The Batchelor News Radio Network

"Educating, Empowering, Entertaining and Informing you on topics that affect our lives"

OP/ED

view:  full / summary

Conscious Capitalism: The Moral Case (Part I)

Posted on May 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Comments comments (0)



Updating workers' rights

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (May 25, 2019)

Until now, we have been exploring the case for Conscious Capitalism on the basis of economic necessity. It is clear that the strength (68%) of America's economy is based on consumer demand. Most of the consumer purchases in America are bought by the families of the middle class, because there are more of them and because their needs tend to cover a wide spectrum of goods and services. It is therefore critical that a majority of Americans have enough money to buy an ever-increasing supply of consumer goods and services if our economic engine is to keep on growing.

 

But the fact is that more and more of the available capital is ending up in the hands of the very rich, leaving the vast majority of the population with less and less disposable income. However, the consumer needs of the very rich are limited; most of their spending goes for investments and passive income. In order for our economic progress to continue to prosper, therefore, something must be done to distribute more of America's wealth to a larger proportion of America's population. The alternative is the eventual destruction of the capitalist system which has worked so well for us for the past two centuries.

 

There are only three alternative ways to redistribute America's wealth: 1) do nothing and continue to rely on the "free market" to distribute our wealth equitably - which it never has in human history; 2) empower the Government to collect more of the money being earned by American businesses (through high taxes on the very rich) and then being responsible for dispensing those funds as it sees fit (usually through welfare programs), or 3) reform of our capitalist system to provide for re-distribution of profits as an outcome of the normal way of doing business. While many Americans would prefer to achieve greater financial success through their own efforts rather than through a government hand-out, the mechanism by which that result can be implemented has remained elusive.

 

Fortunately, a new system of capitalism has been undergoing development for the past generation and has now matured into a new view of business and its role in social justice. The basis of this movement has been recognition of each worker as an individual human being, deserving of respect, loyalty, and appropriate rewards for his/her contribution to the enterprise. In the 1980's, W. Edwards Deming introduced a democratization of the production process called Total Quality Management (TQM).

 

This theory depended on recognition of the ideas and creativity of workers, initially on a production line, to improve the quality of the final product. As "product quality" became a major consideration in American business culture, it was frequently presented in the context of greater worker involvement. This movement spun off ever more sophisticated standards of product quality such as Six Sigma, ISO 9000, and Lean Manufacturing, among others. These "new" management theories for production also began to be applied to services organizations. I was personally involved in introducing TQM (as amended) to the federal government during the late 1980's and 1990's.

 

This formal focus on the individual worker was picked up and expanded by a new movement called "Conscious Capitalism" in the new century. This management theory is profoundly democratic, in that every member of the enterprise is recognized as a contributor to the common effort and is responsible for participating in the culture and the activities associated with that particular organization. This includes open meetings on finances, policies and strategies. A bedrock belief of a Conscious Capitalist is that profit is not the purpose of the business, but a necessary pre-condition for the achievement of the true mission of the company.

 

The mission, in turn, is viewed in the context of the company's contribution to the larger society by counting as the company's stakeholders not only the shareholders, but also the employees, the local community, their suppliers, customers, and the physical environment.

 

"Conscious companies" (as they call themselves) have been proven on average to be surprisingly successful in financial terms because of several factors. First, their marketing is supported by faithful, long-term customers and suppliers. Second, their personnel costs are demonstrably less because of lower executive compensation, lower turnover, "lean" middle management, and lower G&A overall, including less legal fees. Finally, these companies do not accept investors who are on a short fuse for ROI - in fact many of their shareholders are their own employees. (A very comprehensive source for becoming and maintaining a conscious company can be found in Conscious Capitalism Field Guide, by Raj Sisodia et al, Harvard Business Review Press, 2019)

 

The underlying factor in conscious companies is their insistence on a long-term rather than short-term perspective which is then translated into policies and actions. Some of the more prominent conscious companies are Federal Express, Southwest Airlines, Whole Foods Markets, Starbucks and 1600 others with three million employees.

That is a very brief description of a non-governmental re-distribution of wealth. There is, however, an additional case for profit-sharing: the moral case.

 

The moral basis of profit-sharing as the foundation of a new interpretation of "Workers' Rights" is the paradigm of a product. A product is composed of many parts, and it is the result of many contributors, i.e. the concept, the design, the assembly of the materials, the fabrication of the parts, the assembly and testing of the prototype (and perhaps each copy), as well as the marketing, sales, warranty services, replacement parts, etc.

Our moral contention is: Compensation should be granted on the basis of how much each person contributed to the entire process.

 

There are direct contribution costs, based on financial requirements of the people , materials and equipment. Then there are "success" and "failure" compensations based on the presence or absence of profits - the measure of the success (or not) of the project. These compensations also should be shared according to the contributions made by the individuals involved.

 

The traditional basis for employee pay is hours worked. The new worker's rights include a new basis: pay on the basis of employee's contribution to the overall profit of the business. The detail of calculating exactly how to measure each person's contribution to the company is truly a challenge. But the principle is simple, easy to understand - and the key to America's future.

 

© Richfield Press 2019. All rights reserved.

 

Is Conscious Capitalism ready for prime time?

Posted on May 19, 2019 at 9:20 AM Comments comments (0)

Breaking out of the pack!

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (May 18,2019)

I confess that I have caught the fervor of a convert to a new movement. As I write, speak and broadcast about Conscious Capitalism, I feel like Paul Revere as I keep hearing "Wow! I never heard of Conscious Capitalism but it sure sounds like the answer to a lot of our problems!" Among others, this is the reaction of my fellow talk show hosts who are generally very well informed.

On the other hand, however, the reform of Capitalism is much discussed and written about. Some examples from Amazon's Books: Joel Solomon's "Clean Money - reinventing power, purpose and capitalism"; Frederic Laloux's Reinventing Organizations, and Everybody Matters by Bob Chapman with Raj Sisodia (love that title).

Then, there is Joseph E. Stigliz' "Progressive Capitalism" (WSJ, April 19, 2019); a label shared with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) whose uses it to describe a concept closer to Conscious Capitalism than to Stigliz' dreary views. And, of course, the opposition still flourishes in Nick Beans' "The Fraud of Progressive Capitalism" World Socialist web site (28 April, 2019), which by the way sounds like Karl Marx with 21st century inserts. There is no room in Beams' world for an honest capitalist.

I am coming to the conclusion that the so-called Socialist trend among younger Americans which is so widely reported by the news and pollsters is really a popular name for opposition to what I have been calling the "wealth gap", i.e. the inequality of wages and other assets between the very rich and the rest of us.

This disparity is causing an expanding demand for a solution. For big government liberals, the answer is another government program, whether the guaranteed $1,000 per adult citizen of Andrew Wang or the ever- expanding welfare state of Bernie Sanders. I doubt if very many so-called supporters of "Socialism" could even define the term. They are not true Socialists; they are simply angry Americans.

They, like so many of us, have never heard of a capitalist solution to the wealth gap. Well, it's time they did! I propose Conscious Capitalism as the best way to answer that question, because it already has a history of practical accomplishment, an organizational structure, a literature describing it, and - most of all a legion of 1600 companies employing 3,000,000 people. The movement includes such outstanding companies as Southwest Airlines, Federal Express, Whole Foods and Starbucks. The best way to describe the organization is in their own words:

Conscious Capitalist Credo

"We believe that business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence, and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity. Free enterprise capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress ever conceived. It is one of the most compelling ideas we humans have ever had. But we can aspire to even more.

Conscious Capitalism is a way of thinking about capitalism and business that better reflects where we are in the human journey, the state of our world today, and the innate potential of business to make a positive impact on the world. Conscious businesses are galvanized by higher purposes that serve, align, and integrate the interests of all their major stakeholders. Their higher state of consciousness makes visible to them the interdependencies that exist across all stakeholders, allowing them to discover and harvest synergies from situations that otherwise seem replete with trade-offs. They have conscious leaders who are driven by service to the company's purpose, all the people the business touches, and the planet we all share together. Conscious businesses have trusting, authentic, innovative and caring cultures that make working there a source of both personal growth and professional fulfillment. They endeavor to create financial, intellectual, social, cultural, emotional, spiritual, physical and ecological wealth for all their stakeholders.

Conscious businesses will help evolve our world so that billions of people can flourish, leading lives infused with passion, purpose, love and creativity; a world of freedom, harmony, prosperity, and compassion." (See www.consciouscapitalism.com)

This movement is idealistic, but it works. Religion is also idealistic, but it does carry a club. We all know that humans are capable not only of great good but also of great evil. One of the greatest achievements of American capitalism has been its success in limiting the excesses of capitalism. The two major forces restraining American capitalism have been laws and unions. And the way to a disciplined capitalist system in this country has been led by organized labor. Labor has been responsible for the elimination of child labor, for the 40-hour work week, for due process in firing, paid vacations, pensions and health care. It is time for Labor to take up it rightful role in reforming capitalism.

There are only two options to the distribution of wealth in this country: the coercion of government using the tax system, or voluntary reform of capitalism through a re-definition of workers' rights to include profit sharing. In Conscious Capitalism, the entire supply chain is deemed responsible for the success or failure of a business. As the major contributor to that supply chain, labor deserves a major share - either way. Conscious companies understand that equation. The difference between today's standard and the reform standard is the size and form of the labor share. That is yet to be determined, and it undoubtedly will differ according to circumstances. The best way to develop a mutually agreeable outcome for both sides is through collective bargaining.

And the role of the union is critical, because its role is non-governmental. It is the first line of defense. Only if it fails does government get involved through lawsuits and enforcement. The private sector remains private, and freedom continues to reign.

Let's do it!

The Wealth Gap (continued): Back to basics

Posted on April 8, 2019 at 7:15 PM Comments comments (0)

he middle class share of American wealth has gone to the very rich

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (April 8, 2019)


For the past three weeks, The Dr. Larry Show

(www.blogtalkradio.com/LA-Batchelor/or at 646-929-0130; 7 -8 pm every Wednesday) has been discussing the "wealth gap" in 2019 America. Now, it's time to get back to basics.




Q. What is the "wealth gap"?


A. This term refers to the present and growing concentration of financial assets (cash, stock, real estate, intellectual properties such as patents, copyrights, and royalties, etc.), and all forms of passive income to the control of fewer and fewer people (1% of the population) while the middle-class controls less and less of the nation's wealth. The word, "wealth", is used instead of "income", because the value of assets is frequently allowed to appreciate untouched ( e.g. to avoid taxable income). Money comes and goes in the form of income; assets are for long-term welfare.


Q. Is there really a wealth gap in America? Surely there will always be differences in wealth.


A. The changes in the proportion of the nation's wealth held by individuals over time are clearly traceable statistically. This trend can and has been analyzed by experts for decades. Currently, nearly 80% of America's wealth is held by 1% of the U.S. population.


Q. Why is that important?


A. There are two answers to this question: economic and philosophical.

a. Economic

The economic answer is that American capitalism depends on the American consumer market, which constitutes 68% of Gross National Product (GDP). The more money Americans spend on consumer goods and services, the more prosperous the country becomes. And, the more money available to the masses of American consumers, the more they can and will buy. But there is a limit to how much any individual or family will spend on consumer items - after all how many suits or cars can one person use?

After these expenditures are made by the 1%, their remaining funds are invested in other instruments, mostly for passive income (equities, pension funds, real estate, etc.). To the extent that the super-rich control all the country's wealth, therefore, to that extent there is a limit to the growth or even the stability of the consumer market and GDP.

When the consumer market begins to decline, other segments of the economy also react and the slow-down descends into recession. The only way out of this cycle is to get more money into the hands of the middle class. If nothing is done to accomplish this goal, the result could be a gradual descent into a modern form of feudalism, where everyone works for one of a few employers. They will be the masters and the rest of us the serfs. There will no longer be a capitalism to create opportunities and personal freedoms. Another potential outcome could be a socialist system where the everyone would depend on the government instead on a handful of employers. This would be an expansion of some present trends.


B. Philosophical

The philosophical justification for a widening (rather than a narrowing) of wealth distribution has to do with the preservation and growth of the capitalist economy.

1) The United States of America is the most prosperous and advanced civilization in the history of the human race. This statement is not above controversy, but overall a reasonable case can be made. The major reason for the prosperity is our practice of a modified capitalism, particularly as it is relevant to our "free" market system.

2) The American experiment of capitalism has been successful because it has found an answer to the most fundamental challenge of human governance, namely, what motivation will ensure that masses of people will work hard, produce unheard-of innovations, and do so in peace without either violence or coercion? The only system of governance which has produced such a standard of living is free market capitalism, which finds the civilizing motivation to be this: Challenging every American to be responsible for the welfare of self and family. No other system has been found to accomplish this necessity - not tribalism, tyranny, religion, socialism or communism.

3) Therefore, American capitalism is worth preserving because it works. It has enabled America to become the envy of the world. But its success and preservation depends on many other factors. Chief among these is the willingness of the population to abide by the conventions of social justice which are available to each citizen. It is this reliance which transcends the need for violence and rebellion. It is thus critical to the well-being of the republic that those in the law enforcement and intelligence forces of our country who have abused the FISA court and their own authority be indicted and punished to restore confidence in our national institutions.

4) But the most fundamental requirement of capitalism is a distribution of wealth which is in truth and perception fair and appropriately rewarding to the masses of citizens who live their lives in peace and prosperity.


Q. How do we measure "fair" and "appropriate"?


A. The most obvious measure of the validity of the distribution of wealth is a sound currency. Financial analyst Porter Stansberry makes a convincing argument that the basis for the shift of wealth from the middle class to the 1% which has occurred since 1971 is due to the decoupling of the dollar from the gold standard which was started in the 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt and completed by Richard Nixon in 1971.


With no basis in external value, the dollar ceased to be restricted by any force at all (the proverbial basket of currencies- most of which depend on the dollar in

the first place has not proven meaningful). The Federal Reserve has seen fit to print as many dollars as the time called for. This practice has resulted in a core inflation rate of 3.96% per year for a total of 502.65% between 1971 and 2018. American wages are approximately the same today as they were in 1970 - which means a reduction of 500% purchasing power - so the 2018 dollar is now worth 20 cents' . The 1% have been able to amass billions of these dollars at the expense of the middle class, using cheap (or interest-free) money to acquire immense accumulations of assets.


Q. How to fix the problem?


A. A return to the gold standard seems out of reach at present. What is needed is an effective means of increasing the wealth of the middle class without violating free market principles. Theoretically, a labor shortage should result in higher wages. This is happening already at the lower levels of employment. The average minimum wage has increased approximately 3% in the past year. This is a step in the right direction.


A much more dramatic step has been taken by the companies which have profit-sharing plans, using either cash or (more commonly) stock or options. This is an excellent use of the masses of their own stock which has been re-purchased by many public companies in the past five years, using zero interest funds. Government tax policies can be used to encourage this practice.


Another force for change could be organized Labor, enforcing demands for profit-sharing in addition to wages. This strategy is well established in some industries. Unfortunately, it has not been widespread enough to protect workers as a whole from wage stagnation and asset starvation. In all, however, providing workers with "skin in the game" is by far the best way to protect our precious heritage and secure our children's future.

Q. When?


A. Today! Time is running out. The middle class is restless. Continual erosion of middle America's standard of living is responsible for the election of Donald Trump but also of the recent upswing in support of socialism. Things could get out of control if new hopes cannot be sustained.


© 2019 Richfield Press, LCC. All rights reserved.

If feudalism our future?

Posted on April 3, 2019 at 10:00 PM Comments comments (0)

If we don't close the wealth gap, capitalism will disappear

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (March 30, 2019)



 

 

"American capitalism is now in crisis because most financial assets, most ownership of stock, and most capital income from dividends and interest and capital gains are concentrated in the top 1%, 5%, and 10% of the population. As these levels of concentration approach 80%, our society could soon arrive at the level of ownership that English lords and ladies had of all English land before the American Revolution." (Blast and Freeman, FORTUNE, April 17, 2014). That system was essentially medieval feudalism, with serfs and masters.

Henry Ford understood the fundamental dynamic of capitalism, namely, that sharing profits with employees gives them more money with which to buy his products, which in turn increases profits, and that increases everyone's wealth. This simple fact has been forgotten by the American business culture. The very purpose of capitalism is to increase the wealth of the entire nation and so to give everyone a stake in diligently pursuing a peaceful, productive life.

Excessive concentration of wealth defeats this purpose at its foundation by depriving the vast majority of the population of the means to enhance their standard of living. Without this motivation, that population will eventually turn to violence and revolution to regain its hope for a better life.

So, how did this situation come about? There were at least two stimulants: inflation and digitalization. A very convincing analysis of the problem has been supplied by Porter Stansberry, a financial futurist of sorts. He traces the steadily advancing discrepancy between the 1% and the rest of us to inflation. His chart showing the rate of inflation compared to the rate of distribution of wealth from 1971 (the year Nixon took the US off the gold standard) to the present is very illustrative.

His principal thesis is that a sound (i.e. gold-backed) currency forces a wide distribution of buying power, because it reflects the advance or decline of a culture's productivity. For example, a "strong" dollar buys as much for the middle-class workman as it does for a billionaire. But it takes a much higher percentage of "weak" dollars to buy that workman's necessities. The elite buyer has in fact many more dollars to spend even though such purchases are only a small portion of his overall income. His wealth therefore provides him with an ever-higher standard of living, while the workman sinks ever closer to poverty. Since the workman made a major contribution to the production of the item which was then sold for a profit, the capitalist philosophy would dictate that he share in the resulting profits. If he doesn't, he gets angry.

Stansberry sees the violent revolution as having already begun -- citing the recent wave of violence and terrorism. But his solution is very discouraging -- he predicts an "American Jubilee" like those held every 50 years or so in the Bible. In modern terms, that is a collapse of the current economic structure and its replacement by a new normal. He expects a much more catastrophic event than 2007-8. His advice: head for the 50 or so enclaves of the rich and powerful which will be heavily armed. IOW, a new French Revolution.

In his impassioned plea for raising the minimum wage, billionaire Nick Hanauer uses the striking image of the deprived masses picking up their pitchforks to overcome the elite. ("Pitchfork Economics") He too cites the Henry Ford mantra. His solution, however correct, was originally too narrow - the minimum wage is but one factor in a much more complex economy.

An obvious temptation for undercutting the buying power of the middle class has been the digital revolution, which has contributed so monumentally to the productivity increase we have experienced in the past generation. Among its many advances has been the communications revolution, especially the internet, which has enabled workers from developing countries to participate in the US job market. Distances offer no obstacles in today's world. Competition for jobs today has become worldwide. The result has been catastrophic for America's workers.

Corporate chieftains took one look at the wage advantage of foreign workers in Asia and Latin America and fell into their arms. There was no thought of the harm they were doing to their own compatriots, and eventually to themselves, as they gleefully set about the destruction of American capitalism. It has taken one of their own, in the person of Donald J. Trump, to wage a mighty counter-offensive to this movement through his trade and tariff policies. But that also is not enough.

How can we rescue our unique American capitalist system from its current path to feudalism? The key is to institute compensation programs for middle class workers which allow them to share in the prosperity their productivity has helped to create by implementing the labor-saving technologies invented by the elite.

For the answer, we can look to companies which have structured their employee compensation to reflect the employees' contributions to profits. Three such corporations are Southwest Airlines, Federal Express, and Walmart. Each has developed a profit-sharing system which not only reflects the proportionate contributions of ownership, management and labor to the profitability of the total enterprise, but they have also avoided the potential clash between employees and shareholders by issuing part of the workers' bonuses in the form of shares or options. Thus the two groups have overlapping memberships.

A pioneer in this movement was Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart. When he took the company public, he simultaneously provided his employees with highly discounted stock options. The result over time was a company of millionaires, which also became for a time the largest retailer in the world. No matter the current labor relation problems of the company, no one can dispute the legacy of the founder.

The last piece of this puzzle is the Labor movement. The American Labor movement succeeded from the 1930's to the 1960's in winning for its members significant benefits in what might be called "lifestyle" features, such as, worker safety, pensions, health care, and wages. Since the 1970's, however, these benefits have become more or less standard at least in big companies. In other words, Labor won.

Since then Labor seems to have lost not only its way, but also its membership. I suggest that Labor adopt a new cause, "Luxury Benefits": recapturing for its members their rightful share of the immense financial rewards our country has earned. It is no secret that the captains of industry are not going to hand over significant portions of their wealth to their employees without a fight - even if it is in their long-term interest to do so. Someone is going to have to help them "see the light". Nobody is as equipped by history, organization and numbers to undertake this 21st century fight as organized Labor.


(To be continued next week.)

© 2019 Richfield Press, LCC. All rights reserved.

Three Strikes You're Out!

Posted on March 26, 2019 at 2:55 PM Comments comments (0)

By Gary Norris Gray


OAKLAND — Major League Baseball will begin the season in two weeks but it has some major league issues to solve. MLB continues to fight with itself with its lack of promoting the game to young African-Americans. MLB continues promoting its Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities (RBI) Program with minute results.

 

One has to ask is this enough to attract young African Americans to the sport which claims to be inclusive but with each passing year, it seems to be a sport of exclusion. The RBI program has not lived up to its promise 27 years ago to recruit young Black players. Maybe, just maybe it is time for the Negro Leagues to return to give African Americans that experience of this wonderful game.

 

The current influx of Latin and Asian players seems to be at the expense of the African-American players, owners continue to try to keep money in their pocketbooks with lower contracts.

 

This year’s contract disputes are a classic example of how MLB ownership continues to move backward with the appearance of collusion, eliminating the players they don’t like. Just another black eye for baseball. Baseball fans do not want to spend money watching class double “A” players on the field.

 

A work stoppage cannot be far behind.

 

Currently, there are over twenty baseball programs overseas in Latin-America, the Caribbean Islands, and on the Asian continent, while the (RBI) inner-city baseball programs in the United States pale in comparison with providing similar opportunities or incentives for African-American youth through said programs.

 

These programs have ignored RBI fields resulting in their deterioration. Young Black males have a difficult time playing in their respective city so they lose interest in baseball.

 

MLB-needs to attract Black youngsters from the age of eight because you have to start early to learn basic baseball skills, just as you have basketball and football talent at an early age, this is not being done and the sport of baseball will continue to suffer.

 

There are other issues such as colleges and universities offering limited numbers of scholarships and with the lack of minority mentors, i.e. Black coaches.

 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are also having a difficult time staffing these teams. Currently, there are 83 African-American players on the MLB fields in 2019. There are 30 teams with 27 players on each team, add that up.

 

There are only 8 % of all players, a drop from 11.2 %. In the 1970s, Black players made up as much of 27% of MLB players. The 1971 World Champion Pittsburgh Pirates fielded a Black team in the National League Playoffs and World Series with the assistance of Black Latin players in that era. This will never happen again.

Baseball was America’s pastime with everybody included players such as Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, and Roy Campanella from the Negro Leagues. It is currently failing by not reaching out to the African American community.

 

NO MENTION OF ALL-STAR TONY GWYNN

 

At the All-Star Game in 2014, the sport did not even mention the last player to flirt with a .400 batting average, a player that remained with one team, one organization his whole career, a player that loved to teach everybody about the game.

For African Americans who love this game, it was the 3rd strike, the last strike, a final blow. MLB does not care about African-Americans and it shows. This was the explanation of the omission of Gwynn by Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports Network:

 

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn, an extraordinary individual whose memory we have honored in numerous ways in recent weeks. The Baseball family has sadly lost a number of people this year – including Hall of Famer Ralph Kiner, Frank Cashen, and former All-Stars Jerry Coleman, Jim Fregosi, and Don Zimmer – and did not want to slight anyone by singling out one individual.”

 

Baseball could have taken a moment of silence to honor ALL of these players, with a mention of their names and photos on the jumbotron. Just another example of the stumbling and bumbling with MLB executives.

 

CALLING THE FIRST STRIKE


 

The first strike happened some fifty years ago as the Saint Louis Cardinal outfielder Curt Flood challenged baseball’s reserve clause-free agency laws and won. Flood got traded from the back to back National League Champion Saint Louis Cardinals to the last place Philadelphia Phillies. It was the last Championship before they divided the leagues into the Eastern and Western Divisions.

 

Flood did not want to play for the Phillies because of the lingering reputation of the racist fan base in South Philadelphia and he did not want to play in that old dilapidated Connie Mack Stadium either.

 

The Phillies would move to the new round cookie cutter monster Veterans Stadium next year. Flood never played for the Phillies as he was traded to the Washington Senators who moved to Arlington, Texas.

Mr. Flood stated that (we) players are not cattle to be shuttled off to any city that owners wished without that player’s consent. Curt Flood’s political, social, and economic protest created the modern day athlete and he still does not receive the praises for the sacrifices he made.

 

Every player playing today should give thanks to Curt Flood for their lucrative contracts.

 

Mr. Curt Flood should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame; but because of his legal battle and victory, the entrance has been denied to the All-Star outfielder. Young African Americans have taken notice.

 

The St. Louis Cardinal organization added insult to injury when they hosted the All-Star Game in 2009 with all of the living and former Cardinals players being honored before the game. Curt Flood was not mentioned.

 

Then the second strike, the denial of one of baseball’s living legions into the Hall of Fame. Mr. Buck O’Neil-Mr. Baseball who played in the Negro Leagues with the Kansas City Monarchs and MLB’s Chicago Cubs. The Hall of Fame waited until O’Neil passed away before recognizing him as the ambassador to baseball. A living O’Neil would have been a goldmine for the sport and a spokesman to gain the confidence of young African American fans but they booted the ball again. “E-5” Error.

 

SEEING THE FACE OF BASEBALL

 

Baseball has struck out in the Black communities. Young African-Americans are watching. Young Blacks want no part of MLB’s hypocrisy. Just ask this year’s Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray he opted for the National Football League instead of baseball. How about quarterbacks Russell Wilson of the Seattle Seahawks and Patrick Mahomes of the Kansas City Chiefs both had baseball skills and both choose the National Football League. There is a reason for that….

 

The blackballing and distancing themselves from the current home run king and All-Star outfielder Barry Lamar Bonds added insult to injury after the Sammy Sosa-Mark McGwire Baseball Love Feast in 1998. This action cemented the growing negative feelings by young Black followers of the game. They see the harsh treatment of Black players on the field.

 

They see the current glorification of Philadelphia’s Bryce Harper and L.A.’s Mike Trout and the industries ignoring the fetes of Black star Philadelphia’s Andrew McCutchen.

 

Black kids don’t see players that look like them on the field. We could be witnessing the last Black All-Star pitcher in New York with Yankee CC. Sabathia. CC will retire at the end of the 2019 season. Can you name another Black All Star pitcher?

 

These young Black fans see Ken Caminiti, Mark McGwire, Andy Pettitte, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemons, Ryan Braun, the list is endless never receive the same punishment as African American players for the same crime.

 

This sport continues to promote star players of “A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Los Angeles Angels outfielder Mike Trout and The Philadelphia Phillie outfielder Bryce Harper, baseball’s wonderkins. These two players are the current vision of baseball today.

 

What happened to African-American players like outfielder Matt Kemp of the Cincinnati Reds, outfielder Coco Crisp of the Cleveland Indians, Philadelphia Phillie outfielder Andrew McCutchen, pitchers C.C. Sabathia of the New York Yankees or David Price of the Boston Red Sox, or Miami Marlins outfielder Curtis Granderson. What about young guns outfielders Jackie Bradley Jr. and Mookie Betts of the Boston Red Sox? These outstanding Black players will never be the face of baseball.

BLACK MANAGERS

Major League Baseball continues to stumble and bumble its way each year with the African- American communities. This year only one Black manager will sign the lineup card out of 30 teams.

 

Retired manager Dusty Baker of the Washington Nationals, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants and the Cincinnati Reds guided all four teams into the playoffs. How many managers have done that?

 

Cito Gaston, the manager of the Toronto Blue Jays, won back to back World Series Championships, How many managers have done that?

 

Currently, manager Dave Roberts of the Los Angeles Dodgers took the team to the World Series in back to back years and still does not get the respect of winning managers. How many rookie managers their first two years guided their team to back to back playoffs?

 

Last year was the first World Series that had two minority managers leading their teams to victory. Alex Cora led the Boston Red Sox over the Los Angeles Dodgers. Cora is Latino.

 

Black managers have produced champions wherever they have gone It will not continue to happen if MLB continues with this racial attitude but THAT’S BASEBALL BEING BASEBALL

 

Progress is slowly being made with a new chance for young African-Americans. In 2014 the Cincinnati Reds opened the first Urban Youth Academy baseball training facility that is designed to develop baseball fundamentals and skills. Other teams need to follow in the Reds footsteps.

 

Brooklyn Dodgers Jackie Robinson would repeat the statement that MLB has to try harder to reach out to our African-American youth so they too can enjoy the game America calls its pastime.

 

For many African-American baseball fans, it might be too late.

 

THREE STRIKES and YOU’RE OUT!!!!!

 

Maybe it is time to see the Kansas City Monarchs, New York Black Yankees, Birmingham Black Barons, Atlanta Black Crackers, Toledo Crawfords, Indianapolis Clowns, Newark Eagles, and the Homestead Grays return to the baseball diamonds of America.

 

Gary Norris Gray – Writer, Author, Historian. Gibbs Magazine-Oakland, California and New England Informer- Boston Mass. THE GRAYLINE: – The Analects of A Black Disabled Man, The Gray Leopard Cove, The Batchelor Pad Network on Blogtalkradio.com Disabled Community Activist. Email at [email protected]

[email protected]

©Copyrighted Gary Norris Gray @ Gray Leopard Prod


THE FIGHT CONTINUES IN BUCKS COUNTY

Posted on February 2, 2019 at 11:15 AM Comments comments (0)

THE FIGHT CONTINUES IN BUCKS COUNTY

 

Gary Norris Gray-BASN-Staff Reporter


 

OAKLAND, CA.- As we turn the calendar to 2019 the fight to ban the R-Word continues and travels to Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Neshaminy School District has been sued by the state Human Relation Commission for the use of the R-word. Hearings are currently being held for their athletic teams using the Redskin name.

 

Attorney Lisa Knight of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission argued before a commission hearing officer that the Bucks County district wouldn’t use a nickname based on any other racial group, so it shouldn’t use a term that many indigenous people find offensive.

 

As each year passes more high schools are dropping this name and mascot. In Michigan Belding High became the Black Knights, In Houston Lamar High became the Texans and in Wilmington the Conrad Schools of Science became the Red Wolves. Schools all over the country are throwing in the towel rather then make a public stink about their nickname and mascot, not Neshaminy High School.

 

The high school has instead dug in its heels and refuses to move on this issue. Annemarie Remy a Native American from the Lenni-Lenape tribe and the grand-daughter of Bill Thompson-Chief Whippoorwill has tried to educate the community. Stating that we will try to make the people of Bucks County understand the error of their ways, it has not worked.

 

In 2013 another Native American resident Donna Fann-Boyle filed a complaint on the behalf of her son at Neshaminy High. The Boyle family dropped the case after they were harassed by the local residents of Bucks County,

 

The fight is entering its 40th year and the Alumni want to hold on to the past just as the Washington Football Club, The Chicago Blackhawks, The Kansas City Chiefs, The Atlanta Braves, and Cleveland Indians want to hold on to their name and mascot. “It’s part of a proud tradition,” A tradition that needs to fade into the past. Slavery was part of American tradition, you don’t hear people wanting to bring back this tradition even thou some say Mr. Trump would not object

 

“The R-word is meant as an honor.” Guess the people of north east Pennsylvania have not read or understood the definition.

 

The meaning comes from the bounties offered for the killings of Native Americans by presenting the bloody scalp or skin, thus calling it red skin. This is not flattering. The Author of “the Wizard of Oz,” L. Frank Baum pleaded for the annihilation of the remaining Native Americans in 1890. This is the same attitude in 2019 concerning the mascot and name of teams across this nation with the R-word.

 

Keeping the name desensitizes a racial slur and even promotes acceptance. This is the fight that most politically active Native Americans engage in every day across this nation.

 

Progress is being made in 2015 the State of California banned the name from high schools and in 1989 there were 93 schools in our nation using this name. In 2019 it has dropped to 49 in 20 states.

The Pennsylvania Human Relation Commission will continue to have hearings on the Neshaminy High’s nickname and the defenders will keep up the fight to keep the R-word.

 

As Spike Lee states “Do The Right Thing.” Neshaminy High administrators change the mascot and name be on the right side of history.

 

I hope we don’t repeat those errors by censoring pro-Redskins voices. Whether the school retains its nickname or not, everyone in the community should remain free to use the term (or not) as they see fit. Any new restriction will make the defenders of the nickname into martyrs. And it will reinforce the narrative of political correctness in which finger-wagging liberals impose their linguistic preferences on everyone else. This reporter still does not get it, that you cannot disrespect another’s culture.

 

The school newspaper tried to be correct and got punished for it. The school officials required the paper to use the R-word on their editorial page. The student refused and the faculty adviser was suspended for two days without pay. This was sending a message to the students restricting free speech.

 

Last if you are going to use a Native American name and logo please use it correct.

 

Under cross-examination by Knight and questioning by the hearing examiner, Carl Summerson, Billeaudeaux conceded that the Neshaminy logo is historically inaccurate because it depicts a Plains Indian and not one from the Lenni- Lenape tribe that once dominated the area that is now lower Bucks County.

 

The Neshaminy High R-word defenders have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask are we really racists?

 

Time will tell.

Gary Norris Gray – Writer, Author, Historian, Gibbs Magazine-Oakland, California and New England Informer- Boston, Mass. THE GRAYLINE:- The Analects of A Black Disabled Man, The Gray Leopard Cove, Soul Tree Radio In The Raw, and The Batchelor Pad Network, Disabled Community Activist. Email [email protected]

 

©Copyrighted Gary Norris Gray @ Gray Leopard Prod


Is there a Trump Master Plan to Eliminate the National Debt?

Posted on September 29, 2018 at 11:05 AM Comments comments (0)

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 29, 2018)

 

The Threat

The greatest threat to the long-term security of the United States of America is the $21 trillion (and growing) national debt. There are many possible outcomes of an uncontrolled national debt – none of them good. Gradual outcomes have already begun in the form of efforts to undermine the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

 

The chief force behind this move is China, with serious support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, with the support of the Obama administration, invented its Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) as an alternative to the dollar for international trade.

 

Further, the new international development bank called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), an economic coalition representing 41% of the world’s population and 23% of the global Gross National Product (GDP), has pledged to fund a one trillion-dollar development bank to rival the World Bank and the IMF. The rapidly increasing preferred currency of BRICS is the Chinese yuan. BRICS started as an economic coalition for mutual support but has already begun to branch out into nuclear security and similar fields of cooperation.

 

Some commentators, such as James Rickards, see this and similar efforts as genuine threats to the stability of the dollar. As long as the huge debt keeps growing and the proportion of the world gold supply held by the USA keeps dwindling, the USA stands to continue watching confidence in the dollar decrease apace. That path eventually leads the USA toward becoming a giant Greece or post-WWI Germany.

 

Conservative support for Donald Trump

One of the first reasons many conservatives supported Donald Trump for President was their expectation that the national debt was one of his main targets in making America great again. So far, there has been no movement in that direction other than his bargaining a lower price for the Jerusalem embassy and some similar economies. So, the question is, Does Mr. Trump have a long-term strategy for eliminating the national debt? Budget hawk Paul Ryan’s leaving his power position as Speaker of the House does not look like a good sign.

 

The Trump Strategy

There is a school of thought that maintains the following logic:

1) in order to have a chance at reducing federal spending, the USA has to have a thriving economy, because experience shows that a country cannot spend its way out of recession. The Obama administration tried that and contributed to the longest recession in history.

2) But neither can a country starve its way out of recession, because the population will not stand for it.

3) Therefore, the only time spending reductions can be made successfully is when the economy is booming. This was known even in biblical times, as in the story of Joseph and Egypt’s seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years.

4) It is also necessary in these times of international challenges to maintain the USA’s military preeminence in order to guard the peace. Starving the American military as the Obama administration did would work only in a world without enemies as imagined by Obama’s idealists.

5) A strong military and a strong economy are also necessary conditions for prevailing in a contest of wills over radical re-alignment of trading relationships.

6) In order to prepare the country for federal cost-cutting, therefore, these preparations are necessary.

7) Conclusion: We are still in the first stage of the Trump national strategy,

8) The next step will be a debt reduction phase.

The Cost Cutting Phase

It is clear that the key to reducing the national debt as well as securing the dollar is the so-called entitlements. We have already heard President Trump’s most basic approach to this issue. Namely, he has promised not to rescind the Government promises to those who have contributed all their working lives to Social Security. Speaker Ryan’s formula for dealing with this issue recognizes the Government’s moral obligation to honor its role as custodian of the contributors’ funds, but also saves significant money by gradually adjusting the timing: raising the eligibility age from 62 to a later date (which corresponds to changes in the workforce which have already occurred). There are also other minimally painful adjustments available in areas of other federal and state pension programs, such as, civilian, military and railroad employees. Another area of saving has already begun with the reduction regulations and the corresponding need for enforcement personnel. The key is not really the actual metrics; at this stage the keys are the will to do it and the adequacy of the targets.

 

Energy

I cannot leave this topic without noting another possible advantage that may be emerging in defense of the dollar. That is the steady increase in America’s energy production. In the past, America’s major attractions to the rest of the world have been our nuclear shield and our huge retail markets. Our chief exports have been technology and the corresponding jobs it created.

The energy revolution adds a major new dimension to our export menu. With the investment and legal facilitation of more sources and more refineries, America can emerge from its status as a buyer of energy to a world exporter of energy. The transition holds enormous leverage for America’s international position in reversing the balance of international trade, reversing the outflow of petrodollars, enhancing our defense of Europe, and ultimately raising our cost of living. This monumental change in America’s international position might even influence the longevity of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency – replacing gold as guarantor.

 

Let’s hope President Trump is on the same wave length!

© 2018, Richfield Press LC. All rights reserved.

What about a free-market health care system?

Posted on September 28, 2018 at 12:00 AM Comments comments (0)

What about a free-market health care system?

Shrink insurance and government down to size! Patient-centered medical care is possible.

 

 

By Dr. Larry Fedewa

 

The starting point for a discussion of a national health care system should be setting our goals.

American health care should be:

1. High quality, state-of-the-art

2. Available to all

3. Affordable

4. Abundant

5. Well-funded

 

What are the principal obstacles to these goals?

a. The shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets:

not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and too many drop out before their time.

 

There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.

 

The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis.

 

One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be miniscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies.

 

This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately.

 

This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.

 

b. Inadequate funding

So how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Only about one-third of the $1 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?

 

1) First, take the employers out of the picture. The added financial and personnel burdens on businesses of paying and accounting for employee health care is a double disaster. It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs.

 

2) Next, reduce the role of insurance companies. They are not chartered or ordained by God to be judging the value or disvalue of medical procedures. They are supposed to know about money, not cancer! The decisions about medical care and the balancing for costs versus therapies should be in the hands of the patients where they belong. When the ultimate decisions of life and death have been left with the patient, we will have come a long way toward patient-centered medicine. Face it, there is no way for the patient to become the main arbiter of his or her fate unless the patient is the source of the money which runs the system.

 

3) This free market system would be much better and much cheaper. The individual works for the money; the individual chooses the doctor, makes the final decision as to spending the money, and pays the doctor, hospital, physical therapist, and pharmacist. So where does the individual get the money? From his or her own health savings account with enhanced income from fewer deductions, also from voluntary insurance or cooperative membership, or from family, friends or philanthropic sources. Since the money is the patient’s own, the patient is far more likely to become very cost-conscious – unlike today’s insured patient, who is always spending someone else’s money.

 

c. Insurance Companies and Government

A patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (46.9% of health expenditures, NCHS, 2016). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, about two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone. Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $1.5 trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential.

 

1) There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with.

 

And this brings us to the role of governments.

 

2) The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.

 

3) The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS.

 

4) A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.

 

d. Universal Coverage

The larger issue is care for the poor and the other underserved members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care. We have government programs to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly; to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the underserved, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs, or those who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions.

 

It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states.

 

e. Medicare

We have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives. The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course.

 

So here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:

 

1. State-of-the-art;

2. Available to all in need;

3. Affordable;

4. Abundant; and

5. Well-financed.

To get there, we need to:

 

1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,

2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;

3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved.

These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day considered average Americans too irresponsible to handle their own health and welfare. Not true today.

 

 

© 2018 Richfield Press, LC (All rights Reserved.)

 

 

The New Left in American Colleges

Posted on September 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM Comments comments (0)

The New Left in American Colleges

 

By Dr. Larry Fedewa

 

 

Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campuses protesting conservative speakers, harassing conservative students, and censoring student publications. What is going on? What has happened to the university as the bastion of free speech?

 

Two Keys

There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations:

1. First, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and

2. Second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values.

The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty teaching. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.

 

What is the faculty teaching and why?

An ideology has developed over the past two generations which has several names, such as the New Left, secular humanism and others, as well as several differing versions. The dedication to this ideology on the part of its true believers cannot be overestimated. It is based on a series of high moral convictions which are common to most variations of the new doctrine:

· the absolute equality of ALL human beings, no matter their age, race, gender, physical capacities, religion or social position;

- a central reality of this dogma is the existence of a universal racism in the America;

· the absolute obligation to oppose ALL limitations on human behavior whether religious, civil law, or cultural prejudice;

· to protect and foster government control of all institutions

· any means of furthering these ideals is justified, including physical violence and terrorism, since there is a war against traditionalists for control of society.

These high moral goals motivate the feeling of superiority which is characteristic of the New Left, as well as the ferocity with which they attack their opponents. In the most dedicated adherents of the New Left, there is a religious fervor not unlike that which motivates the radical Islamists. Those who disagree must be defeated at any cost, even at the cost of their destruction. The New Left are not as violent as the Islamic extremists, but there are similarities.



The New Left’s 2008 victory

In 2008, they finally won their long battle for control of the American government. They elected Barack Hussein Obama as President with a Democrat Congress to back him up. It took the Great Recession to do it. But the New Left -- spawned by the crisis of 1968, hardened by 40 years in the wilderness, and preaching an expanded view of human equality, anti-war idealism, anti-business bias, an anti-family and anti-religion world-view – the New Left now finally controlled the federal government of the United States of America.

 

The New Left’s reaction to the 2016 election of the deplorable Donald Trump

The main reason for the extreme reaction of the New Left to the election of Donald Trump is that they were convinced they had finally won their generational battle with the silent majority. They were so intoxicated by the victories of Barack Obama – especially after he defeated businessman Mitt Romney in 2012 – that LOSING was unthinkable! They had been confident that they now controlled the future of America.

The New Left values dominated, they believed, the new American culture, never again to be denied. The Democrat Party, one of only two major political parties in the United States, had become the vessel of the New Left, and was considered by all the New Left press and pundits to be firmly enthroned as the majority party for the foreseeable future. Their agenda had already skipped over the 2016 election and concentrated on what their next priority, climate change, meant to the world.

Then the deplorable Donald Trump won the presidency! His Republicans won both Houses of Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures! The man who had threatened to undue most of what Obama did was now in the position to do it!

How could this happen? Their answer: The New Left had allowed the Old Left to control the Democratic nomination until it was too late. Throughout the campaign that followed, they were continually referred to as “the status quo”, and most gallingly as “the establishment”! That critical mistake, they opined, opened the door to the silent majority – who finally spoke.

Does it mean, they asked, that we are now destined to return to the shadows, that we never really won the hearts and minds of the American people? That America is condemned to live forever in free market capitalism, restricted immigration, a monetary economy, a war-like world? Must we now accept the possibility that all our beliefs about the society and the nature of human beings have been false?

 

The New Left enclaves: universities, big cities, and the media

In New Left enclaves, such as the universities and the big cities and the media, the outcome of the election just cannot be accepted without a fight. “Send out the students, the activists, the camp followers – TV will cover. Somewhere someone will figure out a way to destroy the opposition, reverse the election, and return the nation to sanity.”

 

Opposing the university’s New Left

This is what we are up against in the universities and in American society. The only way to regain control of the hearts and minds of our youth is to teach them ourselves the meaning of the Constitution, the value of capitalism limited by laws, and the moral values of our religious heritage. Most of all, it is up to parents, coaches, and clergy to arm our own youth with the understandings to stand up against the faculties who proselytize the doctrines of the New Left in our schools. This begins with local school boards, with student-centered financing of education, with sharpened protections of free speech on our campuses -- especially publicly funded institutions -- and by protection of students who are in effect whistle-blowers on extremist teachers and professors.

 

All such activities must be conducted with a careful view toward protecting the freedom of speech even of the extremists. That can only be done with a liberal use of freedom of choices by individual students, namely, careful selection of schools and colleges and scrutiny of required courses, and of parents supporting school choice. Persecution of violators, however defined, would simply desecrate the mandates in the American Constitution. Witch hunts are not recommended. We can only fight excesses of freedom by providing more options of freedom.

 

But fight it we must – or we will lose another generation of young Americans!

 

© 2018, Richfield Press LC. All rights reserved

The New Left in American Colleges

Posted on September 27, 2018 at 11:55 AM Comments comments (0)

The New Left in American Colleges

 

By Dr. Larry Fedewa

 

 

Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campuses protesting conservative speakers, harassing conservative students, and censoring student publications. What is going on? What has happened to the university as the bastion of free speech?

 

Two Keys

There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations:

1. First, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and

2. Second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values.

The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty teaching. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.

 

What is the faculty teaching and why?

An ideology has developed over the past two generations which has several names, such as the New Left, secular humanism and others, as well as several differing versions. The dedication to this ideology on the part of its true believers cannot be overestimated. It is based on a series of high moral convictions which are common to most variations of the new doctrine:

· the absolute equality of ALL human beings, no matter their age, race, gender, physical capacities, religion or social position;

- a central reality of this dogma is the existence of a universal racism in the America;

· the absolute obligation to oppose ALL limitations on human behavior whether religious, civil law, or cultural prejudice;

· to protect and foster government control of all institutions

· any means of furthering these ideals is justified, including physical violence and terrorism, since there is a war against traditionalists for control of society.

These high moral goals motivate the feeling of superiority which is characteristic of the New Left, as well as the ferocity with which they attack their opponents. In the most dedicated adherents of the New Left, there is a religious fervor not unlike that which motivates the radical Islamists. Those who disagree must be defeated at any cost, even at the cost of their destruction. The New Left are not as violent as the Islamic extremists, but there are similarities.



The New Left’s 2008 victory

In 2008, they finally won their long battle for control of the American government. They elected Barack Hussein Obama as President with a Democrat Congress to back him up. It took the Great Recession to do it. But the New Left -- spawned by the crisis of 1968, hardened by 40 years in the wilderness, and preaching an expanded view of human equality, anti-war idealism, anti-business bias, an anti-family and anti-religion world-view – the New Left now finally controlled the federal government of the United States of America.

 

The New Left’s reaction to the 2016 election of the deplorable Donald Trump

The main reason for the extreme reaction of the New Left to the election of Donald Trump is that they were convinced they had finally won their generational battle with the silent majority. They were so intoxicated by the victories of Barack Obama – especially after he defeated businessman Mitt Romney in 2012 – that LOSING was unthinkable! They had been confident that they now controlled the future of America.

The New Left values dominated, they believed, the new American culture, never again to be denied. The Democrat Party, one of only two major political parties in the United States, had become the vessel of the New Left, and was considered by all the New Left press and pundits to be firmly enthroned as the majority party for the foreseeable future. Their agenda had already skipped over the 2016 election and concentrated on what their next priority, climate change, meant to the world.

Then the deplorable Donald Trump won the presidency! His Republicans won both Houses of Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures! The man who had threatened to undue most of what Obama did was now in the position to do it!

How could this happen? Their answer: The New Left had allowed the Old Left to control the Democratic nomination until it was too late. Throughout the campaign that followed, they were continually referred to as “the status quo”, and most gallingly as “the establishment”! That critical mistake, they opined, opened the door to the silent majority – who finally spoke.

Does it mean, they asked, that we are now destined to return to the shadows, that we never really won the hearts and minds of the American people? That America is condemned to live forever in free market capitalism, restricted immigration, a monetary economy, a war-like world? Must we now accept the possibility that all our beliefs about the society and the nature of human beings have been false?

 

The New Left enclaves: universities, big cities, and the media

In New Left enclaves, such as the universities and the big cities and the media, the outcome of the election just cannot be accepted without a fight. “Send out the students, the activists, the camp followers – TV will cover. Somewhere someone will figure out a way to destroy the opposition, reverse the election, and return the nation to sanity.”

 

Opposing the university’s New Left

This is what we are up against in the universities and in American society. The only way to regain control of the hearts and minds of our youth is to teach them ourselves the meaning of the Constitution, the value of capitalism limited by laws, and the moral values of our religious heritage. Most of all, it is up to parents, coaches, and clergy to arm our own youth with the understandings to stand up against the faculties who proselytize the doctrines of the New Left in our schools. This begins with local school boards, with student-centered financing of education, with sharpened protections of free speech on our campuses -- especially publicly funded institutions -- and by protection of students who are in effect whistle-blowers on extremist teachers and professors.

 

All such activities must be conducted with a careful view toward protecting the freedom of speech even of the extremists. That can only be done with a liberal use of freedom of choices by individual students, namely, careful selection of schools and colleges and scrutiny of required courses, and of parents supporting school choice. Persecution of violators, however defined, would simply desecrate the mandates in the American Constitution. Witch hunts are not recommended. We can only fight excesses of freedom by providing more options of freedom.

 

But fight it we must – or we will lose another generation of young Americans!

 

© 2018, Richfield Press LC. All rights reserved


Rss_feed