Moynihan Memorial Library @NewRuskinCollege.com
The New Ruskin College Project Archives
Home
Moynihan Library Links
In Memoriam
Congressional Record
Moynihan in the Times (N.Y.)
REPORT on GOVERNMENT SECRECY
Defining_Deviancy_Down
News Exhibit Hall
Katrina Review
911 Commission Report Chapter *8*
Ruskin____Lectures 2004___---_---__2005
Required Reading - Army & Navy Club
Iraq and al Qaeda
King Lear
Beyond Good and Evil
IRS and the illegals from the North
The CENCAL Letters
Dear Yvonne: The Love Letters
The Stolen Notebook
E-Mail Archives : The_Out_Box
E-Mail Archives : The_In_Box
E-Mail Archives: Hate_Mail
The Last Letter: There is a Good and a Bad . . . .
Fascism_in Daily_Life
Educational Technology
The New Ruskin College Project Archives
The Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Letters
The Math Project Archives
Ryan, Moscone, and Milk, Liberal Martyrs

Table of Contents:

the New Ruskin College project

We make what all the world wants;

the ultimate source of all power:

Knowledge !

1     August 20, 1991 Senator Danforth

2     July 30, 1991    Senator Bradley

3     June 15, 1991   Senator Helms

4     May 30,  1991   Senator Pell

5     May 15, 1991  Lamar Alexander, Secretary

        U. S. Department of Education

6     May 1,  1991  Representative Gingrich

7     April 17,  1991  Representative Gingrich

8     April 9, 1991  Senator Dole

9     March 27, 1991   George Bush, President

       White House ,  USA

The Math Project, 89-91:

minting knowledge ---

the new coin of the realm,

to illume the minds of men.

 

the New Ruskin College project

We make what all the world wants;

the ultimate source of all power:

Knowledge !

 

August 20, 1991

 

Senator Danforth

U. S. Senate

Washington, D. C.

 

Peter [deletion]

 [deletion] Ave.

Hayward, California [deletion]

 "Thus it appears that the sweltering inhabitants of Charleston and New Orleans, of Madras and Bombay and Calcutta, drink at my well. In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagvat Geeta, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial; and I doubt if that philosophy is not to be referred to a previous state of existence, so remote is its sublimity from our conceptions. I lay down the book and go to my well for water, and lo! there I meet the servant of the Bramin, priest of Brahma and Vishnu and Indra, who still sits in his temple on the Ganges reading the Vedas, or dwells at the root of a tree with his crust and water jug. I meet his servant come to draw water for his master, and our buckets as it were grate together in the same well. The pure Walden water is mingled with the sacred water of the Ganges."

 -----Henry David Thoreau,

  Walden or, Life in the Woods

 

Dear Senator Danforth;

 

A week ago I was assaulted by a heavyset black man. He first tried to start a fight with me verbally and when I walked away from him he followed and shoved me, shouldered me, pausing a few seconds, eyeball to eyeball, to see if I would fight. It was one of those prison yard scenes, a sizing you up kind of thing. Was this a warning for writing against quotas ? And I know what you are thinking.

Sir, I wish to remind you of two things: One, paranoia is the "unreasonable" fear of danger, and two, I live in northern California.

You will have seen the riots in Berkeley, a dozen miles from me, over a volley ball court. You will have heard also of our local Bay Area "environmentalists" who use explosives and booby traps to kill and maim humans in order to "protect" the environment.

Not only do I live in a country in which 23,000 people are murdered each year, also, I live in the Bay Area which makes its own significant contribution to this national statistic. For example, hundreds of people are murdered each year in Oakland, less than half a dozen miles from my home. Is it unreasonable to think that if one writes a protest letter that one will be targeted ?

It is many decades since Martin Luther King, Jr. was among us. Sir, we are discussing a level of violence in the Bay Area that approaches that of El Salvador. There is a level of violence in the Bay Area that dwarfs the violence of even the segregationist South. Never in the long troubled history of the South did anyone round up hundreds of black men and women and children and force them to drink cyanide.

Sir, Jim Jones was not an anomaly. Jim Jones and his bodies were a staple of the liberal Bay Area society. It was Jim Jones who supplied bodies for the International Hotel demonstrations. It was Jim Jones who supplied bodies for the functions of the Democratic Party. Jim Jones received a letter from President Jimmy Carter thanking him for his help in providing bodies at President Carter's appearances in the Bay Area. The burning of police cars, the vandalism of the university labs, the throwing of rocks and bottles at the police, this is but the background violence of the Bay Area.

Sir, the yearly totals of people murdered in Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose amounts to mass murder. If you are in front, lead. If you are behind, follow. But whatever you do stay the hell out of the way. The "Movement" has degenerated into anarchy. Non violence is something that only "wimps" believe in.

If one thinks oneself in the right then that is, because there is, as we all know, no 'Objective' Truth, all the justification one needs. Commitment ! So when former Ambassador Kirkpatrick tries to speak at U.C. Berkeley she is shouted down without any fear of punishment; (no consequences). Also students of U. C. Berkeley riot in the streets over a volley ball court and the university takes no action against them; (no consequences).

Yet note that if a student should write a paper critical of the left, should argue that since the assassination of President McKinley, by the left, the left has been committed to the destruction of the national consensus, for such a paper, this student will be reported to the Dean.

After all, "... any group committed to action will want to protect itself against fundamental doubt. It does not need to have its hard-won practice undermined by marginally situated intellectuals."

---John Friedmann,  Planning in the Public Domain

"Marginally situated intellectuals." This is, white male conservative dyslexic, slightly over weight, Hayward State student? Yes?

 In this paper I argued that the difference between education and propaganda was just this: Doubt. Or what Max Weber called the recognition of "inconvenient facts."

I went on to argue that in so far as radicals seek to protect their embryonic radical students from doubt they can not be educators. I illustrated my point with quotations from assigned course books and statements of the professor made during the course's weekly three hour "seminars,' really little more than rap sessions.

This was too much for the radical feminist professor to bear so she complained to the Dean. I for my part went to see the head of the department.

Pidgin English.

I told the head of the department that I thought requiring me to appear before the Dean over a paper I had written was unfair. What of academic freedom? Had he read it? Yes.

Were there any things in the paper he thought worthy of a referral to the Dean? No.

Racist? No. Sexist? No.

Threats of violence? No.

Then I recalled one of his rap sessions. He had gotten up and had drawn on the chalk board a triangle, (representing a pyramid), and a circle. He had said pointing to the triangle, "This how most organizations are . . . no concern for people." Then pointing to the circle he had said, "This how our department is run, everyone together . . . people important."

So, to explain myself to him, I put the tips of my fingers together with the palms flat illustrating the peak of a pyramid. I said, "Sending me to Dean because of paper is pyramid."

Then separating and cupping my hands to illustrate a circle I said, "This not circle."

He nodded in recognition but said there was nothing to be done. Then it occurred to me that I was addressing the Chair of the Department in pidgin  English.

I got up shook his hand and left. I walked out of Meiklejohn Hall.  

"ridiculous," "silly," "odd," "strange"  --- Senator Danforth

 

distinguished Senator, former state Attorney General, former Episcopalian Minister What has happened to our discourse?

Why are we no longer able to suffer doubt, to reexamine old familiar ideas in a new light, to be challenged? Why must every discussion dissolve into a series of allegations instead of applying reason?

Senator Danforth, sir, what has happened to you? Please look at what you are doing to politics. When we say something is "office politics," we mean perhaps that the boss hired or promoted or changed the work load for reasons having nothing to do with the efficient and orderly running of the business; rather for irrational and personal reasons that would not withstand close scrutiny by the share holders.

When we say the university professor is being "political," we mean to say the professor is not evincing that dispassionate, analytic perspective that distinguishes the detached inquiry and pursuit of "the truth" from the soap box advocate at the speaker's corner committed to "his" cause irrevocably, with out reservation, and not amenable to contrary evidence or argument no matter how persuasive.

 

To call something "political" is to call it absurd, narrowly self interested; an intellectual farce. To be called a "politician" is, as often as not, to be called unscrupulous, conniving, . . . well, enough of that, I wouldn't want you to think that I am belaboring the point. [I do not want it thought that I am mocking; or holding you and your colleagues up to jest under the guise of dissertation.]

 

 Question: What is required of those who come to the Lord's Supper?

Answer: It is required of those who come to the Lord's Supper to examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, with stedfast purpose to lead a new life; to have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and to be in charity with all men.

-----Offices of Instruction,   Book of Common Prayer

In less than twenty minutes of conversation on the      M. & L. News Hour you managed to call Secretary Lamar Alexander's policies, "ridiculous," "silly," "odd," and "strange." By implication you were also saying the same thing about President Bush's education policy.

 Sir, I do not think President Bush has a reputation for being ridiculous. I do not think Secretary Alexander has a reputation for being silly.

I do not think Albert Shanker, who stated he agreed with Secretary Alexander's policy of allowing employers to see transcripts, has a reputation for being odd.

Sir, I don't think I have a reputation for being, well, let us just leave it at that . . ."and to be in charity with all men."

Sir, my question is where shall we talk in reason, in charity, so that we bear not our burdens alone? For we can not talk in the universities. And our political discourse has disintegrated into mere charges. If you are unable to intelligently discuss educational policy on the M. & L. News Hour then are we never to have an intelligent public discussion?

You did argue that the issue was "settled law." Is this not very much more of the same? By claiming the issue is "settled law" are you not just saying that you are unwilling to discuss it? We used to discuss and vote on issues in this country. Have you no arguments? If the issue is as "settled" as you claim, why is it before us at all? Sir, we are discussing it because of the Reagan revolution. (Really, counter revolution, to be precise.)

No one ever voted in the Senate for the statistical compliance race law. This was something dreamed up by the liberal Federal Judiciary in concert with the liberal academics. If you and your colleagues wish to vote for racial and gender statistical compliance as a Federal requirement you may do so but please do not claim that it is the law, much less "settled" law. For it is not the law. It is against the law as the law stands right now.

 If a company is hiring, assigning or promoting employees based on their race or gender it is in violation of the law. And it is not necessary to prove this violation by reference to statistics. For example, CNN has one man and one woman reading the news on each of its news segments. We need only call the CNN producers and managers to the witness stand, read the perjury statutes to them, explain the punishment for perjury, and then ask them one question.

Question: Have you, or do you know of anyone at CNN who has hired, assigned, or promoted an employee based on that person's gender?

Answer: AaaaaaaaHhhhhhhhhh.

Question: Just answer the question yes or no.

Answer: Ah, . . . yes?

This is a violation of the law. What Ted Turner is doing at CNN is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Law. Ted Turner is a law breaker. He is a criminal. He show no regard for the fundamental principles of American society.

How would you like to be the female news reader who could not even be considered for the assignment to the evening news segment because there was already a full quota of women on that segment? Why can't there be two women news readers?

Discrimination is not difficult to prove. I used to do housing discrimination checks. One sends two checkers to the apartment manager, white in blue jeans with no job, black in suit with job, etc.

In the case of companies the job is even easier. Memos have been written. Whole program "concept" papers have been written. Phone conversations and meetings have taken place. Statements have been made. Talent search firms have been contacted and asked to look for "a female" or "a minority" or "a white." A pattern has developed. In the employee's lunch room there is a bulletin board. On that bulletin board is a notice from management. It says, Point One, CNN will not discriminate on the basis of gender etc.

 

Point Two, CNN will make "conscious and deliberate efforts" to hire and promote women. These two statements are in flat contradiction! I have some experience with litigation defense work. The technical term for Ted Turner's position after these many, many years of gender discrimination is 'deep dodo."

 

[Some may feel that this is all a little unfair to Mr. Turner. It seems we live in a world of rapidly changing standards. This is, of course, what manufacturers say. One decade they are applauded for their new fireproof "miracle" product, and the next they are sued, and reviled and castigated in the liberal media, and punished by juries. Welcome to the world of American litigation.]

 

So please Sir, let us have no more talk from you about "settled law." We have waited too long. Now that the issue is brought forward, you still refuse to discuss the matter. You dismiss us as "ridiculous," "silly," "odd," and "strange" and claim it is all "settled." Sir, whither tolerance ?

"The political and personal morality of the West, especially in the United States, is - for lack of this sense - utterly schizophrenic. It is a monstrous combination of uncompromising idealism and unscrupulous gangsterism, [e.g. Black Panthers, Earth First, K.K.K. etc. ] and thus devoid of the humor and humaneness which enables confessed rascals to sit down together and work out reasonable deals. . . It is most important that this be understood by those concerned with civil rights, international peace, and the restraint of nuclear weapons. These are most undoubtedly causes to be backed with full vigor, but never in a spirit which fails to honor the opposition, or which regards it as entirely evil or insane. It is not without reason that the formal rules of boxing, judo, fencing and even dueling require that the combatants salute each other before the engagement. . . Nor will it do to confront the opposition in public with polite and non-violent sit-ins and demonstrations, while boosting our collective ego by insulting them in private. . . [ It ] is the twinkle in the eye of a just judge, who knows . . . that on the next turn of the Wheel of Fortune he may be the accused, If this is cynicism, it is at least loving cynicism - an attitude and an atmosphere that cools off human conflicts more effectively than any amount of physical or moral violence."

------Allan Watts,

So What?, The Book

I believe there is "moral violence." When you disparage our Secretary of Education as "ridiculous," "silly," "odd," and "strange" your High Church intolerance shows every sign of this type of violence.

Do you remember when there were respectful sit-ins?

When students protested for free speech and did not shout down their opposition; even shouting at their number so the opposition could be heard?

I do. I even remember serious young men and women working together, back in pre-history. So careful not to trample on each other's rights that this excess of caution and concern itself became the subject of satire. There was a time when protestors wore coats and ties and were careful to stay with in the designated area. The wimps!

 Today, even a Republican Senator can ridicule a Republican Secretary of Education as, "ridiculous," "silly," "odd," and "strange." This is how we talk to one another.

In your conversation, we will call it a conversation for it passes as one now a days, you made one point over and over again. You kept talking about "ditch diggers."

Ditch diggers you kept saying should not be required to have High School diplomas. Out here in California we use back hoes and we call their operators Heavy Equipment Operators. I guess you are still using a lot of "ditch diggers" back in Missouri, is that it? Or is it just that heirs to fortunes live in a world of Senators, Attorneys General, Episcopalian Ministers, Journalists, Doctors, Barbers, Maids, and Porters? Everyone else is a ditch digger, is that it?

 

Though I suppose that if we live in such a world in which our high school graduates are required, due to our national adversities, to seek employment as ditch diggers then to answer your question , yes, these jobs should go first to high school graduates.

Clearly if we are contemplating the occupation of ditch digging as a national concern, as a likely employment for our graduates, if our national policies are to be based on a concern for the priority to be given to prospective ditch diggers, then we are discussing a nation that is in such deep decline that the next issue will be, should brothers or sisters be fed first, before the tits run dry.

Your obsession with ditch diggers, with the allowable employment requirements for this occupation, is exactly our national problem. Rather than looking to the major strategic issues, how to manage the whole society, all 260 millions, the focus is on the narrow slice, the poorest, the troubled.

The sense I get from watching the U. S. Senate is that you and your colleagues are former social workers, nuns, and penitents. Oh, there is idealism, an a priori idealism, but no strategy. (A priori , because one assumes that because one is liberal, well educated, men and women "of God," then, therefore, a priori, the policy one supports must be equally good. Therefore the results must be good.

If the Nation declines, if racial animosity grows, if test scores decline, if divorce rates, murder rates, etc., all go up, well, still, we are "good" and a priori everything will get better if only there were not those awful messengers delivering all those dreadful messages!)

This is also the situation of our educational establishment. They have been teaching "Education" for thirty years and have things improved? Do they question their basic assumptions? No, they say they need more money! Better students! They are not the problem.

 

Americans hate to admit failure. The surest way to guarantee that dropouts and high school graduates alike go unemployed or under employed is to send a message throughout society that education does not really matter, that drop outs are "entitled" to a job. [ I see myself writing these words and I am chagrined. Who ever thought I would become an upholder of "standards?"]

 

At one time there was a consensus in this society that jobs should go first to those who did go to school. Now everywhere the standard is lowered to make sure the largest possible number of the favored groups are selected irrespective of performance. [On reflection I see that this is my point, dyslexic that I am.]

We would not want to establish policy for the entire Nation just to help 10% of the population that is dyslexic. [Indeed, why shouldn't a dyslexic uphold standards !] To throw out tests because they are "culturally biased," to use a common euphemism, would be like dyslexics burning books because they discriminate. Is reading a cultural bias? If so what is wrong with this "bias."

 

To say that tests should only test for "the job" is sophistry. Does "the job" define itself? Who then shall decide? The "experts?" The courts? Why should we prefer their subjective standards to our own "subjective" standards?

For example, state and local governments require "some" college for positions whose description and pay clearly would justify, in the present job market, a college degree. The examinations also are set at a rudimentary level so as to give maximum "weight" to the "interview process." (This corresponds to the college course in which 60% of the grade is based on the "in class" discussion. The professor decides who has made the most significant and valuable contribution to the "group process." And if female students should get higher grades for their "group process," well, this is expected. After all everyone knows that women have "superior" "social skills.")

The need to help the drop outs who want to become ditch diggers is readily admitted --- enthusiastically accepted. I have been trying for years to get some interest in Washington for a free standing educational system, on laser disks, that would open the doors of knowledge to all.

[ WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? THE TECHNOLOGY IS READY NOW! STUDENTS LEARN MORE, FASTER, AND RETAIN THE INFORMATION AND SKILLS LONGER! IT INCREASES OPPORTUNITIES. IT COSTS LESS MONEY. ]

The very people who claim to be the most interested in the poor, people such as yourself, have been the least receptive. Sir, this is because an emphasis on education has become impolitic, an unfortunate reminder of individual responsibility.

[THIS IS WHY YOU DO NOT SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION, IT IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT.]

As long as there is scarcity you have a way to excuse those who do not take responsibility. We have found with "affirmative action" just the sort of elitist administrative "solution" that obviates the need to innovate and obviates the need for individual responsibility.

Just like the Chinese, our elites, our mandarins, have "solved" our "problem" through our bureaucracies not by actually changing our environment or technique. The preference is to help one group at a time. No one looks at the total picture, at the whole society, at strategy.

Question: This injury you have just described, while you were the school custodian, did it . . . I mean did you have any other difficulties after time that, uh, after that time you just described?

Answer: Well, let's see uh, there be that day we was running up and down the stairs, putting out fires. I remember at the end of the day . . .

Question: Excuse me did you say putting out fires?

Answer: Well, yeah, you know, they be starting fires. Anyway at the end of the day it hurt so bad I could hardly . . .

Question: Who, who, who, starts the fires?

Answer: The kids, you know, the students.

Question: I'm sorry, where did they start these fires?

 Answer: In the trash cans in the hall and classrooms and in the bathrooms. In the lockers too. Well, it hurt so bad I could hardly walk and . . .

 Question: These fires . . .

Answer: I know its weird, man, that's just how those kids are there at that school. They're weird. It seems like no one is in charge there no more. This is what happens to a nation in a civil war: "It seems like no one is in charge there no more.”

Keeping your end up.

Sir, dear Senator Danforth, has it never occurred to you to ask why the selection of police lieutenants has become a matter of such public controversy? Why is the selection of the Detroit Symphony a matter of public debate?

Sir, have you never reflected that metaphysical examinations of "objective" "standards," a subject formerly of limited interest even among philosophy and seminary students, has become a matter of general discourse? Is this a sign of a popular scholasticism?

 Hardly. Sir, federal judges entertain discussions of "objectivity" not because of a philosophical bent, rather because there is money at stake. Plunder. Think how few are eligible for promotion to police lieutenant. You must be in the police, with a certain background, education. You must be a certain age, (yes, age discrimination is against the law, yet still it goes on). Of all the people who sit for the exam how many have any reasonable probability of being selected for the one or two openings?

Why do so many concern themselves with the San Francisco Fire Department Fire Investigator exam? (Someone even putting glue in the door lock of the office used by the Fire Investigators, when they were not selected.) So why do they care? They are keeping their end up. When the bills are too much, when the child needs extra help with schooling, etc., one can say 'Well, I applied for the Lieutenant's exam.'

You see that, millionaire's son?

And you know what, the wife smiles and says, 'That's great!' And she means it. He is doing something for his family. Do you see that?

If it were all "statistically" determined by the millionaire's sons in the judge's chambers, then it would not be real, it would all be a joke, a charade. But even if he does not get the promotion, and the odds are way against him, it is OK, as long as it is real.

Can you see that?

It is the possibility, yes, but more than that it is the agreement, we are "playing by the rules." We have all agreed to play by the rules.

Destroy that agreement, sir, and you destroy more than a personnel policy. Perhaps more than a millionaire's son can understand.

Interpersonal politics

And this is why many people go into police and fire departments, sewer plant operations, etc., yes even the F. B. I. They do not want their fate determined by some blue suits based on how well they grovel and smile in an "interview."

[There is now a whole philosophy of "the interview;" the phenomenologist's much fabled "face to face encounter;" i.e. the ability to get along with people, interpersonal "skills," you know, politics. ]

Of course it is just this "interpersonal" politics that keeps most in private industry quiet. For example, most insurance companies require their employees to sign a pledge that they will clear all articles and letters to government officials with management before they are mailed. It may not be "legally" enforceable, however, the point is made: you got to go along to get along.

Public sector tests, the "objective" criterion, were originally designed to eliminate factionalism in government. This reform was championed by Victorian Republican reformers. (Sir, your gender and racial preferences put you at odds with Republicanism.)

Beyond the "good government" aspects, many prefer the clearly stated "objective" job requirements. The personal preference of private sector managers appear arbitrary to the civil servant, as indeed they do to many of us in private employment. (For many of us the issue isn't whether the claims supervisor, for example, is "a woman" or not, but whether they are on the take or not.)

 

Even in private employment there was a loyalty to the goals of the firm, a belief in the "objective" "duties" of management, and as has been widely reported, this is all but gone. Everywhere there is an abandonment of "objective" standards to political standards, i.e. revolutionary "standards." This has taken place in human relations, in business and education, throughout society.

“The private life is dead in Russia."

 --- Boris Pasternak, Doktor Zhivago  

The rationale for quotas was originally that waiting for education to cure our social problems would take too long. Something happened on the way. We forgot about the Nation, the larger National purposes. An "objective" standard is simply a consensus standard.

The transformation from one consensus to another is revolution. This is why the left is in continual dissolution: today's revolutionary is tomorrow's conservative.

To stay forever on the left is to commit oneself to forever being for "the new" irrespective of whether "the new" is "better" or not. For the word better implies a standard which is a consensus, which is the old. "The new" is always not better according to the old consensus. Thus all judgments are suspect because all judgments are based on the old consensus. Obviously this is not a philosophy with which to build empires. This is why Stalin murdered Trotsky. (As has been said this is a common enough solution to academic disputes on the left.)

 

This is not to say all "new" things come to be. Most do not. For example, leftists tried to use the Vietnam War protests as a staging ground for the "American proletarian revolution." You remember, to overthrow "the system?" As with most errant prognosticators they will tell you that the theory is right but the timing may have been a little off. Also the left has tried to use the civil rights movement, the "women's" movement, the labor movement, product packaging requirements, etc. to bring about the "American proletarian revolution."

 As Allan Watts has said the difference between a proletarian and an aristocrat is one of attitude. There are many rich proles and many impoverished aristocrats. Basically the proletarian says to the world, 'you are no better than us,' and the aristocrat says 'you are as good as I am.' Thus the radical feminists in the "women's" movement say, 'men are no better than us.'

The revolutionary spirit is to tear down. In a word: common. And of course as one does not want one's "hard won practice undermined" by doubt criticism is "racism," "sexism," and if these charges start to wear thin one can trot out "misogynists" and what next?

Misanthropic? A syllabolic escalation of the denunciation race.

One over hears women in the business offices of northern California discussing their sexual pleasures with their husbands and boy friends of the previous evening and knows that these are proletarians. Gentlemen would think it déclassé to boast of their sexual pleasures. It is the influence of the left, of "the revolution," which attempts to build a consensus for the common and to exempt "women" from the "old white male" standard.

In fact '"old white males" did it,' becomes the excuse for nearly everything. Does "affirmative action" discriminate against some? '"Old white males" did it.' Does the middle age female manager promote her handsome young subordinate and take him off to "Personnel" in Novato, even though he is unqualified? '"Old white males" did it.'

For example, many women reporters who think they got their jobs because of "affirmative action," actually started to think that quotas were "fair." This process of rationalizing is not limited to "affirmative action" or to the left.

Does the Nation create a four trillion dollar debt? Does it add to this debt at the rate of 350 billion a year? No matter, Paul Craig Roberts rationalizes, 'Why doesn't everyone know it is better to borrow than to use ones own money?'

"Craig, go to hell."

--- David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics

Using other peoples money is always more advantageous. And until recently this is why government has left private capital markets to private industry: so that the private economy might have this advantage. For government borrowing crowds out private borrowing.

This year the bottom 350 billion dollars worth of loans will not be made. The last private borrowers in line at the loan window will not receive the loan to expand the plant, or develop the product. We used to think that because government could always get its money, by taxation, private businesses should be given the advantage of the capital markets.

Government could borrow, particularly when there was an excess of capital on the private market, typically associated with a turn down in the economy, yet "as a rule," (as we used to say, when there was a consensus, when we agreed on the rules), private capital should be for private industry. Now any shabby reasoning will do while the conspiracy of friends that one belongs to, plunders what can be gotten.

 Thus Mr. Roberts informs us that "This is the first recession that we have gotten out of with out counter cyclical governmental spending. The first one. This proves the Keynesians were wrong." Just what is 350 billion in deficit? Chopped liver?

It gives one reason to wonder what it means to have a Ph.D. in economics, to study at Berkeley and Oxford, if after this course of study one still believes that "supply side" economics is anything more than "voodoo economics."

Note that when President Bush brought fiscal sanity back to our National finances he was abandoned in the field by Representative Gingrich and his band of safe seat Republican Cavaliers who turned and ran. They could not face up to fiscal responsibility just as you can not face up to individual responsibility. Everyone looks for the easy way out.

 Millionaires plunder to shift taxation. "Women" and "minorities" plunder for gender and race preferences. Radio stations are given away, for later resale. Plunder. Stanford is "over billing." Plunder. Executives of collapsing companies receive bonuses. Plunder.

No one looks to the strategic issues that will determine the success of our society. The real buying power of the American people has declined 12% in the last twenty years according to former Secretary Brock.

At Harvard, B. F. Skinner's "teaching machines" are sitting in a basement. Spider webs are being woven on their key boards. The paper spools are turning yellow with age and crumbling into dust. Three dozen years of rain have leaked into the basement and rusted their mechanisms. Our elite is indifferent.

Or is it said that the "peasants" are only unhappy because the economy is doing poorly? This also is rich with irony for Washington, D. C., after turning the worlds largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor, after strangling the most productive economy with petty politics and class and race rivalry, after running it into the ground, Washington, D. C., says that the peasants are just upset because of that.

Well, that is really quite a lot to be upset about, isn't it?

 Of course, those who complain are losers. I imagine that at the court of Louis XIV, courtiers brushed aside criticism with the same reply, "losers."

"I'm a survivor, ain't that great."

- WUSA, New Orleans

Oh, I kept my appointment with the Dean of Students at Hayward State. He said he had reviewed the complaint and found nothing improper with my conduct and said he would so tell the radical feminist professor that he did not think she should have referred the issue to him. (Yes, he is an old white male.)

 And the angry black man who tried to start the fight? Probably it was just a coincidence. An exclamation mark, an independent verification of my thesis that the hostility of some black people has nothing to do with discrimination.

He was probably just one of millions of angry black men whose main springs has been wound up by young southern girls, who, as likely as not, never having known their fathers, instilled a young southern girl's imaginings of what a man should be. Stand tall. Be tough. Do or die.

And these young men are being sent out onto our streets, by these girls, and they are simply being mowed down. Six times as likely to die of murder. Six times. Six times. Six times. Six times. Six times . . . this too probably is the result of Jim Crow? Yeah, sure . . . never our policies.

 

Never us. We are good liberal men "of God."

 

Question: Why will you not support New Ruskin College?

 

Very truly yours;

 

Peter [deletion]

cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education David Kearns, Deputy Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory Lamar Alexander James Watkins Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House George Bush, Abraham Lincoln, former President President,United States of America Theodore Roosevelt, former PresidentSenator Biden Senator Bingaman Senator Bradley Senator Bumpers Senator Byrd Govern. Bayh Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Domenici Senator Dole Rep. Gephardt Rep. Gingrich Senator Gore Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J. Kerry Rep. Leach Senator Lugar Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan  Senator Nunn Senator Pell Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Rep. Schroeder Senator Specter Senator Simon Senator Seymour Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson Senator Wirth

 

 

The Math Project, 89-91:                the New Ruskin College project
minting knowledge ---                    We make what all the world wants;
the new coin of the realm,             the ultimate source of all power:
to illume the minds of men.           Knowledge !

July 30, 1991


Senator Bradley
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C.
 

The Command Performance:
WITH ALL NEW ORIGINAL MATERIAL !


Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, California 945[deletion]


"Jude found himself speaking out loud, holding conversations with them as it were, like an actor in a melodrama who apostrophizes the audience on the other side of the footlights; till he suddenly ceased with a start at his absurdity. Perhaps those incoherent words of the wanderer were heard within the walls by some student or thinker over his lamp; and he may have raised his head, and wondered what voice it was, and what it betokened." ----Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure



Dear Senator Bradley;

Secretary Lamar Alexander spoke at a recent conference of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, and suggested to the assembled teachers that public education would still be "public" even though some schools might be privately administered. (Are our roads any less "public" for being built by private contractors?) The teachers it seemed to me had a blind spot, almost a fear, of private administration of the schools.

They need not fear for the voucher contract could guarantee them the same salary, retirement program, benefits, etc. (In fact we could pay them more money in the future.) The conversion of our schools to vouchers will become an excellent case study in how to make pensions portable.

The teachers also charged private schools would "dump" students by expelling them from school. Again, the contract could specify "just cause expulsions;" e.g. failing to stand when the teacher enters the room; failing to use "Sir," or "Ma'am" when addressing the teacher; being absent with out excuse more than one time in an academic year. (Or lesser rules could be negotiated.) In addition, the contract could specify that all funds paid during the academic year to a school that has expelled a student should be refunded. This rule would discourage frivolous expulsions.

"It would appear that the process of making human beings human is breaking down in American society. Perhaps the school should not be an agent of the state or of the larger society, but an agent of the community of families closest to the child." --- James S. Coleman
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Common Ground?, Family and Nation

After considering these matters the Secretary then addressed the next challenge made by the assembled teachers. They feared the schools under a voucher system would accept only the best students and leave the rest with no where to go. Here the Secretary said something that stunned me. He said that one solution to that problem was for the schools to "take all comers."

Well why not ! Is this not the American thing to do? Did America not say to all the world at Ellis Island, "Take all comers." On the New York Stock Exchange do not the specialists take orders from all over the world, buying and selling, and still crying out, "Take all comers." And across the Appalachians and the Ohio Valley up to Chicago, in the commodity pits from which the abundance of America is sold to all the world, do not the traders there also cry, "Take all comers."

All across America, on a thousand Main Streets do not the merchants stand in front of their shops with shelves groaning under the weight of our wealth, and sing together, "Take All Comers." From the Kansas and Nebraska land rushes to the California gold rush did not everyone cry "TAKE ALL COMERS."

TAKE ALL COMERS ! TAKE ALL COMERS !

It is the American way !

"My husband thought that one man could make a difference and that everyone should try."
---------------------------------Jacquelin Kennedy

It is said that Confucius was a great teacher because he never chastised his students for their misstatements. A student could tell him ten things that were wrong but if also the student said one other thing that was correct Confucius would ignore the others and concentrate on that one correct thing. How could anyone be that good of a teacher?

The idea behind self paced instruction is that the student never "fails." The student's correct response leads onto further instruction, into greater understanding. An incorrect response leads onto further instruction, into greater understanding. The late B. F. Skinner has shown that simply allowing the student to move into new areas of learning is sufficient "reward" to encourage the student.
 
As the student reads the lesson the laser disk never changes the intonation of its voice. It does not shift the angle of its head, sigh, or glance at its watch. The lesson proceeds on Saturday just where it left off on Friday. Instruction continues on at ten o'clock just as if it were second period at nine a.m. If the family moves north to harvest lettuce the schooling continues uninterrupted. On Indian reservations, on ships at sea, in prisons, the teacher is patiently ready.

The need for a new technique in educating our children is widely acknowledged. For example, Governor Romer, after listening all morning to the "experts" criticize the American educational system as a hold over from the nineteenth century, better suited to that century's agricultural society than to our needs today, looked up and demanded, 'But I don't understand. If you all agree that the whole system needs to be changed, why hasn't anything been done?'

There was no excuse.

"We haven't had time. We haven't had tiiime. We haven't had tiiiime." --- Eleanor Holmes Norton

There has been time enough for strikes for higher pay. There has been time, also, for awards banquets, conferences, teacher of the year ceremonies. There has been time to go from 10,000 school districts to 12,000. At the same time that the computer revolution was expanding the range of managers in private business to manage large enterprises public school managers had to increase the managerial districts from 12,000 to 14,000. Where will it end? As the number of students decreased the number of districts went to 15,000. 15,000? I have 15,000. Do I hear 17,000?

-16,453.

Please gentlemen --- do I hear 18,000? 20,000?
 
When will it stop? How many more ? The issue is not that they are paid an average of, What? Say, $50,000? (Let's see, over 10,000 school districts that would be $500,000,000.00.) Every year. And that is just the superintendent's salary. Every superintendent needs a secretary. Every secretary a clerk. Now we have so many people we need a personnel manager. And an Affirmative Action Officer too I think.

The issue is what value have they added? If one criticizes "over paid government clerks" some liberal TV man is likely to imply that the criticism is just envy. Efficiency is not the issue. No. In Washington there is a preference to personalize issues. Because personality dominates, policies serve those who govern not the governed.This is the origin of DPM's "public sector disease."

Ask not what your school can do for you,
ask what you can do for your school.

Will the district Affirmative Action Officer of the 16,899th school district design new innovative programs to reach out to the 25% who drop out? No. Will he develop programs to help the students to read. No. His job is to keep track of the statistics. All these Ph.d.s and so little innovation. Sir, with the $500,000,000 we could have completed the whole of the New Ruskin College curriculum. Think of it Sir: The Martin Luther King, Jr. Social Science and Civil Rights Matrix. The Modern Italian Poets Series. The Real Estate and Finance Matrix.
 
Some of us wanted to change society. And others of us just wanted a job. How easy it is to confuse that which is good for oneself and one's friends with one's "high moral principle." Of course it follows that anyone who disagrees with what is good for oneself is the enemy, the other, against whom no action is excessive.

Some will win, and some will lose.

Do you know what I have been thinking? I have been thinking how hard it is for the people to talk to their leaders.

If we should write to our government we are regarded as a whiner, a loser, or as I heard one of your colleagues say, "a washout." [But just who then will complain? Do we expect that the winners, those who have profited from the present arrangements to complain? Not likely.]
It is, of course, convenient to say, for example, that anyone who opposes quotas is just a "loser." Though it seems unlikely that the "winners" can reasonably be expected to complain. The liberal media is always quick to suggest that those who do not approve of quotas are likely to be motivated by economic self interest. Why is no similar examination made of the economic and political interests of those who support quotas? Their support of quotas is always the result of a magnanimous interest in the well being of the Nation. Yeah.
We are constantly urged to get involved in our government, to participate, and yet the message that is being sent when we do participate is that we are "weirdOs," "wacky." We who disagree are vilified with quasi psychological terms, "nuts," "kooks," "idiot."
 
Brian Lamb, for example, holds up the Newsweek headline, "wacky media watchers" and says to his guests, "be careful what you say because they are out there taking down every word you say." ( The word "they" is a pronoun. It refers back to what?)

Michael Kinsley, as another example, has repeatedly used his 3 hours a week TV time to engage in a series of sly phrases of double meaning. What Mr. Kinsley and the other liberal media people fail to see is that their excesses are exactly what have driven a whole generation away from the Democrats and the left. If a conservative should say he has found much to admire in Buddhism, this is not for Mr. Kinsley an example of "multi- culturalism," but the subject of satire. Mr. Kinsley's use of innuendo, the covert reference, is just the sort of thing that when directed against, for example, Jews or Blacks are what would be called smears; but against a white male conservative can be engaged in without fear. Calculated excess is our discourse.

Thus it is not enough to protest the war in Vietnam one must also carry the flag of the North Vietnamese, e.g. Jane Fonda. And on the right it is not enough to be against the use of force in January one also must charge that anyone who disagrees is "irrational" and part of the "Israeli lobby," e. g. Pat Buchanan.
 
Men of conscience on the right have denounced, what the American Spectator has called Pat Buchanan's "sly Jew baiting." But Mr. Kinsley has defended Pat Buchanan. Why? Both are employees of Ted Turner. Has his interest in maintaining good relations with the boss caused Mr. Kinsley to ignore the obvious? Surely for one as adept in sly baiting as Mr. Kinsley, it should not be difficult to spot the cruder attempts of our generation's tail gunner Joe. Sir, I protest Ted Turner's definition of conservatism.

"We don't want anymore of this 'back to the
future' stuff." --- Elanore Holmes Norton

Yes, how easy it is to confuse what is good for oneself, with what is good. If one disagrees with a Judge, for example, one need not explain the reason for one's disagreement one simply calls him a "David Duke." Indeed be cruder still for one's cause is just! If the Judge is black use this also, (All's fair in war!), go ahead and say, "If you put a little flour on him . . . " Or you can say that he "thinks like a white." (Two birds with one stone.)

Thus, also, we see at a conference of "feminists," a young "feminists" in smart designer clothes ridicule the women who "dressed like men;" meaning earlier feminists, (just 5 years earlier), who did not buy their clothes in the current fashion. Today angry raised fists are likely to have Rollex watches sliding down their wrists. But why not? Just as one's political ideas are "progressive" so too one's clothes should be progressive. And one's hair style as well.

So it is that we see a California State Assembly Person on TV and she tells us that she is "third world." Her hair style is the latest sculpted thing with the new wave fringe in a kind of halo around her head. Her clothes, high class department store, with those big over stuffed shoulders, you know the ones with an attitude, an ironic statement that is ironic at about fifteen levels. And she is married to a house in Pacific Palisades that comes with a husband, plaintiff attorney good for $200,000, and two girls in UCLA, and she is looking in the camera and saying that she is "third world." Yeah.
 
[Well, at least "the women reporters" didn't all get together after the war in the Gulf ! I was afraid that after, or worse, during the war, the women "journalists" would all "group" on "what the war means to women." At least they didn't do that. That would have been just too white glove, bobby socks, sorority house feminism. It would have been just too, too icky.]

Christopher Matthews, also knows no limit as he rails against the President and associates him, using Mr. Kinsley's technic of phrases with double meaning, with the K.K.K. He says the President will use " 'Quotas, crime, Kuwait' as his motto in the upcoming election."
Mr. Kinsley leans forward and says, "Now what was that Cristopher?" in a staged lead in, "What did you say?"

"You, know Michael," says Christopher, 'Quotas, crime, and Kuwait,' you know, K.K.K."

Michael Kinsley is Harvard Law. Christopher Matthews also well educated, and has worked on the Hill for over a decade. They are America's opinion leaders. What waste.

"Commitment, compassion, and courage."
--- George Bush

A nation's greatest advantage is not its people, for people are surprisingly alike around the world. A nation's advantage does not even lie with how well its people are educated, they can always be taught. No, a nation's greatest advantage is in how well its people work together.
 
Every society needs some way of navigating its course into the future. In Germany, for example, the "rational model" has served so as to provide the frame in which there could be "a meeting of the minds." In Japan, as another example, "situational ethics" has served to help them arrive at consensus. But in the United States of America, cooperation has broken down. You can see what happens to a nation that loses its consensus all around you: in education, in the divorce rate, in the speeches of your colleagues.

What happens to a Nation in civil war? It turns in on itself. Its roads crumble. Men sit about idle. Children go unattended. The old and young fight over "entitlements," a kind of "'class struggle' between old and young," like dogs fighting over a bone. It must also abandon research on account of the expense. Businessmen and politicians alike look to shorter and shorter time horizons. The people identify with narrow groups and less with the nation. No particular loyalty is felt for one's fellow citizens.

For example, the out going president of Harvard said with pride last year that fully a third of its faculty is foreign born. Why not? Native born Americans should account for no more than 6% of the faculty, purely as a matter of statistics. Is it any wonder that the presidents of corporations take manufacturing and even design facilities offshore. Harvard and ITT, equally, may as well be on Grand Cayman Island as in the United States.

As the civil war drags on we belong less to a nation than to a network of friends. These networks, these conspiracies of friends, exploit government, industry, the people for their own ends and dominate the loyalties of those on the "in."

What is "affirmative action" now, other than the city official who hires his cronies? If we are to have quotas at least the quotas could be administered fairly. But note, the last thing the cronies want is to have the selection of the employee conducted by an independent agent. The process is designed to allow the selection to be made by the individuals in the government; to allow them to exercise power.

When evidence of a criminal conspiracy is given to the Insurance Commissioner in 1985 and the crooks are still on the streets in 1991, what difference does it make that the Commissioner is a woman?

"Statesmen who are unaware of the ideas that shaped the institutions currently in their custody, and uninterested in the ideas that shape the expectations and tolerances of the citizenry, are statesmen governed by forces they cannot comprehend."
George Will, Statecraft as Soulcraft

In the end the issue isn't quotas, the issue is the rhetoric that is being used; the intellectual dishonesty. Rather than calling us to a common national purpose, all across the Nation, the identification is with narrow groups, for narrow selfish purposes. For every well reasoned argument in Washington D. C. there are millions, tens of millions, of angry women and "minorities" who are less concerned with reason than with personal gain. When they hear you, in Washington D. C., talking about bringing them up even with "white males" they take you literally. They think: "Time to get even."

For example in Detroit the symphony orchestra was selected in the ordinary manner, i.e. "blind" auditions behind a screen. But the result was that the orchestra was "white" and so two prominent "black" congressmen threatened to cut funding if "their" people were not put on. In San Francisco, the director of the United Way has threatened to cut the funding of the Boy Scouts of America because they do not allow homosexual scout masters and homosexual scouts.

At our universities there is now affirmative action grading. (If this surprises you consider what in principle distinguishes grades from these other matters.) In fact university deans are now warning and punishing students who speak out for "individual rights," which the universities now regard as "cryptoracist." At Hayward State the feminist radicals, the phenomenologists, do not read George Will, or Daniel P. Moynihan. Marxist writers from Central America, South America, and UCLA, are all studied, but not Max Weber. They offer no choice. Now that the radicals have picked on a Democrat, Dr. Inouye, maybe "political correctness" will get the attention it deserves.

In California, with our much stricter state quota laws, there are offices that employee only women; the manager and supervisors and employees all women. It is now accepted custom for women in universities, business offices, and in social life to "confront" men, ("white males"), and "raise their consciousness." And again, because their cause is just, because they have been so very "oppressed" by "white males" no matter how rude they may be they are justified.
In California English was put to a vote, [yes, only in California], and it received a majority of Hispanic voters. Mainly the older Hispanic voters voted for English, not because they do not like Spanish, but because the young radical Hispanics use Spanish as a weapon against non Spanish speakers. The older Hispanics were saying to the younger Hispanics, 'learn to cooperate.'

"It is hard to overstate the significance of this constraint on discourse among blacks."
--- Glenn Loury, Moral Leadership in the Black Community Daniel P. Moynihan, The Moment Lost, Family and Nation

Barbara Reynolds, U.S.A. Today, says she has wanted to know for a long time "What's wrong with quotas?" Senator Simon is present but is silent. Ms. Reynolds elaborates on her question, "what's wrong with quotas?," stating, "99% of the decisions in journalism are made by white males. 98% of all business decisions are made by white males. 93% of all the decisions in government are made by white males." Senator Simon is silent.

"It seems to me that white males have an exclusive privilege. It seems to me we have a quota already." She looks around for someone to answer her question, "What's wrong with quotas?" But Senator Simon is still silent.

Senator Simon doesn't want to answer her. He doesn't want to be the one to tell her that her perception of reality is seriously distorted by a reification of "white males" and of "black." He is not alone. The whole Democratic party is in this same awkward position. How to explain to her that we are each of us individuals. Where would one begin?

Senator Simon would not rise on the floor of the Senate and defend his policies by claiming retribution, yet, not everyone shares his refined understanding. Is this why he is silent?

The most likely to be violent are those who were treated violently as children. The most likely to be child molesters are those who were molested as children. It is those who were deprived as children who are most likely to regard money as the most important achievement. And those who learned racism and sexism as children, what becomes of them?

Senator Simon is silent also when Ms. Norton explains that the reason the criminals and drug dealers haven't been run out of the housing projects, and neighborhoods, why the liberal "black" "leadership" has been more concerned with its own advancement than with the people, is because, she says, "we haven't had time" because she has been working on restoring "title 9 and title 7!" She has not "had time." It was the conservatives, she says, that overturned the "civil rights" of the people. It was they who forced this fight on us. Them v. Us. Them v. Us.

But then she says as soon as she gets the "civil rights" Bill passed, then she will have time, "to get money for our babies."

I think I know just what she means when she says "our babies." She does not mean to refer to our common humanity, she does not mean to include white males, she means a narrow slice, a certain gender, a certain race, income, location. No wonder Senator Simon keeps silent. The Democratic party keeps silent. The Nation is silent.


Southern Pride - Black Pride

To understand the black experience you must understand the "Southern" experience. The black experience shares this origin, and has carried it North for 130 years. The South was settled by Celtic rural people, a people of a fierce pride. (Recently a social history of the "Celtic" contribution to the South has been published.) For the Southerner there was a preference for exploitation over development. You will note in the Southerner a "kinship" beyond normal "family" lines. A loyalty to the clan, a Celtic word. One does not get in a fight with one Southerner one gets in a fight with all Southerners.

If one should have an exchange of words with a Southerner in, for example, Mississippi, someone in South Carolina is liable to have a few choice words to say about it at the next conference. There is a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, a strange mixture of an unreasonable sense of superiority and inferiority. Outsiders are not thought valuable sources of knowledge about the wider world but are both a threat and inferior; the eternal other.

The defensiveness, the insularity, the hostility of some black people is not necessarily due to discrimination, or segregation, much less slavery. For proof you will note that these qualities are equally held by white Southerners as well. Nor are the problems of crime, drug use, illiteracy associated with discrimination and segregation for as these walls have come down the homicide, addiction, dropout rates have all gone up. It is intellectually dishonest not to admit our social "solutions" are misdirected. There is for Southerners, white and black, a dark brooding sense that everyone is picking on them. A cloud of defeat.

In your speech you mentioned the phobia of some black people that they might be regarded as "white" if they assimilate. There is this quality to the black experience but I think you have misconstrued it. The fear is that they will become "Yankees!"

"From the wild Irish slums of the nineteenth century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - - - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder --- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure --- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved."
Daniel P. Moynihan, 1965
The Moment Lost, Family and Nation

The second aspect of race relations in the United States is the statistical distribution of "blacks" in the society. The civil rights movement has gone through four distinct policies. First there was a period of government enforced segregation prior to the 1950s. Then a period of government neutrality in race from Brown to 1964. There was then a short period of government and social race neutrality from 1964 to the late sixties.

What happened next was that our scholars looked at the statistics of anti-poverty programs and noted that at the current rate of movement out of poverty it would take "black" people too long to extricate themselves from poverty. Any set of policies to fight poverty just would not result in an equalization of black and white statistics. The statistical reality of "black" assumed an independent reality.
This was not true for example in the statistical reality of Irish and Scotch. At present rates it is equally true that the Irish will equal the social success of the Scotch, when measured in terms of college graduates, income, etc., some time around the year 2500.
 
The reason this is so is because of, what the statisticians call the theory of big numbers. The smaller the sample or population the greater the potential variability. For example, Jews and Japanese Americans have much higher rates of college and post graduate graduation rates than do the Irish.

This has been attributed to the reverence these two groups have for elders, learning, the teacher, etc. I suggest that it is also because these two groups are small. If you and I were to declare ourselves members of a group of 1,000 for example how hard would it be for us to achieve a 50% Ph.d. rate? Now consider how hard it would be for the Irish to achieve a Ph.d. rate of even 25%. Because of sheer numbers there would have to be a massive building program at our universities for one thing because there are 50 million people who identify themselves as Irish.

Black people at 10% of the population, in 1960s, were sufficiently large that normal distributions, i.e. similar patters of "success" as in the population as a whole would mean that their "relative" position would not change, dramatically. Affirmative action was first an attempt to accelerate this relative movement. But by the late 1960s it was clear that to achieve the politically required movement, as a purely technical matter, fixed increments of success would have to be used, i. e. Quotas.

Partly due to an honest confusion and partly due to a deliberate attempt to conceal what is really being done, these two ideas, Affirmative Action and Quotas,` have been merged. If you set up a special reading program at a poor high school this is affirmative action. If this high school is selected because the students are mostly black this is still affirmative action. But if the program at the school is limited only to black students then is has started to cross the line. And if the reading test scores, curriculum, etc. are changed so as to obtain a certain number of black students in a given pool, this is a quota.

But progress by anti poverty programs alone, even with affirmative action plans to target the programs and make them more effective, was thought to be too slow. From this beginning there has been a growing intellectual dishonesty in this country. Some even refuse to admit quotas have and are being used. Others agree there are quotas but deny any difficulties in their use. [Jack Germond, a liberal, says, "The big companies are using quotas already." He is one of the few liberals who will now admit that quotas are being used.]

For example, quite apart from any purely technical requirements to achieve certain results most people would agree that it would be "inappropriate" to announce to an assembled group of students that, for example, there is going to be a new innovative reading program that uses laser disk based tutorials but whites need not apply, because we only want to help Blacks!

(Of course, if you want a "relative" improvement in the 'black' test scores, affirmative action taken to its logical absurdity, this is what would be required.) Obviously this is invidious. Yet we live in a world of scarce resources and someone, some school must be selected to be the first to receive the new laser disk based reading program.

What is intellectually dishonest is not to admit the difficulty.
I personally have sat in a class in which a radical feminist professor, (you know a real Boston man hater), extolled the advantages of a special program for students who were interested in pursuing an advanced degree. She continued by saying, her brittle personality so much cultivated by the east coast intellectuals being displayed to its best advantage, that this program will be an excellent opportunity to "network" and meet the leaders in the field. Then she concluded by saying the program was available for women only. What is interesting is that she may not have calculated her description of the "women's" program deliberately to insult the men present. After all it was a "woman's program."

"The notion that, . . . a revolutionary class might simply be invented, made up, "named" and so brought into existence, seemed . . . so precisely Emersonian, that it took the breath away, . . .
"It seemed very New England, this febrile and cerebral passion. The solemn a priori idealism in the guise of radical materialism somehow bespoke old-fashioned self-reliance and prudent sacrifice.
". . . the emphasis on the superior 'tenderness' of [women] relationship, the 'gentleness' of the sexual connection, as if participants were wounded birds. The derogation of assertiveness as 'machismo' has achieved such currency that one imagines several million women too delicate to deal at any level with overtly heterosexual man. . . .
"The childlike resourcefulness . . . bewilders the imagination. The astral discontent with actual lives, actual men, the denial of the real generative possibilities of adult sexual life, somehow touches beyond words.
"In certain ways they tell us sadder things about what the culture has done to them than the theorists ever did, and they also tell us, I suspect, that the movement is no longer a cause but a symptom." Joan Didion, The White Album

It was clear in the early seventies where we were headed. The reification of a statistical group. The cultivation of a group loyalty. Then the militant action, (read attack), against anyone who did not believe. All of this was in evidence.
I recall quite clearly sitting with a group discussing the San Francisco Fire Department cases and the "statistical" test adopted by the courts. The S.F.F.D.'s tests were holding up statistical progress.(The S.F.F.D. case is still in progress twenty years later. The Federal judge recently demanded the resignation of the Fire Chief because of an incident involving crazy glue in a door lock of an office used by a black fire fighter. The Judge ridiculed the Chief "inability" to control the "racism" of his Department.)
And eighteen years later the Supreme Court reversed the statistical compliance race law. Yes, in fact, the Supreme Court agreed, the 1964 law did forbid race based hiring. Mere statistical result were not in themselves proof of discrimination.
For example, would the requirement that an employee have a college degree violate the 1991 "civil rights" Bill? May be yes, may be no. At the time of the 1964 debate there were two schools of thought. One view was that government should not maintain "separate but equal" services, i. e. the government should be race neutral. The other school of thought was that in addition the government should require private business to also be race neutral.
Sir, you have called on the President to state his position in the 1964 debate. Repeatedly during that debate of 1964 assurances were given that all that would be required was for the private interests to adopt the same race neutral policies as the government had adopted in the previous decade. If a college degree was required of white prospective employees then it could be required of black employees, i.e. race neutral.
Sir, I call on you to explain yourself today. Is there not more than just a bit of Missouri mule left in you from your boyhood, that causes you to deny quotas are being used? Has not your party tried to profit by politicizing "black," and "women," dividing Americans rather than bringing us together? Should the Boy Scouts of America be forced to accept homosexual scout masters? Can we not agree that honorable men can disagree? Must we be subjected to the abuse of the Kinsley/Matthews? Your party's politically correct thugs smearing us with K.K.K.?
Albert Shanker speaking to the same conference of the American Federation of Teachers as did Mr. Alexander, said that the present "civil rights" Bill could seriously undermine the efforts of the schools by, for example, making it illegal for employers to request a transcript of the students grades in high school. If we say to students that it doesn't matter how well you do in school because a prospective employer will not be allowed to see the transcript, says Albert Shanker, what we are really saying is that what you do in school doesn't matter.
But of course you no doubt will says that Albert Shanker must explain himself. He must tell us which type of race neutrality he was for in 1964 ! After all he is only an old white male. Is he Jewish? See how easy it is to attack anyone who has the temerity to question the newest wisdom. How dare he not agree with results oriented civil rights!
This is why liberals have not, as you said, put sufficient emphasis on individual responsibility. Relying on individuals is too slow and not predictable. Much easier to specify the desired results. As a purely technical matter quotas are much easier to administer.
If you want to return to individual responsibility you must first start by acknowledging the intellectual dishonesty of your statistical reality. Should we use technology in our schools? Why? We can simply mandate a certain graduation rate and impose it. (And denounce anyone who opposes us.) Divide and rule.
Is it too late for New Ruskin College?
Very truly yours;


Peter [deletion]
ps "If you consider yourself tolerant and mild and gentle, how do you know that you are not being indecisive and lazy and negligent? If you consider yourself strong and firm and resolute, how do you know that you are not being brash and impetuous? There is not a great distance between being hostile and being aloof, between being obsessed with detail and being very observant. Being too sure can seem like being correct, being compliant can seem like being in harmony. If you go wrong by the slightest little bit, then you get farther and farther from what's real." Ouyang De (1496-1554) J. C. Cleary, Worldly Wisdom
cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
David Kearns, Deputy Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
George Bush, Abraham Lincoln, former President
President,United States of America Theodore Roosevelt, former President
Senator Biden Senator Bingaman Senator Bradley Senator Bumpers
Senator Byrd Govern. Bayh Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran
Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Domenici
Senator Dole Rep. Gephardt Rep. Gingrich Senator Gore
Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum
Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach Senator Lugar
Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Sentator Nunn Senator Pell
Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Rep. Schroeder Senator Specter Senator Simon Senator Seymour Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson Senator Wirth

the New Ruskin College project
We make what all the world wants;
the ultimate source of all power:
Knowledge !

June 15, 1991


Senator Helms
U. S.
Senate
Washington, D. C.


Peter [deletion]
[deletion]
East Ave.
Hayward, California
94[deletion]

"I don't think we need to be encouraged to rise above our principles; we have quite enough of that around here already."
---Senator Helms
Dear Senator Helms;

I think I understand your point. You were being facetious, yes?

As conservatives you and I share a commitment to intellectual honesty. This commitment of ours has often seemed at odds with politics. For the very word, "politics," has come to mean intellectual dishonesty. For example when we say something is "office politics," we mean perhaps that the boss hired or promoted or changed the work load for reasons having nothing to do with the efficient and orderly running of the business but for irrational and personal reasons that would not withstand close scrutiny by the share holders.
When we say the university professor is being "political," we mean to say the professor is not evincing that dispassionate, analytic perspective that distinguishes the detached inquiry and pursuit of "the truth" from the soap box advocate at the speaker's corner committed to "his" cause irrevocably, with out reservation, and not amenable to contrary evidence or argument no matter how persuasive.
To call something "political" is to call it absurd, narrowly self interested; an intellectual farce.
To be called a "politician" is, as often as not, to be called unscrupulous, conniving, . . . well enough of that, I wouldn't want you to think that I am belaboring the point. [I do not want it thought that I am mocking; by holding you and your colleagues up to jest under the guise of dissertation.]

Ask not what your school can do for you,
ask what you can do for your school.

Every society needs some way of navigating its course into the future. In
Germany, for example, the "rationale model" has served so as to provide the frame in which there could be "a meeting of the minds." In Japan
, as another example, "situational ethics" has served to help them arrive at consensus.
There is a unique school of conservatism in
California
. We are thought to be anti-intellectual because we are less concerned with "philosophical" propositions than with practical results.
Sir, this is unfair, for example, I have studied the meaning of life in the furthest corners of the world. I have studied with the greatest spiritual masters on the Earth. In the remote religious communities of
Asia
, in the trackless wilderness of the cloud hidden mountains, I learned "The Truth" which sums up all the wisdom of the world that man can know, and I will now transmit this great TRUTH to you: If you don't work you don't eat.

If you are in front, lead. If you are behind, follow. But whatever you do stay the hell out of the way.

All of Western Civilization can be seen as a search for a way to have your cake and eat it too. In this sense the liberal is the most Western intellectual. This is why it is commonly said that society is liberal. For it is the liberal who tries to separate the good from the bad; to have always the happy, the beneficial, without the evil. The Western world view results from literally a turn of a phrase. Because we can in words separate good from bad it is quite natural to suppose that in reality we can separate good from bad.
We
California
conservatives, good engineers that we are, understand the futility of the attempt. Life is forever a series of trade offs. We see this as intellectual honesty.
This also accounts for the liberal reliance on insipid sociological statistical abstractions. Because they can "name" and order the world, in the spirit of nineteenth century scientific materialism they think they know the world; they think the abstractions are real. (Marxism is a product of that century's "rationality.")
We
California
conservatives have little patience for sentimental liberalism or conservatism: The "Oh, wouldn't it be great if we all liked each other --isms;" the, "Good old days, American Values," liberalism-conservatism.
We know that some
U. S. Senators are thoroughly cynical. That the Yale and Harvard boys and girls in the government bureaus, often have the morals of whores and pimps. That "America
" is as often invoked to obscure the contempt of the powerful for the people as it is to call us to a higher purpose.

Brother can you paradigm.

We know that Christopher Matthews was wrong when he claimed, "Some times you have just a little war. Sometimes you have a lot of war." There is never "just a little" war. [Will the east coast take him back?]
Or, for example, laser disks in education.
To create a system of educational opportunities for the great mass of the American people, the 75% who do not graduate from college, would require a government committed to its people's welfare.

Or, for example, the Rainbow Coalition, and other radical/liberals, they thought that they had a lock on politics. They figured that given a choice between them and Senator Helms, all "good people of conscience," to use Tom Oliphant's phrase, would "have" to vote with them. Only they were wrong.

Some will win, and some will lose.

Barbara Reynolds,
U.S.A.
Today, says she has wanted to know for a long time "What's wrong with quotas?" Senator Simon is present but is silent. Ms. Reynolds elaborates on her question, "what's wrong with quotas?," stating, "99% of the decisions in journalism are made by white males. 98% of all business decisions are made by white males. 93% of all the decisions in government are made by white males." Senator Simon is silent.
"It seems to me that white males have an exclusive privilege. It seems to me we have a quota already." She looks around for someone to answer her question, "What's wrong with quotas?" But Senator Simon is still silent.
Senator Simon doesn't want to answer her. He doesn't want to be the one to tell her that her perception of reality is seriously distorted by a reification of "white males." He is not alone. The whole Democratic party is in the same awkward position. How to explain that we are each of us individuals. Where would one begin?
The abstracting of reality begins early. How to explain that what she takes for reality is only a dream, a walking hallucination, a projection, that is no more real because it is shared. That it is shared only makes it more difficult to correct, to expose. All across
America
tens of millions of people hear this rhetoric of race, of "getting even with white males," and take it literally. Senator Simon would not rise on the floor of the Senate and defend his policies by claiming retribution, yet, not everyone shares his refined understanding. Is this why he is silent?
The most likely to be violent are those who were treated violently as children. The most likely to be child molesters are those who were molested as children. It is those who were deprived as children who are most likely to regard money as the most important achievement. And those who learned racism and sexism as children, what becomes of them?
Senator Simon is silent also when Ms. Norton explains that the reason the criminals and drug dealers haven't been run out of the housing projects, and out of the neighborhoods, is because "we haven't had time" because she has been working on restoring "title 9 and title 7." Ms. Norton claims she hasn't "had time" to reform the schools. She has not "had time" to reform welfare. She has no t "had time."
But then she says as soon as she gets the "civil rights" Bill passed, then she will have time, "to get money for our babies."
I think I know just what she means when she says "our babies." She does not mean to refer to our common humanity, she does not mean to include white males, she means a narrow slice, a certain gender, a certain race, income, location. No wonder Senator Simon keeps silent.
There has been a breach of faith. There has been bad faith. We are expected to replace one set of oppressors with another group in black face and skirts.
It is, of course, convenient to say that anyone who opposes quotas is just a "loser." Though it seems unlikely that the "winners" can reasonably be expected to complain. I imagine that at the court of Louis the 14th that courtiers brushed aside criticism with the same reply, "losers." Or perhaps, and this is rich for this is exactly the word chosen by the CBS house radical, they called the dissatisfied "peasants."
Or is it said that the peasants are only unhappy because the economy is doing poorly? This also is rich with irony for Washington, D. C., after turning the worlds largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor, after strangling the most productive economy with petty politics and class and race rivalry, after running it into the ground, Washington, D. C., says that the peasants are just upset because of that. Well that is really quite a lot to be upset about, isn't it?

"They wanted to grind me into the dirt."
George Bush

The radicals thought the President would have no choice but to sign the "civil rights" Bill.
They thought we had no choice but to go with the Democrats. The radicals thought we would not be able to stand a political party that would shift the burden of taxes disproportionably on to the poorer citizens.
They thought we would not be able to take a
The issue isn't quotas, the issue is the rhetoric that is being used. The intellectual dishonesty. Rather than calling us to a common National purpose, all across the nation the identification is with narrow groups, for narrow selfish purposes. In California English was put to a vote, [yes, only in
California
], and it received a majority of Hispanic voters. Mainly the older Hispanic voters voted for English, not because they do not like Spanish, but because the young radical Hispanics use Spanish as a weapon against non Spanish speakers. The older Hispanics were saying to the younger Hispanics, 'learn to cooperate.'

"The notion that, in the absence of a cooperative proletariat, a revolutionary class might simply be invented, made up, "named" and so brought into existence, seemed . . . so precisely Emersonian, that it took the breath away, exactly confirmed one's idea of where nineteenth-century transcendental instincts, crossed with a late reading of Engels and Marx, might lead.
"It seemed very
New England
, this febrile and cerebral passion. The solemn a priori idealism in the guise of radical materialism somehow bespoke old-fashioned self-reliance and prudent sacrifice.
". . . the emphasis on the superior 'tenderness' of the relationship, the 'gentleness' of the sexual connection, as if participants were wounded birds. The derogation of assertiveness as 'machismo' has achieved such currency that one imagines several million women too delicate to deal at any level with overtly heterosexual man. . . .
"The childlike resourcefulness . . . bewilders the imagination. The astral discontent with actual lives, actual men, the denial of the real generative possibilities of adult sexual life, somehow touches beyond words.
"In certain ways they tell us sadder things about what the culture has done to them than the theorists ever did, and they also tell us, I suspect, that the movement is no longer a cause but a symptom."
Joan Didion, The White Album

In Germany the rationalist model, their famed 'precision thinking,' has allowed them to work together. In
Japan the ethic of social order, their famed 'cooperative spirit,' has allowed them to work together. But in the United States of America
, something has gone wrong. Cooperation has broken down.
A nation's greatest advantage is not its people, not even how well its people are educated. No, a nation's greatest advantage is how well they work together. As knowledge becomes available electronically, the East Coast Establishment's class prejudices will be exposed, and our failure to develop means for our National cooperation will become painfully clear.
Is it too late for
New Ruskin College
?

Very truly yours;


Peter [deletion]

ps Well, at least "the women reporters" didn't all get together after the war in the Gulf ! I was afraid that after, or worse, during the war, the women would all "group" on "what the war means to women." At least they didn't do that.
That would have been just too white glove, bobby socks, sorority house feminism. It would have been just too, too icky.




cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
George Bush, Abraham Lincoln, former President
President,United States of America Theodore Roosevelt, former President
Senator Biden Senator Bradley Senator Byrd Govern. Campbell Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Dole Rep. Gingrich Senator Gore Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach
Senator Lugar Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Sentator Nunn Senator Pell Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Specter Senator Simon Senator Seymour Senator Thurmond Senator Warner Govern. Wilson

The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge
the new coin of the realm, 
 to illume the minds of men.
 
 
the New Ruskin College project
--- We make what all the world wants;
the ultimate source of all power:
Knowledge !
 
May 30, 1991
 
Senator Pell
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C.
 
Peter [deletion]
[deletion]  East Ave.
Hayward, California 94542
 
"The parting of the ways has come . . . " the Republican Party must stand "for the rights of humanity, or else it must stand for special privilege. . . Assuredly the fight will go on whether we win or lose . . . We fight in honorable fashion for the good of mankind; fearless of the future unheeding of our individual fates; with unflinching hearts and undimmed eyes; we stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord."
---Theodore Roosevelt, June 17, 1912
John Cooper, Jr., The Warrior and the Priest
 
". . . Countdown to Ar - ma - ged - don ." ---Senator Moynihan, January 12, 1991
 
Dear Senator Pell;
 
Theodore Roosevelt says, Laser disks are BULLY ! When I was at the Bethesda Naval Hospital the doctors kept me over a few days for observation.
 
They thought my heart was beating too fast.
 
There was no press coverage of my stay; no national concern for my heart. My birth was greeted with no special publicity. There was no treatment either. Just a fast heart rate, they concluded, and sent me home. A too rapid heart beat, hyperactive, nearsighted, dyslexic, this was not an auspicious beginning, for me.
 
We all have our crosses to bear. Theodore had poor eyes. It is said Churchill was dyslexic. Now President Bush has a too rapid heart beat. That just leaves me hyperactivity to call my own.
 
Sir, I am writing to you to get your advise on how to proceed with a proposal to use interactive laser disks to expand educational opportunities. Because of my own disabilities I have spent a great deal of time thinking about how education could be improved. I have concluded that technology, and in particular laser disk technology, could greatly improve education.
 
As Chairman of the Education Subcommittee I hope you can direct me so as to bring this proposal to the attention of our Nation's leaders. I envision a "college" on laser disks. The courses of instruction would begin with general subjects for 5th graders and continue the curriculum right up to college work.
 
The education establishment has been reluctant to exploit technology for the last forty years or so. For example laser disk technology has been around since the 1970s. I would appreciate any information or advice you could give me. I do not claim my ideas are original, in fact, everyone from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and President Bush to . . . well, to me, has suggested this change in education.
 
For example: "What we need to do is to relieve the teacher of all but teaching work. Then the teacher, in contrast to today, would have time to teach individuals. This is, of course, the essence of the tutorial system, such as Oxford and Cambridge have used for a long time. But it is rather late to start being taught at age eighteen or twenty.
 
"To give the teacher time to teach is the key to multiplying his (or her) effectiveness. We are, today, conducting experiments (e.g., in Oakland Community College in Michigan) in which a 'master teacher' handles very large classes which meet only once or twice a week. But in between, the students are hard at work learning, without teacher or supervision, through carefully constructed programs." --- Peter F. Drucker, The Age Of Discontinuity (1968)
 
I propose Drucker's "carefully constructed programs" be digitized and put on laser disks. The electronics would allow schools to augment and extend existing resources. This in turn would allow schools to stay open more days a year and for more hours a day, without an increase in 'operating' costs. I know you are a proponent of extended time in school, Senator Pell, and laser disks are a way of doing this without additional tax increases. (However, as 25% of our finest drop out of school, if we are able to attract them back the savings from using electronics will be offset by the increased number of students.)
 
I can not be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.
 
One way to get the education establishment to act has been suggested by Daniel P. Moynihan, who has written, "Probably no single development would more enliven and energize the role of government . . . than a move from the monopoly service strategy . . to a market strategy of providing the most reward to those suppliers that survive competition." (Moynihan, Toward a National Urban Policy, 1969.) The idea here is that if schools competed for students they would offer more personalized, individualized, instruction and would therefore be "forced" to use technology.
 
Unfortunately most people in government have a problem with choice. The "problem" is, (how should one say it ?), that "difficult problem" of crossing school district borders. There is a growing acceptance of choice within districts, but allowing choice across district lines is problematic.
 
And you can not be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.
 
You see, dear Senator Pell, laser disks, the use of technology in schools, which allows individualized instruction, has some important policy considerations, "politics," that go well beyond mere "electronics." One Governor at a recent conference even said it was a "bureaucratic nightmare" to allow choice across school district borders. Possibly so, for I was surprised to learn that there are now 17,000+ school districts in the United States. This is up 7,000+ since I last checked.
 
My, it seems like only yesterday that there were only 10,000 school districts. I wonder why so many new districts have been formed? There has not been a 70% increase in population ! Lord have mercy it seems a powerful lot of school districts ! No wonder so much money goes to administration. Why just think of all that overhead. What a mess of added costs! Should we take a guess, Senator Pell? What do you think Senator, do you have any idea, at all, why there are so many new school districts in America ? May be Senator Cochran could help us figure out why there has been such a proliferation of school districts in the United States of America.
 
The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is an advocate of choice in schooling, maybe he could tell us why there are so many new districts in the last twenty years. I suggested that the Administration's choice plan should follow three rules to guarantee that it would be fair and open to all. I sent a copy of my proposed three rules to Senator Cochran. Perhaps you could ask Senator Cochran if he agrees with my proposed three rules. I had previously called Senator Cochran's press aid, twice, and she said she would get back to me but I have not heard from her, for at least a month.
 
The three conditions I have proposed to guarantee choice in schooling will be race and income neutral are: 1, if a school, public or private, takes one student on voucher it must take all students on voucher; 2, if there is not enough room to take all comers, random selection only; and 3, the voucher and only the voucher can be required in payment ? Will Senator Cochran endorse these three simple rules?
 
Will the Great State of Mississippi not be the first to endorse a race/income neutral school choice policy?
 
What do you think Senator Pell, will we hear from Senator Cochran any time soon? Coincidentally, (?), Senator Cochran did however give a short and peculiar statement on the floor of the U. S. Senate shortly after, (5-21-91), I wrote to Secretary Alexander offering my assistance. His comments seem to indicate that in his opinion the Administration does not need anymore help. [And me, as I am, only trying to help.] But the distinguished Senator from Mississippi did not say if he agreed to my three rules to guarantee that choice would be fair and race/income neutral.
 
The Senator did say that the Administration was going to get help from business executives, like the " C. E. O. of Xerox," and other big companies like that, and when they were done they would be "proud of their work product." [Curious phrase that, 'work product.'] What do you suppose he meant by that? One usually speaks of the "policies" and "programs" of a government, not its "work product." I wonder why the distinguished Senator from Mississippi chose this term?
 
For example, FBI statistics show 2,000 minors were murdered in 1988, two times as many as in 1965, when there were 6 and a half million more juveniles. ( Atlantic, Zinsmeitser, Growing Up Scared. ) Would Senator Cochran say he was "proud" of this "work product?" Or, would Senator Cochran say he was "proud" of the "work product" that resulted in the increase in federal outlays from 20.5% to 23.8% of GNP while revenues fell from 18.9 to 18.5%? (Atlantic, Peterson, The Morning After.)
 
"Work product" seems an odd choice of words, does it not? Was it Senator Cochran's "work product" which resulted in "one in five American children" living in poverty? (Atlantic, Rauch, Kids as Capital.) Is Senator Cochran proud of this, his "work product?" While Republicans and Democrats have been at each other's throats our Nation has been allowed to slide into debtor status. Our national deficit is only one sign of the civil war that has been going on in the United States for the last twenty years.
 
The first and single most important "industrial policy" is to have sound finances. Yet we have fallen from leading creditor to leading debtor nation. Congratulations Senator Cochran, you have had an enviable "work product," if that is what you call it?
 
"Obviously there will always be some relatively small jurisdictions --- "the Scarsdale school system" --- that spend a great deal more than others, being richer; . . ." Daniel P. Moynihan, Toward a National Urban Policy
 
Will, you Senator Pell, and the Democrats in the Senate endorse choice with my three points as a way of eliminating school segregation, by race and income? Or will the Democrats play a "southern strategy" against the Republicans, letting the country drift? Again taking, as with the deficit, the easy way out? I tell you Senator Pell, these 17,000 school districts, with their staffs of bright, liberal, and prissy bureaucrats with their Ph d's in education, exist for one reason, and one reason only, to maintain a system of race and income segregation.
 
You all in Washington are so . . . so Liberal that you can not see the forest for the trees. And we who call for race neutral policies are called "racists," while all the good Liberals fail to see even the most blatant and obvious facts. For example Mr. Hunt of the W. S. J. likes to mock us by calling us "Hubert Humphrey" race neutral policy advocates. This is because Mr. Hunt imagines himself a Good Liberal, and therefore does not have to think for himself anymore, just continue to say the same old liberal ideas.
 
This is what makes liberals so insufferable; they are so sure they are right. But it is just those who are "sure" that they are "right," who are the most closed minded.
 
". . . but there can be national or regional norms and no central city should be allowed to operate below them." Daniel P. Moynihan, Toward a National Urban Policy [Surly we can do better than bare minimums ! ]
 
Oh, yes, Senator Pell, I know something about prejudice. I know what it is like to be an oppressed minority. An oppression all the more complete because our oppressors are convinced that they are in "the right." Do you know what it is like to be dyslexic?
 
To have the printed page move and turn before your eyes? As an example, have you tried to read Finnegans Wake?
 
"Let everie sound of a pitch keep still in resonance, jemcrow, jackdaw, prime and secund with their terce that whoe betwides them, now full theorbe, no dulcifair, and when we press of pedal (sof!) pick out and vowelise you nave. A mum." James Joyce, Finnegans Wake
 
That will give you some idea of how a dyslexic reads: 30 hours, 60 hours, to read a book; each page deciphered syllable by syllable. "Lazy eye," that is what they called it twenty years ago. And that was an improvement in social understanding ! Before this label it was thought that it was the dyslexic who was "lazy." It was thought that we were just not "applying" ourselves; if only we would "try harder !" They said we weren't taking "pride" in our work. Some bigots still think this way.
 
But Senator Pell I am not asking you for your help because I think self paced instruction on laser disks will be good for dyslexics. I would not ask for a special government program just for us! Sir, please, I am a conservative ! Even though dyslexics are 10% of the population I think advocates of social action should frame their proposals to show how they will benefit all mankind. This is what I have tried to demonstrate. [In any case we do not make a very good political pressure group: our letters of protest are often incomprehensible, our placards illegible, and when we do cast our votes we are as likely to check the wrong box as the right one. (They don't give us enough time in the polling booth!)]
 
Sir will you not help me, by giving me some suggestion on how I can get my government interested in New Ruskin College?
 
Very truly yours;
 
Peter [deletion] ps
 
"Whenever people who are doing good stop for fear that people will reject them and ridicule them, it is just because their intention to do good is not genuine and sincere. As an example of being sincere and not stopping, take the worldly people who crave wealth and sexual pleasure. Not only are they unafraid of being rejected and ridiculed, they will even risk punishment to continue what they are doing. What is the reason for this? It is because they are sincere about craving wealth and sexual pleasure. When we do good, we must have this kind of dedication. Only then can we make progress every day."
---------Xu Jie, (1503-1583),
J. C. Cleary,
Worldly Wisdom
 
corrections?This is no work product; this is my gift to my Nation.
 
cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory Lamar Alexander James Watkins Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House George Bush, Abraham Lincoln, former President President,United States of America Theodore Roosevelt, former President Senator Biden Senator Bradley Senator Byrd Govern. Campbell Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Grassley Senator Dole Rep. Gingrich Senator Gore Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach Senator Lugar Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Sentator Nunn Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Specter Senator Simon Senator Seymour Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson

The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge --- 
the new coin of the realm, 
to illume the minds of men.
 
the New Ruskin College project
We make what all the world wants;
the ultimate source of all power:
Knowledge !
 
May 15, 1991
 
Secretary Lamar Alexander
U. S. Department of Education
Washington, D. C.
 
Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, California 945[deletion]
 
"The theory of technological politics draws attention to the momentum of large-scale sociotechnical systems, to the response of modern societies to certain technological imperatives, and to the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means. This perspective offers a novel framework of interpretation and explanation for some of the more puzzling patterns that have taken shape in and around the growth of modern material culture."
------------Langdon Winner,
Do Artifacts Have Politics? The Whale and the Reactor Dear
 
Secretary Alexander;
 
Did you hear what that Ms. Roberts of ABC was saying about you and the President? She was saying you two were "pamphleteers." (What do you suppose she meant by that?)
 
She was speaking with derision; of the President's education policy. If you were to ask "journalists" why they went into journalism they would say things like: a desire to learn about our world, communicating "The Truth", helping people to know what is going on in the world; all these would be mentioned. But when you see what they are in fact doing you can only wonder what has become of the people that they once were. What happened to them?
 
"Weirdos !" -- Tom Oliphant, distinguished columnist
 
For example, does anyone really care what that New York millionaire John Chancler has to say? Who elected him? Why doesn't NBC replace him with 365 commentators from around the country? Or is his function to give credibility to a network that is reduced to tabloid journalism?
 
The "journalists" may sometimes feel that they have been small, cruel, and sleazy, but they know the one great truth of corporate journalism : 'You have to go along to get along.' "It is axiomatic." This is why journalist stay in packs and are so keen to maintain the myth of objectivity. ("It is objectively The News.") If they do not agree on what the news is, then what is it all about anyway?
 
The journalists in Washington, D. C. are simply another kind of bureaucrat. ("Everyone must be Liberal, just like us.) When does the pack turn and say, 'Well, yes, right then, this is news?' You can see that the "scoop" is really quite problematic. If you call something the "news" too soon, then the pack may turn on you. They enforce their code brutally.
 
"Slashers get slashed" -- reporter on C-span roundtable
 
Of course the journalists are aware how tenuous is the ground on which they stand and claim "authority." This is why they are at constant pains to let us know that they have "paid" their "dues." (Yes they actually use this cliche, regularly.)
 
Thus, for example, to the simple question, 'Had you met the General before?', we are likely to get the answer:
 
"Well, yes I met him at the Pentagon once, when he was a Major; --- (that was before my tour [actually newspaper assignment] in Vietnam, when I worked for the old Washington Star; that was before I was with the S. F. Chronicle, but after I was with the Detroit News, where I started just after graduating from Yale with a degree in Journalism and a minor in History, and where I was the editor of the school newspaper, and of the yearbook too); --- he was a Press Information Officer at that time."
 
Like all bureaucrats they are more imitative than original; individuality is not their strong point. (They fiddle while Washington, D. C. burns.) For example, as subscriptions have declined and newspapers have closed, their own employment opportunities have diminished. Have newspapers attempted to reverse this social decline? Have they campaigned against illiteracy? Have they worked with schools and championed reading? They could not champion this social reform even when it was to their own advantage!
 
Or for example, laser disks, are they news? The media has failed to report to the people the nonfeasance of the education establishment in developing education technology. Even here, again, when it is to their advantage to expand educational opportunities, still they will not promote education technology. (This is a symptom of a fattened oligarchy.) And then they ridicule the people's ignorance!
 
The pack must first approve the subject as "The News." This is because the newspapers are run by bureaucrats.
 
College education: "It's just too expensive, that's the whole problem." -- George Bush
 
Just the same kind of bureaucrats as you will find at the Department of Education. Where are the men of vision to match our mountains ? Where are the empire builders of our generation? For example, your department has spent $102,387 to educate 90 teachers in one program, and $154,871 to "Hudsonwatch" another group of teachers. $124,092 was spent for a "one-week summer workshop." $167,346 was spent to train "mentor teachers" in which "preference will be given to ethnic minorities." $559,030 was given to a college and a school district to develop "a working paradigm."
 
Sir, for one million dollars your department could have produced an entire year of instruction in calculus. You could have produced a year long course in physics. Two thirds of our schools do not even offer a course in physics.
 
But instead the Department of Education has dribbled away our money in one program after another with out goal or direction. We once talked of an "affirmative duty" that we said government bureaucrats had: it was their duty, we reasoned, to lead, to initiate change.
 
For example, because there are no "market forces" to propel educators to act, we reasoned, (this it years and years ago, ancient history really), that educators had an "affirmative duty," (that is what we called it back then, we used that word, "affirmative"), to take action to improve education. It never occurred to us back then that businesses, such as newspapers, would also have bureaucrats that would have to be goaded into action. (That's what we called it back then, "action.")
 
Well of course, this was when IBM still had well over 50% of the computer market. General Motors also over 50% of its market. Remember, My Years With General Motors? My God! 1960s ! What a time!
 
Case studies of American firms taking and holding markets, opening up European offices, international operations.
 
"The cockpit of the Free World."
 
Technostructure. Systems Analysis! Remember! The Rand Corporation. It was all so clean. So straightforward. There was a sixties look. Modern companies in modern buildings. These were our Gods.
 
"The new style of dealing with the future called 'systems analysis' or 'systems planning,' . . . [give the] decision makers . . . clearer ideas of the choices open to them and better ways of measuring results . . . By 1977 . . . Compared to this development, the argument between the liberals and the conservatives, . . . will come to seem about as relevant to the main proceedings as a fistfight in the grandstand during a tense innings of a World Series game."
 --- M. Ways, The road to 1977, (1967),
Systems Thinking
 
And government? It was antiquated, old fashioned. Managerial experience from the world of business showed that we needed active managers. IBM logic and the vigor of youth ! Remember that word ? Vigor? What a word. What a time!
 
And so we concluded that in the public sector, the new manager would have this obligation, this "affirmative duty" to take action. Yes there were problems, poverty in Appalachia, in Harlem, well all right, of course, there were problems, but that was why the government manager had to take action, to correct, to fix.
 
Those were expansive times. Remember? In our youth, we called it Affirmative Action. And what has become of our Affirmative Action ?
 
 See how it is grown old.
 
It means nothing anymore, other than a personnel policy, a name for a certain kind of personnel department form.
 
We had said, nay, we had believed with the enthusiasm and vigor of youth, that if the government manager did not become an active force for change then he would be just that over paid clerk critics accused the bureaucrats of being. What irony that now Affirmative Action means only who is going to become that over paid clerk, not what is to be done.
 
Oh, bitter irony ! We were going to change the world. How short our stay on earth ! Must we see first the corruption of our youth, of all that we held fine and noble, before we pass onto the land of heart's desire?
 
 "Doctor Strange Love where are you, now. . . that. . . . we . . . . . need . . . . . . you?" -- Senator Moynihan
 
The task of the public sector administrator became, under the influence of the left, only one of how to divide up the pie, not how to foster growth. 'Maximum feasible participation,' for example, was used by the left as a way of keeping business out of the policy formulation process. (There will always be more tenants than landlords.)
 
It was all the "disenfranchised," "powerless" and "oppressed," against the "system." Our left, could not understand that business was "part of the solution," (to use a phrase of the time).
 
And as for the right; to this day it has only a vague understanding of the relationship between government, the private economy, and growth. It is as if Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" had never existed. Some on the right even denied government had a role to play.
 
 Between the Republican Party platform of 1912, and Ronald Reagan of 1980: four bloody wars, depression, and a liberalism ascendant in academe, media and civil service that was antithetical to business and technology. President Bush now attempts to lead us back to our future.
 
 Here is a man that the whole world waits upon; this great heart. In Germany and Japan during these same decades it was understood that the public sector should work with society, labor and capital, in a pro-active way. But in the United States there has been a civil war. For example, "professional educators" [read government bureaucrats] resist education technology because they fear it will "replace" them.
 
But it will be thought "normal," in two years, for High School teachers to meet with their students in small groups two or three times a week, instead of "teaching" a class of twenty every day for 50 minutes. It costs no more to meet with ten students every other day, than it does to meet with twenty, everyday. This is the "Teacher as Information Manager."
 
Educating Rita
 
Some in fact may recognize this system of education as the British tutorial system: where the teacher (tutor) meets with individual students or small groups. The laser disks not only provide the lectures and books but also testing --- a kind of electronic tutorial.
 
For example, during a lecture on the laser disk, the lecturer may pause, look into the camera and ask a question. The student would then answer, via the keyboard, and the response would cause the laser disk program to go on with the lecture or stop and go back to review the materials. Later analysis by the teacher, the live teacher, of the recorded responses of the student would allow the teacher to work with the student to program the next phase of learning.
 
The disks can not only contain the books, several hundred books per disk (!), but also can read the books aloud while the screen scrolls along with the text, highlighting each word or syllable as it is read; just like this.
 
The "electronics" make possible a far more personalized education, at a lower cost, than could otherwise be achieved using the standard methods. Term papers handed in throughout the year, rather than dumped in at one time, will allow the teachers time to go over the papers in depth, and with each student. Education as a continuous process is not only closer to the reality of learning, but also makes better use of the teacher's and student's time. [Not to mention better utilization of the capital plant and equipment !] These machines, this system of education, could be made available not only to the 10,000 school districts in the United States but to military bases and corporations and union halls and libraries and correctional institutions.
 
 Through our embassies and libraries overseas the world's poor could have access to an education free of their government's control. Rather than sending a few ivy league professors to the formerly communist countries we could be sending thousands of courses in law and economics and business, making it possible for millions of people to learn a new way of life.
 
A private company, working with the Smithsonian Institution, is able to deliver 8 hours of lectures for $100. (Copy of article enclosed.) Could this not be the start of New Ruskin College ?
 
I asked the Department for information on what the Department is doing to develop laser disk courses over six months ago and I did not receive the courtesy of a reply. An entire course could have been produced on laser disks and shipped to a school in six months !
 
Do you need help? I would be happy to help you get things going. When will the Department of Education to take action?
 
Affirmative Action?
 
Very truly yours;
 
Peter [deletion]
 
cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory Lamar Alexander James Watkins Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House George Bush, President,United States of America Theodore Roosevelt, former President Senator Biden Senator Bradley Senator Byrd Govern. Campbell Senator Cohen Senator Cochran Senator Cranston Senator Grassley Senator Dole Rep. Gingrich Senator Gore Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach Senator Lugar Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Sentator Nunn Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Specter Senator Simon Senator Seymour Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson






The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge ---
the new coin of the realm,
to illume the minds of men.


the New Ruskin College project
We make what all the world wants;
the ultimate source of all power:
Knowledge !


May 1, 1991

U. S. Representative Gingrich
U. S. House of Representatives
Dublin Castle, The New Island 20515

Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, Ca. 945[deletion]


" - A libel on Ireland !
- Made in Germany !
- Blasphemy !
- We never sold our faith !
- No Irish woman ever did it !
- We want no amateur atheists.
- We want no budding Buddhists. "

---so cries the Washington intelligentsia.

--------James Joyce,
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Dear Representative Gingrich;


Recently, on C-span, you stated that the much noted economic success of the Japanese was not due to their "cultural superiority" over Americans.

"Cultural superiority?" Sir, what is this? Sir, please tell us where do you get these ideas of yours? Where are you coming from?

This is not Republicanism.

This is not Conservatism.

Is it, Gingrichism ? I suggest that yours is an unreasonable fear of foreign cultures. (Yes Ted Turner, I said that word, "foreign, foreign, foreign.")

Sir, "cultural superiority" has nothing to do with it. That is your nightmare. I submit for your consideration, that your reaction, to the proposition that we might learn something from the Japanese is exactly, yes, exactly, the kind of intellectual problem that is impeding our discovery of new techniques for meeting our social needs.

Sir, you then went on in your little talk, you will recall, to say that Japan's success was due to their use of American ideas on quality and management. But in what sense were these "American" ideas in the first place? Did we make them our own? Why not?

Does it occur to you to ask yourself, why the Japanese were able to accept, adopt and improve upon "foreign" ideas so readily? I am not asking you to eat toefu or bean sprouts, as one T. V. commentator likes to put it.

"We Americans take for granted as 'natural' many ways of interpreting organizational experience which are, in fact, cast in our distinct cultural molds. We are urging that we unlock these molds. . . . Along the way, we may challenge some valued Western 'truths' and come to question some prior interpretations of our managerial experience. Being discomforted to some degree is part of any learning process."
------ Pascale / Athos
The Art of Japanese Management

I ask you to focus your attention on "zero defects" not in manufacturing, or in the use of "word processors" for "writing letters" that have too many errors, an example you used during your little talk, but rather focus on the governance of the country. [There is a special place in Hell for those who taunt dyslexics.]

What would a "zero defects" Congress look like?

There is a psychology which allows one to investigate and examine and accept ideas, even though they be new or even, (hold your ears Ted Turner), "foreign" ?

Change is a normal part of life. The Newt Gingrich of twenty years hence will not be the same Newt Gingrich of this year. With or without an "open" mind you will change, it is unavoidable. These changes, like the final metamorphose, can be feared, fought, resisted, but are inescapable. Though change is "normal" its acceptance is not. It is perfectly normal not to accept change. In fact it is by far more common to resist than to accept. This is the origin of most conservatives.

They do not so much embrace our conservative principles as they fear change as they fear death.

"The Japanese, by contrast, embrace a situational ethic, and practice 'less-ego listening. They hold 'principle' in abeyance, regard themselves as one among others in the situation, and thus achieve an easy accommodation with the circumstances of the meeting and absorb ideas less evaluatively. In so doing, they allow a unique reality to evolve in each situation. This situational ethic enables the Japanese to air different views without falling into a duel of personalities." [Or a duel of "cultures !"]
-----Pascale / Athos
The Art of Japanese Management

This is the ethic of the Confucian mean, or middle path. Call it the ethic of the "golden mean" or call it "situational ethics," as you please, but do not call it "cultural superiority."

The "middle path" is not, for example, a compromise between those who call for the death penalty and those who argue for a sentence of seven years for murder; by say compromising on mutilation. The "middle path" is not a result it is a process, a method of examination, a psychology.

For example, "professional educators" resist education technology because they fear it will "replace" them. In truth it will replace them but only for the repetitive tasks! In two years it will be thought "normal" for High School teachers to meet with their students in small groups two or three times a week, instead of "teaching" a class of thirty every day. It costs no more to meet with fifteen students every other day, than it does to meet with thirty everyday.

The teacher's time is better used meeting with small groups for discussion after they have attended the lecture and read the materials and completed the computer aided tutorials than taking time going over these materials for all the students in the class regardless of where they may be in their studies. The selection of these small discussion groups in fact will become to be seen as a key part of being a teacher.

The selection of students for their abilities to complement each others learning is a "human" skill that a computer program can not simulate. [At least not yet.] And it makes far more sense to have term papers handed in throughout the year than to have them dumped in at mid term and at the end of the course. The teachers will thus have time to go over the papers in depth, and with the students. Education as a continual process is not only closer to the reality of learning but also makes better use of the teacher's and student's time. [Not to mention better utilization of the capital equipment and plant!]

Some in fact may recognize this system of education as the British tutorial system. One way to get people to accept change is to liken it to something they already know and understand. The laser disks not only provide the lectures and books but also actual tutorials. For example, during the lecture the lecturer could pause, look into the camera and ask a question. The student would then answer and the response would not only be recorded for later analysis by the teacher, the live teacher, but would cause the laser disk program to go on with the lecture or stop and go back to review the material.

The disks could not only contain the books, several hundreds per disk (!), but could also read the books while the screen scrolled along with the text, highlighting each word or syllable as it is read; just like that. The electronics make possible a far more personalized education, at a lower cost than could otherwise be achieved using the standard methods.

"People these days play false in everything. They just carry out their tasks in a perfunctory way under false facades. They will never taste the flavor of reality." --- Lu Kun (1536-1618)

David Brinkley likes to say, "In this town (Washington) everything is political." Fortunately not all politics is as banal as it is in Washington. But the truth is that, yes everything in all towns is "political."

The decision not to use laser disks in education is a political one. Not political in the sense that a party platform is political but political in a broader meaning of the word. The "experts" in education have been relied upon to develop the "objective" "best" education. When we learn that they have not used education technology the question must be asked, why haven't they?


For example, in response to Mr. Will's statement that more black Americans were out of poverty than were in poverty, our man, with the astonished eyes, replied, "well I'll just have to tell the black people of America that they don't have anymore problems. No more racism." Such leaps of logic are not uncommon. In the next moment, in response to Ms. Roberts' statement: "Sam, the American middle class is not racist," our man deeply incredulous, [as deep as shallow gets], says "Oh they're not ?" For he is of the opinion that they are, and in need of punishment for this sin. For their sins!

Evans, Novak, Buchanan. This bag of cats was in that back alley called CNN just before the war and concluded that "Saddam Hussein is acting rationally" and that it was "President Bush who is being irrational (!)" When you have no ethic to guide you, and allow emotions, personal prejudice, and "public opinion" to carry you, there is no telling on which shore you will end up.)

Is it not just that the Washington intelligentsia (self contradiction?) is afraid of new ideas, or is it just so jaded that it seems to fall out of character from one episode of the serial to the next. For example, Mark Shields informed his audience that American education was "something we are doing right. We can be proud of the fact that three fifths of our kids are in college." The next week on the M. and L. News Hour he said that education was one of the things that was wrong in America.

There is a marvelous aimlessness to our public discourse. For example, wasn't that Ms. Roberts of A.B.C. who said, after listening to the Congressional debate, that she would have voted not to use force in January? "Not my son," she said, "He just graduated from college, I wouldn't want my son over there." I ask only because two weeks later Ms. Roberts is calling bravely for the conquest of Baghdad ! And then again two months after the war, we hear her boasting, "I'm the one who wanted us to overthrow Saddam, you will recall." (But not her son.)

Senator Wellstone also gave an emotional speech about not wanting his sons in the battle. Having campaigned for office claiming his university professorship was a sign of brains, his first vote was based not on his mind, no, not even on his heart, but on what he was pleased to call his "guts." His "guts" told him that he did not want his sons there, so therefore no one's sons should be there.

Fair enough, but then wasn't that the same Senator Wellstone in the generalissimo's gold braid and medals that was calling for a "pause" in the battle? Our military leaders said that such a pause would endanger our troops, but no matter, generalissimo Wellstone informed us, we could start the war up in two or three days. But of course when the war did start up again he would fully support it, yes? (But not his sons, right? Is this why you are called the elite?)
What do the viewers think about these turns of public policy fancy. Do they care? Or perhaps there is a large betting pool in Los Vegas that allows them to turn these vagaries into a sporting proposition.

The problem with all of these people, who otherwise live quite decent lives I am sure, is that they are not evincing the middle path. They have tried to put the power of the absolute behind their thoughts and are thereby led astray into wild metaphysical jungles. For example, "personalizing" a policy is thought, by those who do not follow the middle path, to be a kind of spot light into the darkness. A way of telling "Good" from "Bad." It is not. The emotions conceal and obscure. (Not that emotions are to be ignored, this is the mistake of the counterfeit conservatives, but that they are by-themselves not of any benefit.)

"Dear Lord; We pray thee for grace,
that we may be saved from our beliefs,
and delivered unto our faith."
--- Alan Watts

Christopher Matthews, S. F. Examiner, for example, says he will defer to any veteran on matters of war and peace over the ideas of the uninitiated. This is the 'War is Ennobling' emotional-theory of war, which was popular before the First World War. Among the veterans Mr. Matthews sorts them out between those who have lost bits and pieces of their bodies and those who are only "whole;" the laggards ! Thus these veterans are allowed, by Mr. Matthews, to do in civilian life what they could be shot for doing on "the field of honor:" i.e. picking the pockets of the tragically noble dead. Please tell us Mr. Matthews, who can speak for the dead?

Thus, also, our Mr. Sam, 'I know where you live,' Donaldson thinks he has made a brilliant parry when he says to George Will, "I know you personally, George, and you wouldn't support that policy (regarding the Kurds) . . ." if ya were at home with your lovely wife and family at the hearth side, now would ya da? For him knowledge of the "personal" is all there is. It is a kind of intellectual thuggery: 'what use are books and learning, and fine ideas?' If all history is biography then all policy must be personality, right?

When him that can't keep a strait face Brinkley says "all is politics" what he really means is: all is who is married to whom, and what college did you and your kids graduate from; how big is your house, income and . . ? And then he asks, "These welfare folks. . . "
 
 
Steady on lad.
Steady on?
Don't you see they're . . . corrupt? Don't ya see?
-Boyo let it be. Let it be. They be Dubliners. They be better than us.
Better than us? Better than us! The whole world is a joke to them.
-I, I know, lad. But then you see, it was all just a joke from the start, don't ya see? Here or on The New Island, it makes no difference to the stars or the sea. Silence before and silence to come, 'a thousand years' as the poet said.
 

And Ms. Roberts, goes slumming the way upper class Louisianan girls go slumming; and then she chortles "Ha, Ha, Ha."

Ah, yes, don't you love the smell of peat !

"Our schools need to become more customer oriented."
--- George Bush

Let me demonstrate how the middle path applies in a new policy:

The equalization of school funds is the greatest reform in education since universal education. For in truth all men are not created equal. Some are born lame, some closer to God, some swift, some slow, yes, some dyslexic. But we have added to the inequality of nature, the inequality of educational resources.

With vouchers we propose to eliminate this inequality and create schools that meet the needs of all the various students. Only ice water for blood Republicans could make this reform seem threatening.

"The Market" is based on the philosophical idea that there is no one "the best." If there was an "objective" "the best" then communism would have worked? Can't you see that? [ Tell me how did you all stagger into this particular philosophy ? You seem completely unacquainted with its general layout of the place. Do you not have any recollection of why you ended up here ? ]

Why is it so hard for you people in Washington to understand that there are as many kinds of "good" as there are people? [Is it because you attained your positions of power by being conformists? Is that it ?]

It is a question of matching the "good" students with the "good" education that is "GOOD" for them. This is what choice is all about! And this is why laser disks in education are so important: individualized, self paced education ! It costs less !!!!

Will the Liberal Democrats allow choice in California? No, because now they are the privileged oligarchy which feels every change a threat to its monopoly on power.
Every criticism of choice in education can be answered with just three rules:
1, Take one take all.
2, Random selection only.
3, The voucher and only the voucher.

The first rule says to the schools, public or private, if you take one student on a voucher you must take all comers.
Rule two, says, if you do not have room for all the students who present vouchers selection must be at random. No taking just "the best !" (The middle path does not require you to agree with each demand, or condition. That is why it is called middle.)

Finally, no other payment can be required of the students.


Try this example:
"Over 80% of women in the work force are of childbearing age; and 93% of these women are likely to become pregnant during their working careers. This means that three out of four women will experience pregnancy in their working lives.
"Over half of the 45.6 million children in two-parent families have both parents in the work force." Schroeder, The Parental Leave Crisis

With out prejudice, not as through a glass darkly, class, where is the golden mean in this example ?
[Parnell lives!]
*****************Subscription**Notice******************** the New Ruskin College project ******************************************************
Well, come to think of it, I guess I don't have much of a head for business. You can't heap abuse on a people year after year, and then turn around and expect them to send you money! But then again, isn't that what you guys in Washington are doing to the rest of us? Don't you feel guilty? Send more money!
******************************************************
Very truly yours;


Peter  [deletion]

ps
"I notice these days that the Green Isle is getting greener. Delightful ulcerations resembling buds pit the branches of our trees, clumpy daffodils can be seen on the upland lawn . . . Time will run on smoother till Favonius re-inspire the frozen Meade and clothe in fresh attire the lily and rose that have not sown nor spun. Curse it, my mind races back to my Heidelberg days. Sonya and Lili. And Magda. And Ernst Smutz, Georg Geier, Theodor Winklemann, Efrem Zimbalist, Otto Grun . . . Ich hab' mein Herz / in Heidelberg verloren . . . Tumpty tumpty tum.
The Plain People of Ireland: Isn't the German very like the Irish? Very guttural and so on ?
Myself: Yes.
The Plain People of Ireland: People do say that the German language and the Irish language is very guttural tongues.
Myself: Yes.
The Plain People of Ireland: The sounds is all guttural do you understand.
Myself: Yes.
The Plain People of Ireland: Very guttural languages the pair of them the Gaelic and the German." -- Myles
Hugh Kenner, A Colder Eye

correction: Yes, very funny, indeed, yes, it should have been being.

special guests: Representative Schroeder, Mrs. Lynne Cheney, Senator Wellstone
cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
George Bush, President, United States of America
Senator Biden Senator Bond Senator Bradley Senator Byrd
Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Dole Senator Domenici Senator Garn
Rep. Gingrich Senator Glenn Senator Gore Senator Grassley Senator Harkin Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms
Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach
Senator Levin Senator Lott Senator Lugar Senator McCain Senator Metzenbaum Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Senator Nunn
Senator Pryor Govern. Nelson Rockefeller Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Sasser Senator Seymour Senator Simon Senator Simpson Senator Specter Senator Thurmond Senator Warner Govern. Wilson




 
 
The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge --- 
the new coin of the realm, 
to illume the minds of men.

 
the New Ruskin College project
We make what all the world wants;
the ultimate source of all power

April 17, 1991


U. S. Representative Gingrich
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.

Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, Ca. 945[deletion]


"It was this philosophy that I strove to put into practice. To know of the decadence of Japan today . . . to know of the impoverished state of the farmers and the despair of the poor, to know that all this is due to political corruption and to the callous contempt for the people shown by the financial combines [Zaibatsu] who turn this corruption to their own profit . . . such knowledge automatically makes it incumbent upon one to take action. . . "
--- Oshio Heihachiro,
Ivan Morris:
The Nobility of Failure: Tragic Heroes in the History of Japan



Dear Representative Gingrich;


A country in which the dominant party is able to choose its opposition, still falls within the definition of a one party state. The Democrats are a kind of gardener that strips the Republicans of their future leaders, decade after decade.

We can be forgiven if some of us conclude that the Republicans just will never admit there is ever anything wrong. Now the Democrat have targeted you. Will you not agree, now, that there is a deep corruption of our Constitutional process?

Every oligarchy imagines itself to be an aristocracy. However a true aristocracy thinks itself the servant of the people. It is just by this pretence of thinking themselves "better," that one can know the members of the oligarchy.

" The husband who thinks he is a good husband, is not a good husband. And the husband who thinks he is not a good husband, is a good husband." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

For example, the CBS show, Sunday Morning, revealed to us its place in the oligarchy. Their house radical swirled Kitty Kelly's sewage around in his mouth to mix it thoroughly with his own Liberal poison and then proceeded to spit it out on to our TV screens. The adrenaline rush glinted in his eyes as he took obvious pleasure in: The Power !

And what did he want to tell us? After wallowing in Kelly's filth, and explaining that it was really metaphors for "Southern Californians," he concluded that the Reagans were "peasants."

But this word: "peasants," summarized not the Reagans, as he imagined, but the whole attitude of corporate-government Liberalism, with its malevolent sense of superiority.

We the people are dismissed the way one might dismiss a servant or a waiter; in fact exactly as one would dismiss a waiter, for being rude; for being a "peasant." It is very well for one to talk down to the peasants, the waiters; but they had better remember their place! They ought not imagine themselves to be on equal terms, much less President! For to the Jeffersonian "natural aristocracy," our "best men," the people will always be "peasants."

The "natural aristocracy," just wanted to let us know it had examined itself, and has concluded that, in truth, it is superior to we "Southern Californian" "peasants," where ever we may live.

It is just this reversal in attitudes that marks the decline of an aristocracy into an oligarchy. No longer interested in serving, the corporate-government elite now imagines itself "morally" empowered to rule. We are not all branches on the vine of Christ, some of us, it seems, are delicate flowers.

For some reason Southern California has recently come to symbolize the 'evil other' for America's corporate Liberal elite. Sam Donaldson, for example, was working the same theme after "the police beating" incident. He said it showed the "police state mentality of Southern California." Never mind that in New York that same week the authorities would describe the death of a suspect in the custody of the police. No, according to the great Liberal thinker, Sam Donaldson, it was a "Southern California," problem.

Ted Turner has also been working the Southern California angle. Several days after "the incident" some young toughs broke store windows near the sold out theater where a gangster film was playing. The reporter suggested that the young toughs were "retaliating" for "the beating" of the previous week. There was no evidence to support this but the CNN reporter found the story more interesting with this bit of fiction. CNN was hoping for 'race riots.' (Never mind that there were similar fracases in New York and Chicago when the film opened in those cities, including the killing of one patron.) Let's get California.

What was interesting was the explanation that was offered by a witness to the Westwood fracas. It seems that these hooligans were lined up on the side walk waiting to get into the theater. So why did the police confront them? You see they were on the sidewalk, and in line, but the L. A. P. D. wanted them in a straight line. Not enough to be in line, also the line has to be straight !

To people accustomed to the daily disorder of New York, or Washington, D. C., this may seem extraordinary. Yet Southern Californians to not choose to compare themselves with these chaotic cities, rather they prefer to compare themselves to their neighbors, i. e., Singapore, Tokyo, Taipei, you know, those people we seek to emulate, and whom we regard as our equals.

"My heart is aching, and I think that you should know - - - Your people out here are hurting badly."
Kathy Blackwell, Massachusetts

What would you say to her? Do Republicans have anything to say?

I imagine Robert Novak would say something like, "Get a job you loser. This is just the same old hate America rhetoric that we are always getting from Massachusetts." Or Pat Buchanan would say, "That little lady sounds like she needs help, but there is nothing wrong with America that a reduction of the Federal share of the gross national product from 25% to 23.5% wouldn't fix."

Let me tell you what the President had to say to her: "I know . . . in some regions of our country, people are in genuine economic distress. And I hear them. . . . I understand. And I'm not unrealistic about the future. But there are reasons to be optimistic about our economy. First, we . . . "

Note that the President acknowledged the problem ! Wow, that must be why he be President !

How many times have I heard Republicans say things like, for example, to the question of global warming:
"Oh I've heard about that, but I don't think that those fancy pants scientists know everything . . ."

Instead, why not try saying: "Yes, global warming is a serious concern and that is why we are conducting research and taking the following remedial actions: First, we . . . "

Don't give up the ship.

I am not insensitive to the pluck, and stick-to-it-ness, of the Republican Party. This is a quality some of us admire. But at some point, pluck turns into stubborn obstinacy.

I don't want you to think me "rude" but, the failure to acknowledge a "problem" is a sign of weakness.
You perhaps think the Democrats will tug on your sleeve and say, "Psst, you shouldn't spend your time arguing about the problem, use the time to explain your commitment."

Or perhaps you think that the liberal media, (that's redundant), will tell you how Republicans turn people off by refusing to acknowledge problems?

Whose country is this anyway?

Ford TV commercial: "A few small towns in western Pennsylvanian consistently have produced more professional football players than any other part of the country. . . . What accounts for this outstanding performance?"

Because they want to get out of those towns you dumb . . . !

For me this Ford T. V. commercial: the false bravado, the foolish dramatization of a game that only an abysmally few can possibly win, the studied refusal to question or challenge the assumptions; all symbolize the Republicans. For example I understand that the Democrats have you targeted for what is euphemistically called "redistricting."

Is it probable that the Republicans could repeatedly win the Presidency, take a majority in the U. S. Senate, win governorships, and still not make a dent in the dominance of the Democrats in the House? (Some 'The People's House !') Is it coincidence that it is just these races that can not be gerrymandered?

You perhaps expect the liberal media to rouse the public against the evils of a one party system? Is this likely? The liberal press will note, with a malevolent smugness, how strange that people will vote for the Republican President but still seem to "like" their Democrat Representative, and then dryly note voter "apathy."

The issue is not just the absolute number of seats that the Democrats have stolen, though this number is not insignificant, rather the Republicans have been pruned and shaped.

What would the Republican Party be like to day if it were not selected by the Democrats?

Now they have targeted you ! They will drag your district through seven counties in order to find the right "demographic mix" to get rid of you. Why can't we admit to the problem?

"This is your hometown.
Son take a good look around,
this is your hometown."


For example, the refusal of the House Republicans to support the President on the 1990 budget, what was that all about?

I quite agree that you in Washington have all the money you need to carry out the necessary policies. What is lacking is the will, and the vision to challenge the assumptions of this Liberal dominated society.

But the issue is: was the resulting Bill closer to the President's position with out the House Republicans or closer to the Democrat's position? Are we a National Party or are we a "safe" seat Republican Party? Seats that the Democrats let you have !

We are giving you a lot of money, but you in Washington aren't doing anything. This is the real reason the tax payers are upset.

All we ask you to do is to use our money wisely. We want you to make the best deal you can, given the present situation.

Identify the problem. Develop a strategy. Take action. But you must always develop strategy and take action based on the present situation not on how you would like it to be. Otherwise you will at best become an irrelevancy, (e.g. the 1990 budget), or you will become an impediment which the American people will remove.

Don't tell us you have the right ideology, tell us what you have done for us lately.

For example, everything we want to do to make this a better world can be accomplished through education alone!

For example:
Lower crime? The higher the educational attainment the lower the crime rate.

Increased income? The higher the educational attainment the higher the income.

Child rearing? The single most important determinant in the educational success of a child is the educational attainment of the mother.

Decreased birth rate in the developing world? The higher the educational attainment of women the lower the birth rate.

Drug addiction? The higher the educational attainment the lower the addiction rate and the higher the cure rate for those who do become addicted.

Developing educational technologies is the single most important thing you can do.

Make this a Republican issue !!!!!

*****************Subscription**Notice****************************************************************************
Because we do not carry any advertising the New Ruskin College project depends on your contributions. It has come to my attention some people are reading this for free. If you have been enjoying our little read for free and are now feeling guilty, and you should be, send your contribution based on what you think it is worth.
Send me a message !
If you want your own subscription send $500. (Your payments are of course tax deductible. May vary due to individual circumstance. Consult your accountant for how the IRS regulations apply to you. No warranties expressed or implied.)
**************************************************************************************************************
Next time:

We will read of the Confucian ethic of the "golden mean."

We will explain the nobility of compromise, and how Republicans will be able to "take the center" of American politics.

We will also explain how the Liberal media and the Counterfeit Conservatives are misrepresenting the Kurd revolt for their own political advantage.
For example, what did the advocates of continued sanctions say they hoped would happen?

Remember? And why did the revolt start only after it was clear the U. N. Forces would not go on to Baghdad ?

Very truly yours;


Peter [deletion]

ps Well C. K., all for the greater good, eh? I know you think it unfair, but I had to find out. On Monday mornings I tell my fellow workers that the people on the T. V. have been talking to me again. Well you can imagine what they think ! Well, they think I'm potty, don't they? I don't suppose I'll be getting too many assignments from that insurance company anymore, will I, C. K. ?

correction: The forward to the 4-9-91 letter was my Mishima Yukio.

special guest: Mrs. Lynne Cheney
cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
George Bush
President, United States of America
Senator Biden Senator Bond Senator Bradley Senator Byrd
Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Dole Senator Domenici Senator Garn
Rep. Gingrich Senator Glenn Senator Gore Senator Grassley Senator Harkin Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms
Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach
Senator Levin Senator Lott Senator Lugar Senator McCain Senator Metzenbaum Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Senator Nunn
Senator Pryor Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Sasser Senator Seymour Senator Simon Senator Simpson Senator Specter Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson
 
 





 






The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge ---
the new coin of the realm,
to illume the minds of men.

the New Ruskin College project
We make what all the world wants

April 9, 1991


Senator Dole
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C.

Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, Ca. 945[deletion]

". . . You may be one of the very few people who can understand my conclusion. Influenced by Yomei [Wang Yang-ming] philosophy, I have believed that knowing without acting is not sufficiently knowing and the action itself does not require any effectiveness." --- Mishima Yukio.
Ivan Morris, The Nobility of Failure;
Tragic Heroes in the History of Japan

Dear Senator Dole;

It may have occurred to you that my conservatism is not your typical Kansas City Chamber of Commerce Businessman's Lunch kind of Conservatism. If so, you would be right.

When I became a V.I.S.T.A. Volunteer I could not understand why social problems persisted if everyone was committed to the betterment of mankind.
At the end of my service with Action, I wrote to Senator Hayakawa and complained about how the V.I.S.T.A. program was used by various "leftist" groups to promote their political agendas and not for social improvement. I was naive; ten years ago. Sam Brown and the Carter administration, the whole welfare state, was by then well past Tom Wolfe's "mau-mauing the flak catchers." For example, Jim Jones was by then no longer mau-mauing, he was dead; he called his mass "suicide:" "White Knight."

"I haven't figured out how to say one thing to one group of people and something else to another group. I haven't figured that out yet." -- Senator Dole, January 12, 1991

Sir, if the use of laser disks in education were only a purely technical matter they would have been in service in all of our schools for these last 15 years. What I am asking you to do is ask why, if we are all committed to social improvement, why, do so many social problems still exist? The use of laser disks in education then, is just one example of a failure of our society.

I submit for your consideration that you and your colleagues accept the world as you discover it, including the limited use of technology in education, for the same reason the Chinese did not understand the uses of gun powder, movable type printing, and mechanical engineering. That is: The limited access to education conforms to your colleague's world view of human . . .

Oh, look Senator, I want you to know, right from the start, that I understand that you think I am, well you know; that some people think that Californians are . . . well, you know, and I don't hold that against you. For example:

"-Have you heard that they aren't selling Wheaties in California anymore?

"-No, I didn't hear about that. Why aren't they selling Wheaties in California anymore?

"-It's a new marketing strategy; they've changed the name. Now, it's called: Ninja Flakes."

That's OK, go ahead and laugh, because sometimes we feel the same way about ourselves. That's why we have to have a Self Esteem Commission; to neutralize all the bad vibes coming in from back East.

"I would like to say to the children back home: Study hard."
-- American prisoner of war, Iraq 1991

But seriously: I know you probably don't think I'm much of a Republican. And I have to admit that being a Republican isn't something that has come naturally to me; I've had to work hard at it. However, just as natural athletes do not make very good coaches, so too, I think that "natural Republicans" don't do a very good job in explaining what being a Republican means. Just as with a natural athlete, they have never had to "think" about it and so can not explain it to others. They never had to "take it apart" and analyze the "parts" and then put it back together.

Think of me as the Pete Rose of Republicans.

(Ba-Ba-Ba)

For example, I saw two "natural Republicans," Mrs. Cheney and Mr. Bennett, speaking to a academic group and defending the philosophical position of "objective truth." I thought I was in a time warp. I expected Bishop Berkeley to step out from behind the curtain and begin is lecture. Someone should tell Mrs.Cheney and Mr. Bennett that a lot of interesting things have been going on in philosophy since the Middle Ages. I had thought that the "intellectual leaders" of a political party that spends so much time talking about the Scottish philosopher Smith might have at least been familiar with that other fairly well known Scottish philosopher, Hume.

I tell you Senator, some Republicans ! They will argue like scholars over their stock portfolios but they would have slept through the Sermon on the Mount.
Another problem Republicans face is a kind of reversal of the natural selection process. With each new census the Democrats gerrymander the House districts. The result is that Republicans, driven like Indians to the reservation, have been forced into "safer" and "safer" seats, and have lost the talent to think and argue persuasively. The Republicans who stand for election in these "safe" seats are thankful but uninspired candidates; "fat, contented, bald headed men, the type that sleep a'night." (C.K. it's just an expression.) Ironically, the gerrymandering has had the same effect on the dominant party. For their seats are also, decade after decade, becoming "safer" and "safer" and their candidates also lose the talent for persuading.

"On a cloudy October afternoon in 1869 Charles W. Eliot, . . . delivered his inaugural address . . . he praised the readiness of Americans to accept the leadership of the 'best men,' the preachers, teachers, jurists, physicians, seers, and poets whom the transformed Harvard would select, train, and imbue with a spirit of public service. To his friend James Bryce's query as to why Americans did not elect their best men to public office, Eliot responded that the real leaders in the United States were not necessarily elected officials but rather those preachers, teachers, jurists, physicians, seers, and poets. It is reported that Ralph Waldo Emerson sat 'right in front' at Eliot's inauguration . . . 'listening and smiling and assenting.'"
-------------Lawrence Cremin, American Education

It has gotten to the point that one can say almost anything and still be elected and reelected and reelected and etc. There is thus less and less reason to question and examine, oneself or society.

Philosophical discussions are regarded . . . well, as "philosophical," by which we mean, "academic," by which we mean useless. For example, I heard the Secretary of the Department of Objective Truth and Happiness pounding on the lectern the other day as he cried, "Judaic Christian values! Judaic Christian Values." What a lucky man.

Imagine, Senator, the confidence it must give one to know that everything one does or says is in complete accord with "Judaic Christian Values." Never to have to examine oneself, or consider the relative merits of alternatives, but to always know that because one believes, Believes!, in the "Judaic Christian Values" everything one does is right. Pity we poor mortals who must try to serve God, here, on the ground, in the thicket of our thoughts, by reason, and examination. Pity we who have not yet traversed that broad plain known as the "objective truth of Judaic Christian Values," where the "intellectual leadership" of the Republican party roams.

This profound certainty in one's righteousness is not, of course, limited to just the Republican intellectual leadership for almost all Democrats seem to possess it. Consider, for example, the supreme self confidence of a Pete Stark. Only a man with the utmost confidence in his Liberalism could refer to someone with whom he disagrees as a "discredit to his race." Or for example, only very Liberal news producers and editors could assign "the black" reporter to "the black" story and "the woman" reporter to "the woman's" story, week after year, and never wonder, 'Am I being insensitive? Should I treat people as people and not as things?'

For example, does Ted Turner assign "a woman" and "a man" to anchor his shows because he is a great Liberal? Or because he is a great . . . ? That is because he has not examined how he treats his employees, the TV Mamas and Papas? I can almost hear the bone headed, self righteousness in his voice as he says, 'I don't care, I don't care, we aren't going to have any sexism here, no sir. I want one woman and one man. That's final, one man, one woman. Got that? That takes care of that problem! And don't use the word 'foreign,' I don't like that word, I don't want to hear 'foreign' on my network, OK?' You see he can treat people as if they were cards in a deck because he has the confidence of that "objective truth:" he is doing the right thing.

We need "strategic thinking."
- George Bush, 1991

What is happening in all these examples is that an idea is taking on a life of its own; it is being allowed to take on the quality of the absolute and is therefore pushing aside other important ideas. Like a bustle on a well tailored Victorian lady, these people are trying to hide their true natures, or rather what they fear are their true natures, and the very act of concealment actually accentuates that which they seek to disguise. An idea, sexism, racism, etc. is broken off from the rest of the world, and then one acts on the basis of the 'mono-idea.' It only looks odd when another idea, like: people should not be treated as objects, is reintroduced into the discussion.

Strategy is the 'comprehensive' analysis of the world, of reality; anything less is mere tactics. We can break down reality into an infinite sequence of different ideas and facts. Strategy is the process by which these separate ideas are reunified into a comprehensive construction, or plan of action. Japan, for example, has rightly been called the 'Strategic Society.' For it is a philosophical construction of Japanese society that the separate ideas and facts are of little benefit in themselves but are only important in how one relates them.

"Ambiguity, uncertainty, and imperfection, with their many shades of meaning, carry different connotations in the East than in the West. Pascale, Athos, The Art of Japanese Management

To someone who believes that his theory is not just an arrangement of reality, and only one possible arrangement, but the arrangement, the Japanese appear hypocritical, not playing by the rules, even mercenary. For these people, the rules are not just a theory to be applied and judged by its results, but the final and only way of doing things. Thus Mrs. Cheney's and Mr. Bennett's "objective facts" are not the beginning of a discussion but the final conclusion.

Ought our ideas be given the quality of the absolute? From this question many will recoil, for it seems that we are at the edge of a Dostoevskian night: "If there is no God . . ."

There must be a good and a bad! How else are we to proceed? The Japanese are not insensitive to this reaction. For example when they discuss their economy with Americans they translate "yudo kisei" as: regulation through inducement. But when they translate "yudo bakudan" they use the words guided missile. Is the missile "induced" or is it guided? (Johnson,Japan's Public Policy Companies.)

Americans feel that people who do not believe in "objective" good can not really be trusted. It is not enough to think that such and such is good you must really believe it as an "objective fact." If not we suspect that the non-believer is perhaps, if not out right disturbed, at least they are "bordering on the edge of the disturbed." But suppose Senator, as an abstract, academic, philosophical theory, that what one has been thinking were objective facts, and absolute goods, were in fact not. Suppose they were all along just constructions; that they were from the beginning just one's idea of the good. Suppose we have allowed one idea, an idea of the absolute, to cloud our thinking; that we allowed the "absolute" idea to attach itself to other ideas. For example Senator Danforth gave us a striking example during the Civil Rights Bill debate.

"I shall ask the Congress to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law." John Fitzgerald Kennedy

You will recall the setting. The final vote. Senator Danforth takes the floor and narrows the issues down to one. He explains his reasoning on all the others but says that the one issue that caused him the most trouble was the change in the burden of proof. He says this troubled him but he finally decided that if he had to give the edge to the employee plaintiff or to the company he felt that the edge should be given to the employee. This at first may seem fair, a boon to the underdog. Yet reflect on what "a company" is. It is an idea. It is a legal fiction. It does not really exist. It is only people who really exist. The Senator would give the benefit to the plaintiff over the other employees. But the word "company" conceals, and tricks the mind into thinking that there really are things in the world called companies quite independent of the reality of real breathing people.

To use the fashionable academic phrase, we "construct" our social reality. But some times this social construction takes on a life of its own and is mistaken for reality. To try and correct this not uncommon mistake some academics talk of "deconstruction."

Now look closely and you will see we can catch two errors at once.

For Mrs. Cheney reacts against deconstruction, error one, and then fails to expose its basic misconception, error two, as follows:

For example, a radical professor 'deconstructs' the curriculum at his college and says that it is all based on racism, capitalism, and imperialism. To this Mrs. Cheney or Mr. Bennett will say, "Nay, Nay, this old curriculum is good enough for me. Its the Objective Truth Curriculum."

Now Mr. William Buckley, Jr., would not make this error. He would pause and consider the deconstructionist's statement, look soberly at the radical professor, and ask, "Did you say racism, capitalism, and imperialism?"

"Yes I did," the radical professor would say, "It's a white man's world."

Buckley would say, "Well, capitalism and imperialism are OK. So that's two out of three, that's not bad."
For Buckley would have exposed the basic misconception of radicals: just because you can break down the world into parts, does not mean you have explained anything. For example Freudians say they can show all artistic efforts are the sublimation of sexual desire. To which Alan Watts would say, "Well sex, that's not bad."

For what Buckley understands and what he is constantly having to remind his guests about is that you do not argue with the hypothetical. For example, Watts tells the story of the convicted murderer pleading for mercy. The murderer says, "Your Honor, I had a bad childhood, I was the son of two liberals. My professors were all radicals and never taught me to respect life. You see your Honor, I was conditioned to commit the crime by my environment. I had no choice." To which Watts suggests the reasonable response, "Yes poor boy, I see that you had no choice, that you were conditioned to commit the crime. But before you go to the gallows and your doom, I want you to know that we also do not have any choice, for we have been conditioned by our environment to hang murderers."

I am reminded of the debate in the French Assembly a hundred years ago. Before the house is a Bill to abolish capital punishment. A speaker concludes his arguments for the Bill with a plea for Christian mercy and forgiveness. To which an opponent stands up and cries, "Let the murderers make the first move."
Is the college curriculum a political choice? Well frankly, yes. The conservatives, the true conservatives, understand this. We have considered several curriculums: one that teaches the assassination of the upper classes, one that calls for the enslavement of the workers, and all things considered we have chosen this little curriculum here. Of course, for true believers, who insist on absolute truth, left and right, this is not a satisfactory answer.

They want certainty.

Like children playing with a little red truck, a blue figurine and a yellow teddy bear, they want God to be on the side of the little red truck. But the universe isn't set up that way. These are children's games. It is time to set aside the ways of the child. [There is great gift here. But it is worthless. What is it?] This is why social progress is so slow, so difficult. We become fixed on one way of doing things. We don't stop and think, debate, reconsider. Why should we? We know the "Objective Truth." We are fighting racism. We are Liberal. We are defending Education and upholding "the high standards." Defending free enterprise. Etc., etc., etc.

As I said in the beginning I know that this all seems pretty strange to the Cattlemen's Association kind of conservative. Because "natural conservatives" like Mrs. Cheney and Mr. Bennett, etc. have not made a conscious decision to be conservatives. For them certain things are true not because they made a conscious decision to affirm them as true but because everyone else says they are true, that is, they are "objectively true." Real conservatives know that these truths are a product of our minds.

There was no "free enterprise" until a Scottish philosopher created it as an act of his mind. Now the counterfeit conservatives think that "private property" is an "objective fact" even though it did not exist until we said it should exist. We constructed private property --- we are not Libertarians. We do not associate private property with the absolute. One person's right to property does not supersede the right of the community to build a freeway for example. Like that of the British nobility, the philosopher's boast is: we make 'objective" truths.

But as strange as it may seem, the Kansas City kind of conservatism seems strange to people who see the underlying reality undistorted by this hallucination of "objective truth." For example the Japanese find our society mystifying, as do others who see more clearly:

"You owned all the land, and out there, out there in . . . Kansas . . . everybody just lined up, . . . and they owned it, and their white skin was their deed of property . . . see . . . And so you owned it all, and you still own it, and so you think capital is owning things. But you are mistaken, Capital is controlling things. Controlling things. You want land in Kansas? You want to exercise your white deed of property? First you got to control Kansas . . . see . . . Controlling things. . . [Harlem, the Bronx, and Brooklyn] . . . Did they lose their money? No, they lost control . . see . . . They lost control north of Ninety-sixth Street, and when they lost control, they lost the capital. You understand? All that capital, it vanished off the face of the earth. The house was still there, but the capital, it vanished. . . see . . ."
---------Tom Wolfe, Bonfire of the Vanities

For example, in our prisons, we control the utilities, the architecture, the doors, windows; we regulate the time of the meals, all communication etc. Yet the most cursory examination will reveal that we do not control what goes on. Because we have this idea, of free will and civil rights, to which we have attached the idea of the absolute, even the most circumspect use of control will bring the charge of fascism (the attribution of absolute evil). If we say "lock down" until you learn to read, for example, we are not engaged in a purely technical discussion, no, we must defend ourselves from the A.C.L.U.'s charge that we are preparing to exterminate.

The Liberals will shriek in horror, if the teacher stands in front of the class and holds up a ruler and says, "This is a measuring instrument. It is also used for making straight lines. I will not use this to slap you on your hands. But if you don't behave yourselves I will send you to a classroom where they will!" Or for example, Senator Kennedy says that he is against workfare because he thinks it is demeaning . No amount of evidence that workfare helps people, that people prefer it, will change his mind. For him it is not an attempt to incorporate the 'whole' person in a program of reform; no, it is demeaning, end of discussion.

What should one say when one finds that one is being forced into a metaphysical box in which all the alternatives are not permitted? The president had it just right. Someone tried to force him into a metaphysical box and he said:

"Hell No!"
George Bush

But "natural Republicans" can not see that they are being forced into a box because they have not thought about the issues. Thus for them "law and order" means more money for police and courts, not greater "control" over prisons, parolees, neighborhoods, schools, families, because the metaphysical assumption is that all such control is "fascism." Because they are unaccustomed to thinking for themselves they accept the world as an "objective fact." Thus it is OK to lock someone up for 10 years, but it is not OK to put them in solitary confinement until they agree to take reading lessons. It is OK to spend billions of dollars to rehabilitate vandalized public housing but it is not OK to regulate the entrance of people into that housing. It is OK to arrest people for actual possession of drugs but not OK to have civil commitment for people who live lives of drug induced dissipation.

Oh, the inscrutable West!

Just as the Scottish philosophers once challenged the Royal monopolies the time has come to cast off the education monopolies so that the invisible hand can work its way in education as it has in economics. Education by laser disk costs less, (just pennies per student per course), than traditional means of education.

Our system of education, with its antiquated methods of distribution, conforms exactly to the vanities, prejudices, and needs of our leaders. Finally, it comes down to this: 'well if laser disks in education are a good idea why aren't we doing it now?' This question I like most of all.

Ever since Jefferson there has been the belief in the "natural aristocracy;" the rule by the "best men." Education's elitist condition conforms snugly to our leader's cherished high opinions of themselves. Just as Harvard is selective and admits only the few, so it seems the U. S. Senate is also small and exclusive. In both cases it is the same, ah, only the best.
No need to make knowledge available to all. For surely, just as only the few "rise to the top" in commerce and government so too in academe. It seems that the distribution of intelligence is much like the distribution of wealth, heavily skewed. Is this not 'natural?' As one counterfeit conservative is fond of saying, "half of the American people have less than average intelligence." (Insolence is a trait of intelligence don't you know; and unfortunately of the counterfeit conservatives as well. For example: Novak.)

The wide dissemination of courses of instruction on laser disks to our elementary, middle, and high schools; to our libraries and community colleges, is not so much a proposal for change as it is yet another example of social failure, and the triumph of prejudice.


Very truly yours;


Peter [deletion]

special guests:
Mrs. Lynne Cheney, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Stark

cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
George Bush
President, United States of America
Senator Biden Senator Bond Senator Bradley Senator Byrd
Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Dole Senator Domenici Senator Garn
Rep. Gingrich Senator Glenn Senator Gore Senator Grassley Senator Harkin Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach
Senator Levin Senator Lott Senator Lugar Senator McCain Senator Metzenbaum Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Senator Nunn
Senator Pryor Govern. Romer Senator Sarbanes Senator Sasser Senator Seymour Senator Simon Senator Simpson Senator Specter Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson




 
 
The Math Project, 89-91:
minting knowledge ---
the new coin of the realm,
to illume the minds of men.

the New Ruskin College project

March 27, 1991


George Bush
President
the White House
Washington, D. C.

Peter [deletion]
[deletion] East Ave.
Hayward, Eden Township
California Republic 945[deletion]


"I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Dear Mr. President;

You too are mortal.

Have we been unfair to our friends?
For example, when our friends talk of "self esteem" many Republicans ridicule them. I ask you Sir, is this fair?

Should we not look beyond the way we express ourselves and look more deeply at the meaning underlying the expression? For is not "self esteem" just their word for our word "morale"? But owing to a quarrelsome and combative nature of some Republicans, which is, I am sure, as hard for you to relate to as it is for me, our friends have been mocked for their use of this phrase "self esteem."

Or for example, the family leave Bill: is this not a good thing for our Nation's children? Our Nation's families? For we each are the parents of all the children, just as we are all brothers and sisters.

It is true that once again our friends, on the left, have failed to frame the correct strategic issues, i.e. work force mobility, and the importance of temporary employment in expanding occupational opportunities. Sir, the New Ruskin College project has a keen interest in work force mobility. For there is little point in expanded educational opportunities if there is no similar expansion of employment opportunities. [ Because the universe is a unitary whole, single issue politics is illogical.]

The expansion of the temporary job market will make it possible for needed job skills to be transmitted throughout the labor force. Tom Peters has argued, as a purely technical matter, that in the future whole organizations will be staffed entirely by temporary workers.

Sir, can you not perfect this Bill?

Just as a reduction in the capital gains tax would liberate capital the creation of a stable temporary labor market would liberate labor. Just as capital would then be free to move to the most profitable sectors, just so, with increased temporary employment opportunities labor would also be free to migrate to the most profitable sectors of the economy. (In the interests of full disclosure I should say that I am a temporary worker; but then aren't we all?)

You too are mortal.

But for now let us read from Scriptures and let us contemplate the unity of all things and the unity of all souls :

"And Moses said unto the Lord, wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

"Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them (?), that thou shouldst say unto me, carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?

"Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, give us flesh, that we may eat.

"I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.

"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.

"And the Lord said unto Moses, gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
"And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone." -------------Numbers XI 11 to 17


You too are mortal.

Do you believe in miracles, Mr. President? Miracles?

"There are no means or methods for understanding this, for every such device is artfulness, . . . as is equally the sterile certainty and aggressive cocksureness of atheism and scientific materialism. There is no way to where we are, . . . there is nothing to be grasped and no way to grasp it.

"This is not to say that there is no God or to deny the possibility that there is some form of personal continuity beyond death. [Rather, the understanding of miracles is a different order of understanding.] . . . but the fascination of the certainty of death can sometimes hold us wonder-stuck until the moment of a curious illumination in which we see that what dies is not consciousness but memory. Consciousness recurs in every newborn creature, and wherever it recurs it is "I". . . . To see this is to feel the most peculiar solidarity - almost identity - with other creatures, and to begin to understand the meaning of compassion." -------------Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman

(You see, Buckley taught me to think, but Watts taught me to feel. Living, alas, we must learn as it comes. (Because they were willing to teach me I like conservatives, Buddhists, and electronic instructors generally.))

You too are mortal.

"Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."
--------------James Joyce, Dubliners, the Dead


You too are mortal, Mr. President.

Very truly yours;


Peter [deletion]

cc Mark Musick Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Southern Regional Education Board Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Christopher T. Cross Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Assistant Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education Oak Ridge National Labratory
Lamar Alexander James Watkins
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Education Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin John Sununu Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Labor Chief of Staff,the White House
Senator Biden Senator Bond Senator Bradley Senator Byrd
Govern. Campbell Senator Cochran Senator Cohen Senator Cranston Senator Danforth Senator Dole Senator Domenici Senator Garn
Rep. Gingrich Senator Glenn Senator Gore Senator Grassley Senator Harkin Senator Hatch Senator Heflin Senator Helms Senator Kassebaum Senator Kennedy Senator J.Kerry Rep. Leach
Senator Levin Senator Lott Senator Lugar Senator McCain Senator Metzenbaum Senator Mitchell Senator Moynihan Senator Nunn Senator Pryor Senator Sarbanes Senator Sasser Senator Seymour Senator Simon Senator Simpson Senator Specter Senator Thurmond Senator Wallop Senator Warner Govern. Wilson

Credentialed Scholars will be allowed to view these documents on alternate Tuesdays  on even numbered months by permission of the Ludi Magistor.

        
 
 
 
Contact PlinioDesignori at  PlinioDesignori@NewRuskinCollege.com

© COPYRIGHT 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, by NewRuskinCollege.com

All Rights Reserved.