Monthly Archives: October 2013

Another “5 Star” Review for Light and Transient Causes, by Mel Hawkins

Posted on by

This “5 Star” review was posted on Amazon.com on 10/5/13

This is a superb book. Set in the near future in the USA, or maybe the Disunited States would be more apt, the author shows just how easy it is to turn a civilized tolerant nation into a fascist dictatorship in no time at all. Just two presidencies after Obama, the authorities are rounding up ethnic minorities, and shipping them off to who knows where. Well observed, and not at all far fetched, it’s only too easy to imagine this happening. The central characters are very well written and the dialogue flows smoothly. You actually want to know what happens next. Mel Hawkins has done a splendid job in juggling all the twists, turns and complications of this very believable novel. I think that this is his first work of fiction (Amazon don’t have any others) but what a start! Books like this don’t come along very often so if you’ve read this far in the reviews, you can stop now and just buy it. You won’t be disappointed.

Obamacare aka the Affordable Care Act Mis-Named!

Posted on by

The Affordable Care Act, affectionately or not so affectionately called Obamacare has been misnamed. It should have been called the Affordable Health Insurance Act because it addresses the issues of healthcare, only indirectly.

What Obamacare does is allow people to purchase health insurance coverage for themselves and their families. “Allow” is not the right word, however, as the law is set up with penalties for families who do not enroll in a health insurance plan within a designated time frame.

The types of health insurance coverage that will be available to people will vary as each individual or family will be shopping for coverage that seems to best fit their unique requirements.

The ACA also asks health insurance providers to incur more risk by eliminating provisions like pre-existing conditions. Apparently, it is a trade off for being assured of getting more business.

We admire the sentiment of the act, which was intended to reduce the number of Americans who are uninsured and, therefor, not able to get the medical or hospital care that they need.The logic is somewhat confounding, however.

Rather than make health care available to all Americans as a right of citizenship, as so many other nations have done, it was decided to require everyone to have health insurance. How they arrived at the next logical conclusion, which was to penalize people who are unwilling or who think themselves unable to pay for the now more readily available coverage, is somewhat of a mystery.

The problem with Obamacare is that it will commit our nation to a future in which we are tied to the health insurance industry. Almost certainly, the people of other developed nations must be shaking their heads in bewilderment at those crazy Americans. I’m sure they must be asking themselves why we think it a good idea to do business with a middle man who only adds cost and complexity to the process of delivering needed healthcare to people.

It is hard to come up with a comparison that illustrates the absurdity of the concept but here’s an example that at least comes close.

Earlier I used the example of fire protection for citizens and asked the reader to imagine a scenario where the fire department pulls up to your burning home and asks to see your fire insurance card before they will turn on their hoses.

In most communities in the U.S., people have determined that everyone deserves fire protection and that the community will pay for that protection with tax dollars.

I have heard of a few communities where citizens are asked to pay a direct fee for fire protection. Now imagine that, in these latter communities, a problem has developed because not everyone is willing to or can afford to pay the fee for their fire protection. This theoretical community could decide to solve the problem the way most American communities have, by paying for fire protection with local tax dollars even if this initially requires an increase in property tax rates, the adoption of some type of local option income tax, or even some type of earmarked sales tax. Whatever the method of taxation, these communities have made fire protection a right of citizenship.

Now, lets consider that there is another community that still requires individual property owners to pay a separate fee for fire protection and that this community is also concerned that not everyone seems willing to pay for fire protection. The leaders of this community are not willing, however, to make fire protection a right of citizenship in their community.

Instead, someone comes up with the idea that requires insurance companies to provide at least a minimal level of fire protection coverage, no matter what the condition of individual properties, and also requires all citizens to purchase fire protection insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

Now, it is difficult to imagine that any community would choose such an approach because common sense would dictate that it will almost certainly cost more to pay a middle man for fire protection insurance than it would be to pay for it directly, through tax revenue. After all, the middle man has to cover their operating costs and, because we live in a free market society, make a profit.

Why is it that so many Americans seem so wrapped up in their daily activities and challenges that they are unable to step back and think about what they are doing and why?

Review of Reinventing Education, Hope, and the American Dream

Posted on by
    Reinventing Education, Hope, and the American Dream, by Mel Hawkins

A Review, by Ron Flickinger

I just finished reading the current draft of Mr. Mel Hawkins book, Reinventing Education, Hope, and the American Dream: The Challenge for 21st Century America, and have decided that it is something, particularly Part I, that should be read by a wide variety of audiences. In general, on a scale of one to ten, I would consider American Education (not Public Education as Mr. Hawkins identifies it) to be no more than a two. If totally implemented, Mr. Hawkins recommendations would move it up to at least an “Eight”. . . . his well-researched suggestions would advance our culture by light years.

Chapter 6 entitled, “The Role of Culture” was one of the best, well-written/easily read overviews of the impact of the culture wars on the preparation of our young I have ever read. Not sure that there is anything new in this, but it is so comprehensive, yet so concise that the words literally jumped off the page at me.

This is the first author I think I have ever read who finally attacked the evil of compulsory education. His rationale for moving compulsory education to the age of 14 would, I think, be justification enough to get rid of it completely and put the choice of providing state-sponsored education fully in the hands of parents when their children reach whichever arbitrary age seems most appropriate. Compulsory education is a complete contradiction and it’s about time someone attacked it. We value the things we choose, not the things fostered upon us in an arbitrary and hap-hazard manner. Hats off to this author for so clearly bringing this out.

Every school staff should read chapter 1 and 2 and use them to evaluate their programs and attitudes toward young people and learning.

The other tremendous positive is Mr. Hawkins point-blank, simple attack on the ridiculous system of placing young people in grade levels based upon age. In my entire professional life, I have never found any study which supports this. Every learning theorist I ever read gives a wide variance in brain/social/background readiness for every academic objective in every grade level. If learning were the true goal of schools, common sense would tell us to evaluate current status and build from there. This book is extremely clear on this point and the very fact that few places do this, public or private, shows the resistance to reality American educators embrace.

I share this author’s vision that all work is honorable and all humans are uniquely designed to function in ways that benefit the entire society. The student who likes to tinker with machines and is not at all interested in literature should not be held in less esteem at school than the lit student. The larger social system will value some skills more than others and will obviously pay more for those skills, but the culture has to find a way to communicate to its young that the guy that gets your plumbing right enhances the quality of your life just as much as the mayor of your city.

Educators continue to embrace the elitist notion that academic success is the end-all, do-all for financial, social, and emotional success. Any reform of American education must include respect for all God’s children, not the 20 percent who happen to intuitively respond to academic activities.

Ron Flickinger
Career & Technical Education Consultant
Fort Wayne, IN

The Acts of a Faction of Elected Officials Places Democratic Principles at Risk!

Posted on by

Forget, for a moment, how you feel about the Affordable Care Act (we should call it the Affordable Health Insurance Act but that is a discussion for another time). Forget about what you think about the national debt, government spending, entitlements for the disadvantaged, national defense, public education, or protecting the environment. All of these issues are important, to be sure, but not one is anywhere near as important as what you think about the principles of democracy in a world where powerful men and women can force a government shutdown to get what they want.
The principles of democracy are based upon the premise that our government is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It is based on the principle that the American people exercise their precious right to vote and that the majority vote prevails. And let us not get distracted, here, by the fact that because so many Americans fail to exercise the right to vote that very often it is the will of a plurality rather than of a majority that prevails. The point is that important decisions are supposed be made by American citizens, in a ballot booth, or by our elected representatives in a roll call vote in their respective houses of Congress.
The underlying premise of the Constitution of the United States, which may be the most important political document written in the history of mankind, was to prevent the powerful from usurping the will of the people just because they have the power to do so. The Constitution was meant to protect the American people from despotism under any guise, even in the disguise of elected officials who strive to exert their will when they disagree with a decision that was lawfully and constitutionally determined. Make no mistake; forcing a government shutdown is an act of despotism.
The acts of a single faction of one of our two main political parties in shutting down the federal government, leaving millions of American citizens injured in their wake, is no more appropriate than it would be if our military decided that they do not like how the elected government went about its business. It is just as wrong as it would be if our generals and admirals would use the incredible power of Armed Services of the United States to coerce our elected representatives into giving them the decision that they want.
The issue, today, is not how we feel about the budget, the ACA, or the federal deficit; it is about how we feel about our elected representatives forcing a government shutdown with total disregard for democratic principles.
Imagine a future in which the tactics displayed, today, by a political minority became the accepted way of conducting the business of the people. How long will our right to vote matter in a world in which powerful men and women can disregard the voice of the people and use coercion to get what they want?