriction is no one on the ‘who can help list’ should be expected to provide money.”

Matt: “What will this information really do? And why no money?”

Jordan: “To quote Lewis Carroll, ‘If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.’ The vision will provide where you want to go. The other information is to help you get there. To get to your destination, you’ve got to have a road map…OK call it GPS…but step #1 is deciding where you want to go.”

Matt: “Why no money?”

Jordan: “Money is not the issue. The issue is having the vision. Where do they want to go? Having money with no vision is a recipe for disaster. Talking about money, if any is really needed, comes later. First, you must have the vision.”

Matt: “You don’t think they have a vision?”

Jordan: “You tell me, what’s the black community stand for? What’s there vision?”

Matt: “My cynical response? Provide an array of football players, basketball players and entertainers.”

Jordan: “That might be a cynical response but a view that is probably fairly widely held. In contrast, what do you think the Asian community focuses on? What about the Jewish community?”

Matt: “Education and education.”

Jordan: “Reminds of a story. Scene: inauguration of the first Jewish US president. Person sitting next to the president’s mother, ‘You must be very proud of your son…the first Jewish president.’ Mother responds, ‘Yes, I’m proud. But you should meet his brother, the doctor.’”

Matt: “That’s funny, but a lot of truth in that, too. Let’s face it, though, not everybody is cut out for a college education. What about those who aren’t?”

Jordan: “Education doesn’t have to mean college. Being in the skilled trades requires a lot of training…and will require even more so in the future. Skilled trades are a great career track.”

Matt: “If I understand, you’re describing a vision of a black community that is, in many ways, self-sustaining. A black community that is part of a larger community but, if needed, can pretty much operate on its own. Doctors, lawyers, merchant chiefs, skilled trades, teachers…the whole gamut.”

Jordan: “Exactly. That kind of self-sustaining community is not going to happen overnight…probably 2-3 generations, maybe longer. But a self-sustaining black community will never happen unless the black community stops focusing on the past and makes a serious effort to decide what it wants to be in the future. Then lays out where it is today.”

Matt: “Understanding the gaps.”

Jordan: “Understanding gaps with no sugar-coating.” (Continued)

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Possible Solutions

#294: Making America Great Again #4, Ban Charter Schools…and Busing.

#293 Conscription for All? Well, Yes, for All Those Younger. Some Guidelines.

#292 Federally Funded Elections. Benefits and Framework to Start

#291 Quit Whining, Already. How Do We Turn Around This Ship?

#283 Creating Clarity from Chaos (Part 2)

#267 What’s Supposed to Melt in the US Melting Pot? Discussion: Native Americans (Part 3)

#236 Primer Cha 1: You Can’t Drive Very Fast Only Looking in the Rearview Mirror

#223 Rioters in Charlotte vs. Role Models (Part 5 of 6)

#222 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 4)

#221 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 3)