"Better never to have been born into the world, than to have seen and suffered so many miseries" - Ecclesiastes 4:3

I’m all for extending opportunity and assistance for the poor and working poor in America. In fact I think we should do much more to help the working poor and the middle class afford education in all its forms. We also need to do much better to ensure that people can actually live on the wages they receive from their work.

Yet there is no denying that extending this assistance, both to those trapped in a generational cycle of poverty and those with productive values but very limited resources, is expensive to taxpayers.

One of the ways we can bring this cost down in the future sounds very oppressive, but I believe is fair. We should encourage poor people who will not be paying the full expense of raising their own children to have less kids.

We should do this in two ways, one generous; the other not so much.

Generously, we should, beginning some day in the future, lets say January of 2013, warn people that we’ll begin a system where we taxpayers will pay for daycare from birth until kindergarten, after school and summer programs, for an income eligible parent, but only for one’s first child. In fact, this will create an incentive for people to stop having many children at public expense. It will encourage people to think twice about having a child where the father is unlikely to pay for the child’s support and diminish the monetary value increase of someone having more and more children and receive more taxpayer support.

We should start to enforce statutory rape laws more seriously for those having intercourse and having a child with or as a girl under 16, not just at the insistence of the girl who had underage sex or her family, but at the insistence of the state.

Underage sex leading to childbirth by teenagers most often leads to problems for that mom, child, and society. Allowing this to continue unabated without more direction is foolish. Boys and men who have sex with women before the age of consent should face the possibility of a restricted living habitation or at least probation. Perhaps the girl too, obviously outside of being the victim of non-consensual intercourse, should also face some penalty.

More dads who completely fail their child need to be held accountable, even by detaining them for non-support and removing them from their freedom as punishment.

We need to help people more who are trying to climb their way out of poverty. We need to structure and enforce our laws more to prevent children from being born into a cycle of poverty from which they are very unlikely to escape. We cannot be afraid to squarely address the gravity of this problem solely because we are reluctant to put demands on people who act self-destructively while being supported by other people’s labor.

This is Randy Feldman on WCRNs midday-report.

What does a Republican believe?

The Republican primary has raised a very interesting question: “What does the Republican Party stand for?”

Besides smaller deficits and smaller government, who are these people and what do they want? Let’s start with who they are not. They are not Olympia Snowe, the moderate Senator from Maine, who basically resigned because her own Republic Party continually will not meet President Obama and the Democrats half way on anything – even reducing deficits. She felt this so strongly that she will leave the Senate by choosing not to run for re-election, potentially giving Senate control over to the Democrats next year.

Are they Rick Santorum, who ‘believes’ his brand of conservative, fundamentalist-style Catholicism should help determine public policy, for instance by saying that the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, does not really separate Church and State, but only prevents the government from picking a state religion for all Americans. Santorum says John Kennedy’s speech extolling the virtues of the Constitution’s separating church and state made him throw-up. Santorum also famously said that women should not have cost free contraceptive services included as a benefit in their health care plan for any reason - health or birth prevention – if their employer finds it morally objectionable. Every Republican Senator voted for this position that Santorum espoused, except Olympia Snowe, who instead announced that she will quit the Senate.

Then who are these Republicans? Maybe the Republican Party is Newt Gingrich, who made millions of dollars lobbying for the continuing strength of the government agency who Republicans say was the main culprit in the mortgage mess. Although Gingrich repeatedly says he was paid as a historian, not as a lobbyist designing strategy to keep Freddy Mac well-funded, before it was bailed-out by taxpayers to prevent a depression (caused by a lack of government regulation).

Or is the Republican Party Rick Perry, whose lack of intelligence seemed to startle everyone – making one wonder how he could actually be Governor of Texas, let alone President of the United States. Perry, well-funded by corporate interests, just seemed kind of like an empty vessel, like a ventriloquist’s dummy in a vaudeville show. Then he made the terrible tactical error of telling Republican voters that illegal immigrant children who came at a young age deserve to continue their education in college if their parents can afford to pay their child’s in-state tuition fees.

Are the Republicans Michelle Bachman, the Tea Party candidate who fires as many senior staff workers as the she takes-in foster children, who rallies against government while she works for government and whose husband’s psychological practice relies on government reimbursement while reportedly trying to “counsel” people out of their homosexuality. Or Herman Cain, whose 9/9/9 was not an economic theory not worthy of serious consideration and which would have lowered Mitt Romney’s taxes from 14 to 9% and whose sexual abuse of women was repeatedly denied by Cain until the accusers multiplied, some of whom were paid money for their damages.

Is the Republican Party Ron Paul, whose ideas to go back to the gold standard and eliminate the federal reserve are as kooky as him saying it’s too early to count himself out as the Republican nominee.

Or is the Republican Party Rush Limbaugh, the defacto leader of the Conservative movement “on the street”, who said that a woman who fought for her friend to have access to contraceptives at Georgetown Law School, a Catholic-affiliated school, for health reasons that were separate and apart from sexual activity, was a slut and should have sex in front of us on video to thank us for giving her free contraceptives.

Are the Republicans Sarah Palin Inc., who re-appeared to say she would be available in a brokered convention, causing even fellow Republicans to sigh.

And then there was the flirtation with Donald Trump. Does any serious person really need to comment upon “The Donald’s” integrity or judgment?

Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, John Huntsman, John Thune the Senator from South Dakota, Tim Pawlenty, and Haley Barbour are all intelligent Republican Presidential candidates who could have represented the Republican Party without being an embarrassment to it.

So we now know in the end we will likely be left with Mitt Romney – the phony. He’s not even wooden like Al Gore, he’s plastic. He’s so out of touch he seems to have been created in a laboratory – a modern day Mittenstein. You wonder if he’s ever done anything in his whole life that wasn’t calculated, that was just deeply felt by him – in his heart, not told to him by his brain, or his faith, but deeply felt in his own individual heart and soul - the heart and soul we Americans use to decide things, even to vote, even when were voting for any of the candidates the Republicans have put forward for President.

Whether we’re acting smart or stupid, constructive or destructive, self-advancing or self-defeating, we Americans are heartfelt people – full of spirit. No one seems to find any connection to Mitt Romney in their heart and no one seems to feel any spirit from him.

This is Randy Feldman on WCRN’s Midday Report.

Worcester University for Adults

Last night I attended a talk at Clark University given by Melissa Harris-Perry. The talk was generally on what it means to be black in America. Melissa Harris-Perry will soon have her own TV show on MSNBC. She is a professor at Princeton.
The week before there was a talk given at Clark by a community activist from Newark, New Jersey, also given as part of black history month. Two children of Minister Sarai Rivera, PhD, Worcester’s first Hispanic female City Council representative, and along with her husband, Jose Encarnacion, the ministers of a non-denominational Pentecostal church here in Worcester, also gave a talk. The children’s speech was wonderful. They represented the nationally mentioned – by the President of the United States no less – University Park School in Worcester, a collaborative school assisted by Clark University.
The week before that I attended a talk on Campaign Finance Reform, also at Clark, sponsored by Congressman McGovern, with national experts giving talks on the corrupt way we finance political campaigns in America.
If anyone is interested in Clark community talks; they are open to the public. Contact the Higgins School of Humanities at Clark and they will send you a pamphlet stating the semester’s topics, their number is 508-793-7479.
Today, the Society of Professional Communicators sponsored James Cordova, a professor also from Clark University for a talk on how to manage marriage and other long-term personal relationships.
But it’s not just Clark. Speakers at Holy Cross this semester included former Holy Cross student and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This Thursday Holy Cross will host Sherry Turkle, from MIT, on how technology is altering our social lives. Previously New York Times columnist, David Brooks; Fox News commentator, Bill Kristol; and Holy Cross grad and MSNBC commentator, Chris Mathews all spoke at Holy Cross.
WPI has hosted talks from professors from TUFTS and Stanford University. Next month, in March, Assumption College will host Jennifer Harbury, a human rights activist, to talk on the history and results of US torture policies. Anna Maria College hosted a talk by the Massachusetts State Senator Harriette Chandler. These talks are all open to the public.
The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences hosts the Municipal Research Bureau’s bi-monthly talks. On March 7th, Worcester City Manager Mike O’Brien will speak about balancing the municipal budget. Two weeks ago I attended an ARTSWorcester art show at the old Aurora Hotel. The show featured the art of the Worcester College community.
In many of the colleges, particularly Assumption, Clark and Anna Maria; one can audit a class- meaning one can attend classes at these colleges without gaining credit for the course. Courses at night cover literature, philosophy, film, art, psychology, sociology, religion, history and other topics. These courses only cost between $400-500 for the whole semester. Assumption College offers daytime courses for $135 for up to 26 courses in the WISE Program. I’ve taken so many of these courses myself that I’ve now moved on to Cambridge and Somerville to find colleges to keep learning.
The point is that Worcester is a university community for adults too – not just college “kids”. It’s not just sports teams and summer camps that our colleges offer us, it’s also intellectual stimulation for adults.
And it’s not just the colleges. The Worcester Chamber of Commerce and Economics Club is bringing former US Comptroller David Walker to Mechanics Hall this coming Thursday evening. Previously they brought former Presidential advisor and CNN contributor, David Gergen; senior political analyst for Time magazine, Mark Halperin; and former White House Chief of Staff John Sanunu.
The point is that if one wishes to have an active intellectual life and/or be an informed citizen, Worcester offers more than almost all communities of its size. Our universities play the largest part in these offerings.
Just last week on the extended WCRN Midday Report, my own show here at the station, I dialogued with Molly Flynn, a Professor at Assumption College, who argued against the proposal of President Obama to require places like St. Vincent Hospital and Holy Cross or Assumption Colleges to offer free contraceptives to all employees. I took the opposite point of view. The show is heard every Friday from 1-2pm on AM830. We deal with many timely, important and difficult topics that affect how we live.
We should all rejoice in what our colleges provide: expertise and intellectual stimulation for our community. We can take advantage of this opportunity to “stay alive” in our own heads, and at the same time, be more informed citizens.

What does the Insurgence of Newt Gingrich mean?

Does Newt Gingrich speak for the anger of the Republican Party voter generally, or only of those who live down south? Does he speak to the anger of those in the Tea Party, wherever they may live?

Does he speak more broadly for those who think more government is never the answer? (In spite of him previously working for the supposedly evil quasi-government Freddie Mac and insisting that all people must buy health insurance or be taxed? Or that all elderly folks deserve unlimited prescription drugs (after the donut hole payment gap) in spite of not being able to afford the drugs without taxpayer support?

Does Gingrich – by calling Barak Obama the food stamp President – appeal to latent or expressed racist elements in the Republican Party, especially in South Carolina?

Does Gingrich represent an anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-financially successful strand of the Republican Party? Is that why he chews on Mitt Romney’s ribs for dinner?

What in the world does Newt Gingrich stand for? Who does he represent?

Whatever it is, I pray to the stars above that it is a distinct minority of Americans and that no one who opportunistically grabs for the elements of populist appeal Gingrich has identified ever succeeds in American politics.

Travel to Grow

I just returned from a one month journey through Spain, Sicily in Italy, Tunisia, Morocco in North Africa and Mali in Sub-Sahara Africa. I made the journey with my 22 year old son, who just graduated from Boston College and who is teaching in Granada, Spain.

Two things stood out on the trip. The first was that after “fathering” my child for 22 years, it was wonderful to realize that it was time to look at him as an equal companion through life; one with whom I shared a very deep lifelong bond. He was the greatest travel companion one could hope for and the knowledge that he had been able to develop on his own was a deep pleasure to enjoy. “Sharing notes” about life, and about each other, was an incredibly engaging and helpful experience. It was almost as if your own soul traveled through another person, one whom you shared a lifetime with, and who spoke to you from a different perspective than your own. It was wonderful.

The second affect was that it was unmistakable how, throughout history, civilizations rise, prosper, are powerful and then fall. We saw the ancient Greek and Roman Empires, Carthage and Christian Byzantium, the Muslim Moors, the Ottoman Empire, African Empires like Songhai and the British and French Empires, come and go, flourish and fade away.

It did give to wonder about whether our great American dominance might one day end and it gave conjecture as to how, even with our many great American qualities, the US was able to grow so strong because the other great powers in Europe and Asia destroyed themselves in two successive world wars. One is left to wonder if contemporary superpowers, such as ours, come apart and end, or whether, more likely, they are just diminished in importance like the great colonial, imperial powers, Great Britain and France have been.

I made a similar trip 28 years ago as a 25 year old back packer. North Africa and Africans have gained much wealth over that time. Its roads, bridges and buildings are getting better. There are Chinese made mopeds all over, where people before would have had to walk. The developing world has grown much over the past twenty-five years. We’ve grown a little. It became obvious that more jobs previously done in the US are going abroad. It became clear that people in other countries can work with their hands at a cheaper rate than US citizens. It become clear that we Americans must become more educated and trained both in higher degree academic areas and two year skilled technical areas if we are going to keep our American dominant position in place.

I hope we have the strength to change to continue to prosper.

The T&G Occupies Elizabeth Warren

The editorial writer of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette has recently been taking Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy Movement to task for not understanding or agreeing with capitalism and its dictates.

Yet, both Massachusetts senatorial candidate Warren and the Occupy Movement want to amend American style capitalism to make the system work more for the proverbial “little guy”; people without power, without great educations, without tremendous wealth, and people who are not part of the ruling political class: those who do not have either the money nor time to acquire the wealth necessary to acquire power to advance their own interests under the American political system.

Concerning candidate Warren, the T&G editorial says that Warren’s ideas are not her invention but that of 18^th century Enlightenment writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau stated that the establishment of private property, and its protection by a government’s law and order, would lead to a system where those without private property would end up working to enrich those with it. Who would get to use the power of the government to protect their interests would become the focal point of contention. Whose view of “order” is being protected by law, is the issue.

Capitalism does not define the proper balance of power and rights between workers and laborers on the one hand, and those with private property and capital on the other. That choice is up for grabs. There is no uniform, monolithic definition of capitalism to be defended.

What Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy Movement believe is that those whose primary motive is the protection of their private property have grabbed too much.

Some facts stated in the editorial and also by former T&G editor, Robert Nemeth, are just plain factually wrong. Harvard University, (where Elizabeth Warren is a law professor specializing in finance, business matters and bankruptcy), did not keep the Harvard Occupy Movement out of Harvard Yard. The university allowed the protestors to set-up their tents on campus. Further, unlike what the editorial on Elizabeth Warren claims, we do not have progressive tax rates in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The rich are not taxed at a higher percentage of their higher income, like the federal government does. From the wealthy to the working class, all are taxed at the same 5.3% irrespective of whether they are millionaires or make $20,000 per year. Further, Rousseau did not argue explicitly for monarchy, kings or queens per se. He argues that any type of government could be utilized to protect average people from folks who own private property and pass laws to protect themselves, their wealth and privileges. The type of government that existed then was monarchy. Thank goodness it is not the type that exists today. Unlike what the editorial stated: Rousseau obviously did not argue for monarchy.

The Editorial page also goes on to say the Occupy protestors in Worcester chant for civil war. Although I have certainly not been to all the General Assembly meetings and protests at Worcester Common, at the ones I’ve attended I have never heard anyone chant for civil war but only for a fairer deal for the 99% of people without wealth and power. The only currents that seem to run through the agenda of the Occupy movement is a more equal allocation of wealth and political power between the 1% moneyed class and the 99% who have neither the money nor political power to shape our laws.

These are some of the philosophical reasons many in the Occupy Movement are unafraid to violate or break laws concerning when, where and most importantly how they can non-violently demonstrate their displeasure with the current inequality of the American political and economic system. Many in the Occupy movement believe laws are set up by the powerful to further protect their interests. They think the game is rigged and the laws, and law and order itself, has been hijacked away from representing equality and fairness.

At least one federal judge in Boston temporarily agreed that setting up tents to build a more egalitarian subgroup of society which practices direct democracy, is itself a political statement worthy of protecting as a symbol of free expression and political challenge under the first amendment guarantees of free speech. Hence the rule of law is more fluid then the editorial page writers at the Telegram and Gazette declare. The motivations and goals of candidate Warren and Occupy are more than the editorial page admits.

Mr. Nemeth also makes the same erroneous argument as the Tea Party – that the left wing is opting for a shift to socialism. The last time I checked the definition of socialism wherein the government owns the means of production. The Democratic Party, when given the chance during the financial crisis, did not nationalize the banks or even pass laws allowing for people to choose a government provided option for health care. Instead, the democratic-led government lent money to private banks and bought shares alongside private investors in U.S. companies, selling those shares and receiving payment back at terms mostly favorable to US taxpayers, all the while saving the private companies and the financial system from bankruptcy and concurrently fending off massive job loss, by supporting private industry.

This is Randy Feldman on WCRN’s Midday Report.