Time to Gear Up for November

This blogsite has been waiting for us to get serious enough about November to begin reaching out with a clarion call for everyone who cares about America to get involved, at every level, in reclaiming our country.

The site is open to all who want to use it. Just click on the comment button and share your ideas and opinions.

John

John E Cleek, Sales Agent

Crown Realty - Louisburg

johncleek@crownrealty.com

http://www.louisburgks.net

913-709-4423

Finding the RIGHT REALTOR . . . Priceless!

What Kansas needs from Commissioner Corkins

Commissioner Corkins, I want to thank you for sharing with us your vision for the future of public education in Kansas. I doubt that it comes as a surprise that my Vision for the future of public education in Kansas is slightly different from the one you have described. My hope is that by sharing our contrasting visions we will find common ground on which to stand and work together to make the public schools in Kansas second to none!

But first, I want to share a perception that explains in part why it is hard for some of us who have devoted our lives to the education of Kansas children to trust anyone who claims to be supportive of the public schools while promoting policies that undermine the credibility and quality of public education.

It was an article of faith among our nation’s founding fathers that a republic could only survive if its citizens were educated. In the oft quoted words of Jefferson, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”  “The free common school system,” Adlai Stevenson once said, is “the most American thing about America.”

 Yet some Americans today seem to think that we have lost our way in education. They regale one another with horror stories about how terrible conditions are in our schools today and long for the “good old days,” when they imagine things were better.   

I learned a long time ago that ‘things aren’t like they used to be’ and probably never were!

Two groups of critics have been the most vocal in recent times. On the one hand, we have those who simply do not agree with the democratic ideal of universal free public education. These critics believe the only way to have quality education is to separate those they consider most deserving of a high quality education and provide them with a rigorous education worthy of their high potential.

So long as those who desire a private education for their children are willing to support high quality public education, their choice to send their children, at their own expense, to private schools should be respected by everyone. But statements such as the one made by the president of the Sutherland Institute, present a serious and unacceptable threat to the Common School. He urged creation of “a state education system that would effectively turn public schools into a place of last resort for poor children.”

A far cry from the eloquent and moving statement of John Dewey, "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other idea for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy."

 “In a society as socially diverse as the United States, controversies about purposes and practices in public schooling are hardly surprising.”[1] Nor is it surprising that religious conservatives who have been frustrated in their efforts to impose their extreme religious views and values on the public schools have added their voices to the attacks on the public school.

An alarming statement of this point of view came from the reverend Jerry Falwell, who said, “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.” Joseph Bast, stated it in even more threatening terms, “Soon, most ‘government schools’ will be converted into private schools,” he said, “or simply close their doors.”[2]

Assertions by advocates of school choice that the resulting competition will lead to improvements in the quality of public education have a very hollow ring; especially when the competing schools will not be playing by the same rules; will not have the oversight of a locally elected board or be subject to the same standards as public schools.

If the absence of standards and public accountability is a formula for improving educational performance, the obvious policy solution is to make compliance with legislative and State Board of Education standards voluntary for all public schools.

A survey of private schools in large inner cities conducted by the U.S. Department of Education is worthy of special note. This survey found that between 70 and 85 percent of private schools would “definitely or probably” not be willing to participate in a voucher program if they were required  to accept “students with special needs such as learning disabilities,  limited English proficiency  or low achievement.” Any doubt as to which children would remain for the public schools to educate?

The truth is, as confirmed by a just-published analysis of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), “… after accounting for the fact that private schools serve more advantaged populations, public schools perform remarkably well, often outscoring private and charter schools.” The report goes on, “Overall, the study demonstrates that demographic differences between students in public and private schools more than account for the relatively high raw scores of private schools.”[3]

Charlotte Coffelt stated it very clearly, “It is important to remember what is at stake. Private religious schools play by different rules than public schools. Public schools must by law educate all comers. Private schools may expel or refuse to admit students who do not believe certain religious facts. Some elevate dogma over education, such as fundamentalist academics that teach “creation science” instead of evolution. Parents have the right to send their children to these schools, but they do not have the right to demand that taxpayers foot the bill.”[4]

Is it not reasonable to assume that private means private and public means public? That private means private funding and private control; and public means public funding and public control?

Over the past forty years I have traveled to all 50 states and to over fifty countries around the world. In every place I have been I have observed the innocence, the beauty, and the optimism of children – red and yellow, black, and white –  rich and poor, urban and rural,  Christian and Muslim,  Hindu and Buddhist – and it is the vision of their future that motivates us to do what we do every day to make sure that to the limit of our ability and energy, the educational birthright of every Kansas child is protected!

I like the way one person described a school. A building with four walls and a roof on top And the future inside!

Every parent who has ever scheduled a conference with a principal to request re-assignment of a child to the classroom of a different teacher knows what it takes to produce quality education: QUALITY TEACHERS!

The children of Kansas (nearly a half million of them in our public schools today)[5] cannot wait for gimmicks and shell-games to fail before we deliver on our promise of a high quality education. They know, and we know, that “a dream deferred is a dream denied!”[6] The research is irrefutable! If we want to close the achievement gap between rich and poor children, between urban and rural children, between children of color and white children, ANYWHERE, including Kansas – we know what to do; we know what we must do; and we know this without more costly studies of inputs and outputs whether they be conducted by Augenblich and Meyers or by our own post audit staff.

Over 10 years ago, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future stated it in unequivocal terms. They said there is no way to create good schools without good teachers! They set forth a bold and audacious goal: that by 2006 every student in America should have access to competent, qualified teaching  in schools organized for success. That is their educational birthright and we have denied them access to it! You can give every child in Kansas a voucher to attend the school of their choice but that will do nothing to help us deliver on our constitutional obligation to our children! And it will do nothing to increase the pool of highly qualified teachers!

And for that matter, neither will the supply of highly qualified teachers be increased by waiving certification standards. As a former School of Education Dean I can tell you that content knowledge is critical for all teachers, but so is pedagogy. And this is especially true in most of the hard to fill positions such as, Special education and TESL.

I have a degree in Mathematics, in fact I earned high honors in mathematics, and I have a Ph.D. in Education, but I am not qualified to teach Middle School or High School Mathematics! And it would take far more than a course in summer school to prepare me to be a good teacher.

Good teachers must know WHAT to teach, BUT they must also know HOW to teach! I’m all for giving superintendents and principals more responsibility for selecting teachers but not at the expense of quality education. Success in any aspect of reform–– depends on highly skilled teachers working in supportive schools that engender collaboration with families and communities.”

“Concerns about ‘at-risk’’ children–– those who drop out, tune out, and fall behind–– cannot be addressed without teachers who know how to teach students who come to school with different learning needs, home situations, and beliefs about what education can mean for them. There is no silver bullet in education. When all is said and done, if students are to be well taught, it will be done by knowledgeable and well-supported teachers.”[7]

My Vision for the children of Kansas is one where our public schools have the resources to provide every child with a high quality education; where parents can be confident that regardless of which public school in Kansas their children attend they will receive a world class education; where the choices that high school students make are choices as to which courses they will take in their school’s comprehensive curriculum to prepare them for work or college based on their individual needs, abilities,  and aspirations; where the graduates of all of our high schools will have no doubt that they can choose which college to attend without worrying that their education has not prepared them  to meet the entrance requirements of the schools of their choice; where employers will have reason to praise our schools for the excellent work ethic and skills of Kansas high school graduates; and where school boards are able to offer salaries that allow us to retain highly qualified teachers and attract a pool of highly qualified candidates when we have positions to fill.

Some of the problems we face are more concentrated in our rural schools while others are more evident in our urban schools. This has at times made it difficult for us to agree on the solutions to our problems, yet we all know that unless the solutions we develop benefit all children in our state, they are not worthy of any of our support.

The problems we face today did not arise in the recent past. The roots run deep and wide.

The problems we face in our rural schools are inextricably connected to policies that encourage corporate farming at the expense of the family farm; they are tied to the decline of our rural population that began in the 30’s and continues even today.

The problems we face in our urban schools are embedded in the history of our nation that began half slave and half free. They had their beginning in a now abandoned dictum of “separate but equal” schools.

In a time when the majority of the 1400 plus schools in Kansas are facing declining enrollment, the idea of creating more schools, whether they are called charter public schools or private/parochial schools, simply makes no sense at all.

At a time when all public schools are being challenged to raise the level of student performance, promoting vouchers, and unregulated private or charter schools, is clearly detrimental to the best interests of the children of Kansas.

What we need from you, Commissioner Corkins is leadership in finding creative solutions to the challenges that our rural schools face in their efforts to provide a critical mass of highly qualified teachers in the face of declining enrollments, capable of offering the diverse curriculum  demanded by the world in which our children will live and work.

What we need is leadership In collaboration with Kan-ed to support a statewide virtual classroom for real-time online instruction in areas where the number of highly qualified teachers is inadequate to go around.

What we need is leadership in persuading the legislature to adequately fund our schools to enable local school districts to keep class sizes at a level that enables teachers to provide the individualized instruction so essential if they are to respond to students who come from diverse backgrounds.

What we need is leadership that will empower the 2,100 plus members of local boards of education to manage the educational programs in their districts to achieve clearly defined educational outcomes.

What we need is not school choice and competition but collaboration and cooperation in making good on our children’s educational birthright instead of a phony Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, 65% solutions, or school vouchers.

We did not create the problems we face today. But it is our destiny and our challenge to confront the issue of improving the quality of the schools of our state as a top priority.

Reform does not come from destroying the genius of America’s common schools. True reform will come from those who care enough about our public schools to pay whatever price it takes to ensure that the children of Kansas continue to have access to the best education available anywhere in the world even it that requires an increase in taxes!

Visit any school in Kansas and look into the faces of the children. Can you tell which one will be the next Nobel prize winner? The next Rhodes Scholar? Which ones will be the teachers for the next generation? Which one will find the cure for cancer or AIDS? Which one will become governor of Kansas or president of the United States? It is good that we cannot pick the winners and losers by looking into the faces of children lest we be tempted to spend our time working with the future leaders and neglect the others. Our challenge is not to pick the leaders and cultivate them. Our moral imperative is to see that every child is granted their birthright to competent and caring teachers in schools organized for success!

The inspiring words of Thomas Wolf are all the motivation we need to continue,

So then, to every child their chance!

To every child, regardless of their birth,

Their shining, golden opportunity

To every child the right to love, to live, to work, to be themselves,

And to become whatever their vision, their hopes and their dreams combine to make them!

This is the Promise of America![8]

[1] School, p. 2

[2] Joseph Bast, “2002: The Year of School Vouchers,” The Monthly Heartlander, February 2002, accessed at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10708

[3] Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics Data, January 2006.

[4] Charlotte Coffelt, Robbing Peter, published by the United Methodist Church, 2004,  p. 15

[5] 65,000 with an IEP; over 22,000 ELL; 10,880 receiving migrant services; and over 175,000 on free or reduced lunch programs.

[6] Langston Hughes

[7] What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York: September 1996, pp 9 – 10

[8] Adapted from Thomas Wolfe

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006

Put a group of people together at a party and observe how they behave.
Differently than when they are alone? Differently than when they are
with
family? What if they're in a stadium instead of at a party? What if
they're
all men?

The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social
environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are
people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly
politically
polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what
drives
these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs.
anti-Iraq
war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have
begun
to study political behavior using such specialized tools as
sophisticated
psychological tests and brain scans.

"In my own family, for example, there are stark differences, not just of
opinion but very profound differences in how we view the world," said
Brenda
Major, a psychologist at the University of California at Santa
Barbara and
the president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
which
had a conference last week that showcased several provocative
psychological
studies about the nature of political belief.

The new interest has yielded some results that will themselves provoke
partisan reactions: Studies presented at the conference, for example,
produced evidence that emotions and implicit assumptions often
influence why
people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans
stubbornly
discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs.

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified
Democratic and
Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate
negative
information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot
inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.

When presented with negative information about the candidates they
liked,
partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When
the
unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans
showed
that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that
"reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist
observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information
had
curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward
themselves for
wrong-headed behavior.

Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs,
Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political
affiliation
by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of
psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle
stereotypes
people hold about various groups.

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other
conservatives
had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than
liberals
did.

"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are
living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said
University of
Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race
analysis. "We
are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in
our own
lives."

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he
disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to
offer a
detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he
could
not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers
themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that
Nosek
and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign
contributions to
Democrats.

"There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap
determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-
world
application seems somewhat murky," Jones said.

Nosek said that though the risk of bias among researchers was "a
reasonable
question," the study provided empirical results that could -- and
would --
be tested by other groups: "All we did was compare questions that people
could answer any way they wanted," Nosek said, as he explained why he
felt
personal views could not have influenced the outcome. "We had no direct
contact with participants."

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson
culled
self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who
volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial
bias that
measures the speed of people's associations between black or white
faces and
positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations
between
explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435
congressional
districts.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals
and
conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with
positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But
districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically
produced more
votes for Bush.

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the
prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that
George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor
greater anti-black prejudice."

Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of
Michigan in
Ann Arbor, said the results matched his own findings in a study he
conducted
ahead of the 2000 presidential election: Volunteers shown visual
images of
blacks in contexts that implied they were getting welfare benefits
were far
more receptive to Republican political ads decrying government waste
than
volunteers shown ads with the same message but without images of black
people.

Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford
University,
who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how
significant the correlation is between racial bias and political
affiliation.

For example, he said, the study could not tell whether racial bias was a
better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences
on gun
control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in
subsequent
studies -- Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to
take the
psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the
basic correlation was not in doubt.

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in
denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice
predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice
against
blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge
volume of research."

It's the Personality, Stupid by Frank R. Morris

It’s The Personality Organization, Stupid!
          by
           Frank R. Morris

 

 Forgive the title. It’s an attention-grabber like James Carwell’s famous line from the 1992 Presidential race - “It’s the economy, stupid”. George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant provides hope that the populace is now ready to understand personality organization.  Lakoff systematically shows that Republican Conservatives are oriented around a “Strict Father” syndrome while liberal Democrats are centered around a “Nurturing Parent” syndrome.

 

 Psychotherapists have known for decades - perhaps even a century - of this now popular view of the difference between conservatives and progressives. Why “a century”?  Because a hundred years ago Sigmund Freud wrote a book on the Superego, Ego and Id.  Don’t get put-off by those phrases. He simply meant that there is one part of the mind that monitors and censors behavior in a critical manner (the Superego or Conscience). It thrives on discipline studded with should’s, ought’s and must’s.  The Ego simply means the centered reasonable self that is objective and delivers measured thinking. According to Freud, the Id represents remnants from childhood where a person acts out of old repressed material. Three circles stacked one on the other provide a visual picture. Superego is on top, the Ego is the center and  Id is the lower circle.

 

 Heavy drinking provides an excellent empirical illustration of the three story structure. Booze works from the top down. One or two martinis lifts many inhibitions at the top story, the Superego. Three martinis impair the Ego so driving becomes inadvisable. Four martinis and the drinker begins to reveal Id material and becomes either sad, angry, or happy like a child.  The next morning the Superego returns and the person with the headache cusses himself for being so idiotic.

 

 In the sixties, psychiatrist Eric Berne elaborated Freud’s scheme. He used five circles: two on top, one in the center, and two on the bottom. The top two were called “Critical Parent” and “Nurturing Parent”, the middle one “The Adult”, and the bottom two were labeled “Adapted Child” and “Natural Child”.  Berne’s scheme spawned great ferment in therapy. It became clear that the task of therapy was to lessen the size of the Critical Parent and the Adapted Child portions, while increasing the size of the Nurturing Parent, the Adult, and the Natural Child. (AC refers to the adaptations leftover from childhood).

 

         Contamination

 

 Additionally,  Berne came up with a wonderful diagram of how the Adult can be dismally influenced by either the Parent or the Child.  In each instance he used two circles. The top circle, or Parent, overlapped the middle circle or Adult. He said that this was when the prejudices of the Parent mess up (or contaminate) the thinking of the Adult. Likewise, he had the lower Child circle overlap the Adult circle and explained that this is when the wishes or problems of the Child space mess up (or contaminate) a person’s reasoned center.  This is important when engaging a Conservative or Progressive in conversation.   Further, this explains in dramatic form why it is so difficult to get clean information into heavily partisan persuasions.

 

         Choice Points

 

 Berne’s scheme adds to Lakoff’s linguistic analysis. The important idea is to realize that there is a Choice Point when a crisis  arises that distinguishes conservatives from progressives. The road splits when there is a moment of scare for the conservatives. Their scare prompts either a Critical Parent or Adapted obedient Child response.  Progressives tend to have an excited response at the Choice Point and can become overly  idealistic.

 

 An illustration is when social programs arise in discussion. Conservatives emphasize hard work, discipline, personal responsibility, and lean aid to the poor who,  supposedly, will motivate them to greater effort. Progressives emphasize providing equal opportunity in terms of better schools, food for the poor, and basic health coverage.  At the extreme ends, conservatives become super self righteous while progressives become enablers. Another illustration can be seen in prison treatment. Conservatives want harsh  interments that will, supposedly, install discipline in the personality. Progressives stress education for prisoners and help after incarceration.

 

 Now a seeming tangent that highlights personality organization. Let’s consider religious conversion.  Imagine a kid named George who spends his late adolescence and early adulthood as a drunk, roustabout and ne’er-do-well.  He grew up with a powerful father who was seldom around and a dominating mother who is like a Prison Matron. She was tough on her children. George rebelled. He did whatever the hell he wanted. At age forty, due to insistence from his wife, George found religion and did a complete about face. He ascribed his change to God. Psychologically speaking, he had found his mother’s programming in his unconscious mind.  How do therapists know this? Because “conversion” occurs in areas outside religion. A person may switch from being Id (or Child) driven to the Adult or Parent.  Common parlance understands this conversion phenomenon  when comments are made about there being nothing worse than a reformed drunk, overeater or  smoker.

 

 Consider Foreign Policy.  Conservatives approach foreign policy in a disciplining, strict father manner. Words they use are “muscular”, “tough” and “decisive” They lead with military power and think diplomacy is often weak. This alienates a good portion of world leaders who are unwilling to adapt and please the USA.. It is true that progressives can be too nurturing.  The smart Foreign Policy principle is to never become predictable because that fosters defeat. Decisions are best made out of a cold Adult space; not Critical Parent or Nurturing Parent.

 

 Another example. Child rearing focusing on either of the extremes leads to problems. The Critical Parent conservative approach either leads to rebels or pleasing adapted kids who remain obedient and do not achieve separate thinking identity. The Nurturing Parent approach can be so permissive and forgiving that children can be so lax that they take drugs and live irresponsible lives. The idea for parents is to use whatever parental response that aids children to have separate identities that provide personal fulfillment.

 

 One of the grand characteristics of the Critical Parent approach is the reliance upon rhetoric. Like automatons, they seek formulas supplied by religionists, propagandists, political spinners and business leaders. To onfrontations by others,  lock-step folks repeat slogans learned on the radio from Dobson or Limbaugh, on television from Hannity or O’Reilly, or on the Internet from Drudge. In other words, true believers do not think: they recite. Many of this persuasion believe that showing shaming, sarcasm, and disgust are actual logical thinking. They are unaware of their dismissive tone and believe themselves reasonable.

 

         Why Won’t Conservatives Stick to Reason?

 

 Structurally speaking (ie.  Think three story building) they go to the Parent place with absolute unquestioned belief structures. They cannot understand why others do not grasp their rigid points. Whether it is Religion (fundamentalist interpretations), Economics (Fair Trade absolutism), Education (testing toughness), or other issues, they speak down  in a Father Knows Best style. You and I may know that the Judeo-Christian Tradition has marginalized women; Conservatives deny it. You and I may know that reading the Bible, like any document, is subject to the three immutable laws of selection, emphasis, and interpretation: they deny it. You and I may know that the Constitution is a human document that needs elaboration; they spout nonsense about strict constructionism. You and I may know that Free Trade is not absolute; they hide behind  rhetoric.

 

 Further, they refuse to examine their premises. It is logically maddening. In fact, nothing is more pathetic than their attempts at writing non-fiction. The reader is soon aware that the conservative writer has a decay of spirit, a loss of soul, and inability to authentically  feel. Why? Because disgust and disdain fill the text.  Splashing acerbic verbal acid on a liberal is considered reasonable. Writers such as Coulter and Hannity actually think that haughty sarcasm is logical thinking, when, in reality, it only shows their lack of emotional soundness.

 

 BUT, there is a major reason why conservatives cannot pursue arguments.. If, say, a fundamentalist were to realize  his house of cards rhetoric is false, he fears mental annihilation. Internally, he believes that if  his system of meaning is phony (ex. based on the flat earth view), he would be perched perilously close to the edge of the abyss. Fear of truth holds for any close-minded mental system, including Supply-Side economics. Simply speaking, unless the hide-bound conservatives hold to their rigid premises, they fear psychosis. This is why honesty with data cannot be allowed. This is enormously sad because good people are so delusioned.

 

          Applications
      
 1. One illustration is how to solve a matter of human nature. Each person has a remnant from our animal past where, given the right (or horrible) conditions, humans act like barbarians.  Critical Parent Republicans have solved this through discipline, obedience, a continual barrage of shoulds-oughts-musts-you gotta’s, a reliance upon scared sarcasm at emergences of crises, and a quick appeal to a tightened, denial sense in terms of their bodies. Liberal-progressives have a different approach to handling the barbarian within. The idea is education, art, culture, reason, and continued intellectual dialog.

 

 2. Understanding the difference in personality organization explains why right-wingers can be so verbally cocksure.  Democrats, in the light of such absolutism, seem disorganized. An example is Gingrich when he talks about history. He is definitely certain that his selections, emphases, and interpretations are absolutely true - no question. A liberal would be more hesitant and realize the complexities of historical interpretation.

 

 3. The Parent personality organization emphasizes loyalty as a primary virtue which leads to cronyism. This can be seen in Bill Bennett’s Book of Virtues  and in the GWB White House. This means that truth is subservient to obedience. Whistle-blowers must be prosecuted.

 

 4. When the variation in terms of personality organization is understood, it becomes clear why soldiers and evangelicals usually vote Republican. They are brainwashed to be obedient to absolute chains of command. Further, soldiers must demonize the enemy in order to kill them. Evangelicals believe that those who disagree with them theologically will be burn in hell for trillions upon trillions of years (without water!).

 

 5. It also becomes clear why business leaders who have gone through the system in order to be promoted also have the Parent dominated personality. To be promoted it is best to not question actions of bosses.

     How to Get Through

 

 As can be imagined, psychotherapists face the problem of communicating to those with closed minds everyday. While it is true that the Parent driven are frequently not in therapy because their system has ALL the answers,  the looming threat of a divorce often brings them to the couch. So, what works? Let me assure you that arguments are in vain.

 

 Therapy, to an amazing degree, operates on questions. That’s right: questions. The next step is to chisel the questions in such a way that dents may be made in the armored.

 

 +“So you are saying that your primary life energy is spent in business and that your family should be willing to live in the background until you accrue major capital ... say in thirty years or so ... is that right?”  (Humor: one dairy owner actually told his 30 year old wife that they would have fun when he retired at age 65!)
 +“Are you aware that you are saying that your religious group of maybe 75,000 people are absolutely right and that the rest of the five billion people on earth will go to hell?”
 +“Are you saying that Free Trade is absolute in all dimensions and that no other considerations are to be taken into consideration?”
 +“Do you have any idea that the life you are describing in incredibly boring”?

 

 Well, you get the idea. You are shooting for a reductio ad absurdum. The trick is to phrase it Adultly with no judgment. Also, the idea is to slam the person right up against his/her premises so, maybe, the light of day can pierce into the dark room.

 

 Does that sound easy? Well, with right wing religionists your chances are very small. With lost businessmen, your chances rise. With conservatives who are aghast at the fiscal mismanagement of the administration, hope improves. And with friends, your chances go even higher. But you have to allow questions to be like seeds in the mind. Then let Nature take over.

 

 

Round Four of 'Thrilla' in America by Frank R. Morris

            Round Four of ‘Thrilla’ in America
             

by  Frank   R.   Morris

 

 Prepare! The 2006 onslaught of the Karl Rove Hate and Fear Show is about to begin.  This media circus has worked for two Presidential elections and one Congressional election. The idea is to scare the living Beelzebub out of Americans that “coming in your neighborhood soon are the evil terrorists who will blast you, drug you, chemically destroy your family, and biologically reduce you to blobs of protoplasm”   Scouts honor!  Card one: Security. 

 

 It does not matter where you live. The Scourge is coming. The Black Death. The Big Bad Wolf.  Mongols and Vikings have formed an alliance. There will be a mushroom cloud in your future - and here’s the catch - unless you vote for Republicans.  It’s a matter of national security, children! Only testosterone-driven Neo-Cons can make this country safe. The weenie Democrats are asleep at the switch and do not know that the enemy is at the gates.

 

 I can sniff the ads emanating from the pig yard. “Vote Republican! Why? Because the Wimp faction - those sissy girly-men - don’t have a pint of fight among the lot of them.  Where is their chest hair? Where were they when we were attacking Iraq? They don’t have guts. They want to negotiate and use diplomacy and follow silly surrender games with the U.N   Not us Republicans. Each white man of us knows might is right, power should be used in a Shock and Awe fashion, and that the only thing terrorists understand is what comes out of the barrel of a gun! And, as for guns, we think everyone in America should be wearing one on her or his hip. That’s the solution to everything. No terrorist will want to come to our country once we are armed with 50 caliber sniper rifles in every home.  Security is the issue! Raise the color on the Terrorist bar code.  (Anything to win, anything to scare Americans to vote R, anything to sway public opinion will be used in extremis).

 

 Pardon me while I barf.

 

 Card Two. War President. George Bush is the War President. He has been the War President since 9/11. The War President needs a sympathetic Congress. If Dems were to win, they might question the Iraq War instigated by the War President. That would be bad, bad, bad. Why? Because democracies must flourish in the Mideast and the Iraq War initiated by the War President cannot be challenged by unpatriotic Senators or Congressmen who do not agree with everything said by the War President. (There is no need to instigate a reality check and point out that terrorists have multiplied since Bush’s war,  Hamas won the Palestinian democratic election or that, in Iraq’s December elections, a Shia theocracy won out in Southern Iraq thereby cancelling rights for women and the Kurds in the North want their own country. Why is reality ignored? Because we have a War President who has the bully pulpit with the media).

 

 Remember, kiddies, that the Iraq War is really about the War on Terrorism. Only an extreme cynic would think that it had anything to do with oozing oil. If you oppose the War President you are for the terrorists. No doubt about it. Bush is the War President and he can spy on American citizens, jail American citizens as enemy combatants without legal options, and torture people if he wants to because he is “protecting the American People. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. Hail to the Chief.

 

 Card Three. God.  The word “God” has been used to justify a thousand wars including the present one. If you haven’t noticed, Pat R., Jerry F., and James Dobson are frequently on mainline media trumping war and the War President. Ugly liberal Christians, Muslims, and Jews are not invited to speak on television. The Pat, Jerry and James show contain ultimate truth so why should anyone else be allowed an opinion?  If you do, you are in danger of hellfire. Who wants to spend the next several trillion years burning without even a glass of water handy? 

 

 In days gone by there was a song for children in churches: “Jesus wants you for a sunbeam to shine throughout the land”. Now the song is apparently changed to “God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and all the angels in heaven want you to vote Republican. Otherwise, you are an immoral, hateful, nasty, trash-talking Democrat”.  So, if you want to join the moral majority, love your family, and get ice cream on Sundays, you must-have to-ought vote R. Watch out and don’t shout because Santa Claus is coming to town.

 

 God - the Ultimate Weapon.  St. Rove wants this card waved to high heaven.

 

 Card Four: Taxes. In old Chicago days, the way to get votes was to give a beer to a drunk, buy a bottle of Ripple for a wino, or purchase a burger for someone in welfare housing. “Vote early and often” was the motto. Now, the Republican pitch is to cut taxes. “It’s not the government’s money, it’s the people’s money” whines Governor Owens of Colorado.  Lecherous old democrats “tax and spend”.  If you believe in mindless bureaucracies, big government, and giving your hard earned money to D.C. politicians, you are a blood-greedy Democrat.. 

 

 Less is more. Subtraction is multiplication. We can wage war and cut taxes. The deficit is nothing. We can afford guns and butter and cut taxes. Do you believe in college aid, building infrastructure, or, Godlets forbid, helping people or solid helping yourself? Vote Republican.

 

 For any idle egg head professor who thinks cold reason can influence American voting by pointing out that government and special interest hand-outs  have grown recently, don’t waste your breath. Propaganda is all. Truth has nothing to do with perception. As long as the media is complicit,  Democrats fail in attacking back, and  the War President has the bully pulpit,  reality is dead. The tax con is just as good as the Chicago Machine’s buying of a wino, drunk, or bum.
                                                         *****************

 

 Well, there you have it: Karl Rove’s winning formula in a nutshell.

 

 Will the American People actually awaken and discover there are no nuts under any of the four shells in the political shell game?  Or will they keep nuts in office?