Author: Betsy L Angert

I am a being that believes . . . "thinking is the best way to travel!"

Hail Hayden. Long Live The Chief Of Lies. ©


Yesterday morning, during the Bush Bend-The-Truth radio address, our Commander in Chief sang the praises of General Michael V. Hayden.  Mr. Hayden is the Emperor’s choice for Director of Central Intelligence. Michael Hayden is known to have constructed and implemented the nation’s now infamous surveillance program.  

This plan or is it this man, is responsible for gathering information on tens of millions of us.  Thanks to General Hayden, trillions of telephone numbers have been collected.  These digit combinations belong to innocent Americans.  They are ours; yet, they are being held as potential weapons against us.  While we are told, this library is only a compilation of digits and nothing more, intellectually we know, that in this techno-savvy society, listening to these calls is possible.  

Initially, claims were made that this sweep would only affect those suspected of terrorism, people with links to al Queda.  Progressively we learned, Bush and his bandwagon think we are all associated with insurgents.  None of us can be trusted.  However, we are commanded to have blind-faith in those that have none in us.
Repeatedly and regularly, this administration has released erroneous details as they pertain to this “trolling.”  They ask us to understand as the particulars unfold.  They tell us the illegal is legal.  They swear their mission is to protect and defend the people of this nation.  They affirm that they have.  As proof they offer, America has not been attacked.  However, the logic of this escapes me.  

Are Bush and the boys equipped to predict.  They were not in the past and judging from the present, as I witness the war in Iraq, or watch Osama go free, I see no evidence that their crystal ball has cleared.  Still, Bush babbles on, “I want Congress to confirm this nomination.”  He asks the American people for their support.

The principle he applies to terrorism is applicable to Hayden as well.  Bush wants us to believe what he says of the General, even if evidence tells us otherwise.  As we learn more of this man, more of his doings [surveillance] and dealings [possibly paying off the telephone companies], we are expected to believe, to proceed with blind faith.  We are expected to follow our leader.  

Trust the untrustworthy, and surprisingly, I do.  I trust that Baby Bush is correct; the General knows how to spy, spin, and spew.  He has done it with the best of them and he will do it to the rest of us.  Actually, that is why I do not want this man as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I do not feel safe or secure knowing that at the National Press Club in January 2006, General Michael Hayden, when asked of this surveillance initiative, he stated humbly,  “I’ve taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and still he violated the same.  

I am not comforted when a person defends the Bush Constitution, which differs from the original text written for the United Sates of America.  Hayden, with his words and allegiance fortified what the Bush administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  He withheld the fact that this plan has been in force for the last four years, or that this scheme involved more than radical insurgents.  General Hayden did not reveal that this system was scrutinizing the innocent, average Americans.

Hayden proudly continued, “I would never violate that Constitution, nor would I abuse the rights of the American people.”  “Never?”  Is that a synonym for “always?”  General Hayden I think lies, just as his president does.  He twists and turns the truth and that frightens me.  The language of our leader is a lexicon of convolution.  Judging from what we know today, five months after the Hayden speech, it is clear that Michael Hayden is also a master of manipulation.

Saturday, May 13, 2006, Bush proclaimed this manipulator is “supremely qualified” and in the kingdom of Bush, he is.  Hayden was and is “central” in gathering “intelligence.”  However, sadly, in this country, the meaning of the word “central” converts to radical and reactionary.  Intelligence signifies idiocy and inanity.  Typically, in the world of Bush, these closely correlate to immoral, unethical, and corrupt.

The General is all of these.  While he is considered amiable, jovial, personable, and pleasant, just as his Commandant is, he is sly.  He shares this quality with our likable lackey.  According to King George II . . .

In Mike Hayden, the men and women of the CIA will have a strong leader who will support them as they work to disrupt terrorist attacks, penetrate closed societies, and gain information that is vital to protecting our Nation.

General Hayden is supremely qualified to lead the CIA.  For the last year, he’s been our Nation’s first Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and has played a critical role in our efforts to reform America’s intelligence capabilities to meet the threats of a new century.  He has more than 20 years of experience in the intelligence field.

[Please remember what the world “intelligence means in the Bush universe.]

He served for six years as Director of the National Security Agency and has a track record of success in leading and transforming that large intelligence agency.  He also has held senior positions at the Pentagon and the National Security Council, and he served behind the Iron Curtain in our embassy in Bulgaria during the Cold War.

Mike knows our intelligence community from the ground up.

[The General works underground, in the subversive, secretive, cagey quarters of the Bush/Cheney Kingdom.]  

He’s been both a producer and a consumer of intelligence and has overseen both human and technical intelligence activities, as well as the all-source analysis derived from those activities.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mike last year for his current post, and this week members of both parties have praised his nomination.

[That is, until they realized the breath and scope of the surveillance program he constructed.]

I urge the Senate to confirm him promptly as the next Director of the CIA.

During General Hayden’s tenure at the NSA, he helped establish and run one of our most vital intelligence efforts in the War on Terror — the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

. . . and that, my friends, is his greatest accomplishment.

Michael V. Hayden is a man that endeavors to establish a government that dishonors its people.  His actions are deceptive and divisive.  Hayden is, as is our chief; he is a man that lies with a smile.  He makes his own rules and rates them permissible.  He upholds the principles of the Constitution; however, these are not those presented in the document.  General Michael V. Hayden is not the man I want to lead an organization with power and money.  He is not the man for my America.  Is he the man for yours?

For Your Pleasure . . .

Blog Discussions

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

NSA, Not Spying on Americans ©


By Roger Wollenberg, Getty Images
In a country claiming to be safe, none of us are.  We are not out of harm’s way; we are citizens of the United States of America, and therefore, in the world of Bush, that leaves us vulnerable.  We are subject to the whims of our monarch King George W. Bush.  He and his cronies, masquerading as The National Security Agency are monitoring some of our calls, most of our calls, or all  of these.  Every minute of every day, tens of millions of us were under surveillance.

Originally, we were told only foreign interests, those with ties to al Queda needed to worry.  their long distance correspondences were being monitored.  Then we discovered this was not true, some domestic telephone calls were being scrutinized.  Now, we learn what many of us assumed along, no one is above suspicion.  Records are being kept and we are all suspects.  According to the three largest phone companies, “tens of millions” of us are being watched.  Could millions be billions?  Might the number be in the trillions?

“USA Today” reported, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth knowingly compiled information regularly for the National Security Agency.  These corporations tracked telephone calls for the past four years.  Fortunately, Qwest refused to comply with government demands.
Apparently, the telephone companies obediently, like lap dogs, are mining data in hopes of detecting patterns.  The administration thinks these measures are necessary.  Intelligence thinks these vital; they must identify the habits of ordinary people.  No crime needs to be committed or in the planning stages.  If you are breathing, this White House thinks there is reason to doubt your credibility.  The telephone companies, by their actions, must agree.

The President and his players want us to believe that this trolling for information is not that.  The records and recordings are harmless.  Actually, officials say they are a safety net.  We are told to trust the judgment and ethics of “leaders,” or to have faith in those that think themselves above the Constitutional directives.  [Excuse me while I laugh, sadly, and then cry.]

Citizens, Congressmen, and Congresswoman were not accepting this.  Even Republicans are speaking out.  Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, and the Senate Judiciary Committee  chairman, said he plans to contact all the telephone groups involved.  He is going to ask phone company representatives to speak at a hearing.  Mr. Specter wants an explanation.  He wants to know exactly what the NSA was requesting and what they were doing with all this information.  Senator Specter has no illusions that the administration will be forthcoming; they have not been thus far.  

Mr. Specter says this revelation will influence his decision to approve nominee General Michael V. Hayden.  He thinks there is a direct correlation between that appointment and this issue.  General Hayden, while working in the National Security Agency crafted this enormous spy plan.  He directed the implementation.  Later, while publicly speaking, he justified the program and stated it was legal.  Now, to make him Director of the Central Intelligence Agency seems silly, even dangerous to Specter.  The Pennsylvania Senator has his doubts.  He has openly voiced that this appointment might not be wise.

A reaction such as this, particularly from a prominent Republican is distressing to the “powers-that be.”  The White House realized damage must be controlled immediately.  The Emperor, Wearing-No-Clothes, or his advisors decided to offer a press appearance.  This differs from a press conference for in this there is no opportunity for discussion.  This is an emergence, followed by a monologue, and then a quick exit.  

It may be that a changing of the guards prompted this move.  Mr. Bush has a new Press Secretary, Tony Snow and he may have stated a need for a swift explanation.  The conference may have been a reaction to the Presidents polling numbers; they have fallen to an all time low.  Nevertheless, tradition was broken.  The Bush White House responded, the Baby spoke.

He babbled . . .

President Bush: After September 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack.  As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.  In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying.

Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America.  I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.

First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates.  Al Qaeda is our enemy and we want to know their plans.

Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.

Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.

Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.  We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.  Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.

So far, we’ve been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.  As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy.  Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.

Abruptly, Mr. Bush turned and left.  No time was given for questions or answers.  As the President prefers, discussions are unnecessary.  All this had been stated before and I feel certain the Emperor had no desire to repeat him self.  For King George II “It is just that simple.”  There is a right way, a wrong way, and as he was often heard to state, “You are either with us or against us.”  The famous Bush decision to unilaterally attack tell us all what happens if you are in opposition to this President.

Still there are questions.  In Washington, pundits, people, and all but the President’s men and women are wondering, is this spying program truly legal.  If it is not, why has nothing been done to stop it or censure the administration for engaging in it?  

There is also the appointment of General Hayden to consider.  Hayden was expected to sail right through the hearings.  After all, he had done so before when approved for his position as Deputy Director of the National Security Agency.  However, now with this revelation, much is in doubt.

Senator Diane Feinstein, who days ago was firmly in support of the nomination and actively praised the General now states, the disclosure, “is going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of General Hayden.”  

Former Presidential candidate, John Kerry, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, chimes in, “”Enough is enough.”  While speaking at American University in Washington, Kerry declared, “It is long overdue for this Congress to end the days of roll over and rubber stamp and finally assert its power of `advise and consent’ before General Hayden becomes Director Hayden.”

The General himself declined to discuss the issue; though interestingly enough, earlier courtesy calls to members of Congress had been canceled.  The prospective Director of Central Intelligence did offer, “All I would want to say is that everything the NSA does is lawfully and very carefully done.”

It seems it was, at least carefully concealed.  All was executed so cautiously the public knew nothing of the practice until very recently.  The plan must be right and correct for the righteous employed it.  Is the covert action legal, as the administration states?  It must be, they say it is and they make the law, or profess to have the authority to do so.  

Months ago, while speaking at the National Press Club and serving as the lead defense of the “warrant-less surveillance” policy, Hayden proclaimed, “The purpose of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks.  This is targeted and focused.  This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States.”

While yesterday’s discovery does not imply eavesdropping, it does contrast with what was formerly known of the shadowy program.  Currently, we know the gathering of information is not tightly targeted; nor does it focus solely on terrorist suspects.  All Americans might be the subjects of this sweep.  Domestic and international calls are being tagged.  This investigation is broad and burgeoning.  It is, as much has been since September 11, 2001, questionable, not necessarily constitutional.

Since 911, so much of what our forebears gave us is lost.  The Patriot Act now substitutes for the Bill of Rights.  As Senator Leahy remarked, on the NewsHour, the news is now informing Congress.

“Unfortunately, the Congress has acted like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the White House and has rubber stamped everything that’s gone on.  And then we usually find out through the press, whoops, they weren’t following the law.”  

“”The president has said more times than all the presidents put together in history, through signing documents, that he will follow only parts of the law that he signs.”

Since the trauma of 9/11, the Senators and Congresspersons merely rubber-stamp the whims of the White House.  Far too many people postulate, this is best.  The numbers of voters in 2004 that affirmed as the President professes, Bush has kept America safe is odd to me.  Many claim, as the Emperor himself does, “Terrorists have not attacked America again since 2001.”  However, for me, the correlation is not clear.

What is evident is that people no longer think for themselves; they have Rush Limbaugh and the bunch to tell them what to think.  [When Limbaugh used this tagline to advertise his radio program, I did not know whether I was more shocked or appalled by the idea that people would accept and appreciate this.]

They see government as a separate entity.  The general public seems to forget, in America, government  is of, by, and for the people.  We, as individuals, groups, and communities united are the power.

Once upon a time, America prided itself on being a principled nation.  We treasured what we believed needed to be essential rights.  Our founders wrote of these.  They proclaimed we have the right to freedom, justice, and privacy.  They professed a belief in equality.  Years ago, we were acting on this conviction.  

In America, pre-nine-eleven, we thought our rights were not privileges for a few; we believed they were ubiquitous.  Since September 11, 2001, we differ.  We allow for transgressions.  We willing let the President and his followers impose laws that violate our freedoms and our rights.  For years, we have been willing to forego privacy.  Even with the newer revelations, the knowledge that no citizen is safe from the “law,” we willingly give up what we once valued.

According to an ABC News, Washington Post poll,

Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.

This is so sad to me.  We the people of the United States of America On NSA Spying: A Letter To Congressconsider ourselves intelligent; yet, we barely fund Education.  Instead, we invest in Intelligence Agencies.  These wield great authority in this country.  They are a weighty group, fifteen strong.  They have a budget of mega-billions; in dough, the National Security Agency and defense dominate.

Information gathering and implementing security measures are important in America.  Thus, we take off our shoes, open our telephone records, and spend to stop the [perceived] threats.  Yes, the USA has its priorities.  Sadly, ethics are not among them.

[Interestingly, General Michael V. Hayden might be changing.  The nominee is suggesting, possibly, judicial oversight might be wise.  Can we trust this?  Has Hayden ever had faith in the American people?  Hummm.  I am certain more and fascinating details will follow.]

Reference for your review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

General Hayden Nominated. Hope Reigns For Rumsfeld Resignation? ©


As do many, I have numerous objections to Presidential nominee, Air Force General Michael V. Hayden.  This military elitist was selected to head the Central Intelligence Agency.  Only a week ago, Porter Goss, a longtime friend, and associate of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, held this position.  However, Goss is gone and King George II wants Hayden to reign.

Will the General work well with his associates?  One can never know.  The past cannot always be a predictor, though this time I hope it is.
Negroponte, the man that watches over the nation’s 15 intelligence agencies, and Goss, former Director of the Central Intelligence agency, were friends for decades.  They were even fraternity brothers at Yale.  However, in recent months, they have become adversaries.  

A year into his tenure, Porter Goss was forced to relinquish some of his powers to Director Negroponte.  CIA Director Goss would no longer oversee the president’s daily intelligence briefings.  Negroponte would.  Negroponte would bring CIA personnel under his wing; analytical functions of the agency were also turned over to his burgeoning control.  Directors Negroponte and Goss began to fight regularly; the screams echoed loudly throughout the Capital.  Morale was low.  Ultimately, Goss resigned his post, but not in accordance with the President’s plan.  The President preferred a smoother transition.

Nevertheless, Goss is gone.  Whether the reasons are mysterious or not and Hayden can now become his successor.  Oh joy, oh bliss, Bush believes, though there is much dissent.  I am among those with have misgivings; yet, I am elated, even encouraged.  Could this appointment originate theatre of the absurd?

I do not want the Director of Central Intelligence to be military strategist. A man with a mind for war does not seem the best choice for a country that claims to want peace.  The thought frightens me.  I disdain the idea of appointing a person that favors spying on the public.  This scares me more than his military expertise might.  That this General believes the best way to alleviate terrorism is to eliminate the right to privacy is, to me, unforgivable.  Hayden’s declarations and distrustful posture causes me to shiver; still I have hope.  You might wonder why that would be.

After all you know, as do I, in December 2005, Michael V. Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Agency and now Deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, spoke in support of a contentious plan, one that violates the civil rights of citizens, and is, in fact, illegal.  

General Hayden was among those that crafted and executed this controversial eavesdropping scheme.  He and his cohorts thought the mission worthy; therefore, they saw no need to obtain official warrants before breaching our rights.  They chose to indiscriminately intercept domestic phone calls and electronic mail messages without regard for the laws of this country.  Yet, I think there is anything good that might come from his appointment; never you say.

You might wish to remind me of what I do recall, Hayden and the White House claim if one of the parties is thought to have links to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations then actions must be taken, no matter their legitimacy.  General Hayden declared these unlawful measures were apt, and even necessary.  

Dear reader, are you now offering me these words of wisdom?  In January 2006, Air Force General Hayden stated openly at a National Press Club meeting, “It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.  This is targeted and focused.”  

Yes, I know and I too wonder, “Targeted and focused” on whom and with what certainty.  I can only ask and likely, I will receive no answer from the powers that be; however, `Can we trust the intelligence of those that showed none prior to September 11, 2001, or after?’  I do not.  I am confident that you think believing in these bullies is unwarranted.  I do too.  Yet, I do not believe in these bandits, but in their ability to self-destruct.

As I expressed early on in this exposé, I fear this appointment.  However, I am still inclined to think this nomination might be best.

My hope may be fleeting for I recall, on December 11, 2000, the day before George W. Bush was selected President of the United States by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I was reflecting upon the possibility.  I theorized if Bush were imposed on a reluctant public, and the rightful candidate, Albert A. Gore was refused his due process, “How bad could it be?”  

At that time, I never imagined what Baby Bush could and would do.  I had no conception of what he would create or more accurately destroy.  Who knew the Constitution itself could be threatened and finally defeated? Then, I did not.  Now, I do and I regret that statement.

Currently, I realize reality can be far worse than any fiction or fable.  I acknowledge that I am likely to be repentant after I make this assertion; nevertheless, I will state it.  Hayden might be the catalyst for a Rumsfeld dismissal or resignation and that, I think, cannot be bad.  Granted this is a hope and probably not a possibility.  Yet, each time I hear a report discussing this nominee, there is discussion of how the two men disagree often.

There are those that tout the “natural leadership qualities” of Hayden and this causes me to dream.  Others surmise that since Hayden is technically an agent of the Defense Department, Rumsfeld will remain the stronger; he will have the upper hand.  Nevertheless, there are still others that speak of General Hayden’s strong will and outspokenness.  

Many suggest he resign his commission; a large number say his military title will have no influence.  It is his demeanor that matters.  For me, I hope that he is de-meaner of the two and that his strong will and persuasive hand will out force out his foe.  A girl can dream.  I can hope that the Secretary of Defense will fall.  However, I must be prepared for what may follow.  I remember when I reflected and thought how bad could Bush be.

For your review . . .

On May 8, 2006, the day of this writing, minds met unexpectedly.
Please peruse another editorial . . .
With thanks to ksh01 for sharing this link and the author, Steve Clemons.
Misreading Michael Hayden’s Role in the Intelligence Bureaucracy Wars: Negroponte Wants Hayden to Battle with — Not Help – Rumsfeld The Washington Note

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Childhood Obesity. Adult On-Set Diabetes. Osteoporosis. Soda ©


Former President Bill Clinton is out on the stump, speaking of soft drinks and how they adversely affect the body.  He is concerned with the rise in childhood obesity, adult on-set diabetes, and osteoporosis.  Mr. Clinton wants to do something to prevent these.

Mr. Clinton realizes conditions such as theses are more prevalent in today’s society because people are drinking more soda.  Scientifically there is connection between our sweet sodas and our failing health.  I offer much of this research at the conclusion of this treatise.  However, my concern goes beyond what I believe is a superficial solution to the problem.  Having been a person saturated in soda water, I think removing the culprit from our schools, may not alter the effects.  

The Former President, along with the American Heart Association, negotiated an agreement with the three largest soft-drink manufacturers.  Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes, will willingly  stop selling fattening sodas and sugary drinks in American elementary and middle schools.  The companies will no longer offer the larger sized sweet beverages in the high schools.  The elder students will be able to buy diet drinks, sports beverages, and brews that are lower in calories.  The President and the producers propose, if young people have less access to the high caloric carbonated beverages, they will drink less and be healthier.  Possibly that is true; perhaps, it is not.
The hazards soft-drink consumption is a subject I have thought of for decades.  I, as Mr. Clinton did imbibe great quantities of soda.  I knew as the President discovered, this action had its effects.  I am famous among hundreds of students for my “Mountain Dew Story.”  For close to a decade students have asked me to write and publish the tale.  This week as Former President Bill Clinton and soft drink manufacturers get much press for the simplistic solution they are presenting I feel compelled.  I will share the oft-told tale in writing.

For me this story is not about soda, though superficially some may see it as that.  It is about choices, habits, and the decision to be healthier.  I offer this narrative to classes at the beginning of each term.  Students call it the “Mountain Dew Story.”  However, they know that is not the lesson of this tale.  They can quote the real reason for this narrative.  The lesson it teaches is,  “The manner in which we think, say, do, feel, and are is a choice.”

We often think that who we are and what we think, say, do, and feel is our nature; we were born this way.  We are not.  We learn these habits at a very young age; so young we do not recognize that we are learning.  We do not know we have other options.  Therefore, we choose what we know, what is familiar, and what our families teach us, knowingly or not.  We adopt habits and assume these are personifications of us.  They are our nature; they are not.

I offer this my own story in an attempt to illustrate that we can choose to change.  We can choose wisely; we can become healthier and happier.  Your habit may be one of zillions.  When I offer this thought to students I relate their possible habits to classroom conduct or aspects of life that relate to school.  I might suggest procrastination as a habit.  Nervous energy may be the practice I mention.  For those of us older; yet barely wiser our conventions may be different.  Whatever your custom may be the correlation is clear, if we decide to consider these.

I grew up in a family that did not drink milk.  We had milk in the house; it was only for cooking and baking.  The first time I ever ran away from home was when my Dad decided I needed to drink the milk remaining at the bottom of the cereal bowl.  I did not want to do that.  I did not like milk.  I used it only as a conduit to moisten my cereal and to soak up the sugar.  After the cereal was gone and I had slurped up all the sugar, I was done.  My Dad thought not; he said so.  I fled from home with him hot on my tail.  However, that was only a moment, it occurred later in my life.  I was eight years of age at that time.

When I was younger, very young, I began walking, talking, and I toilet trained my self.  I did all this by the age of eight months.  Therefore, I could be easily left with a babysitter.  The sitter my family and I preferred was my Grandfather.  My Grandpop owned a pharmacy and in those days, pharmacies had what were called soda fountains.  These were counters with stools in front of them.  Behind the counters were grills for short order cooking.  Soda was on tap.  I could have all that I wanted.  Happily, I would sit all day.  I read comic books, ate candy, and drank a lot of soda.

I suspect my sisters did similar in their youth.  I am uncertain.  However, I have reason to believe that my eldest sister might still be drinking soda for breakfast.  I can relate.

My grandfather did not like the way Coca-cola did business.  He worked with and sold only Pepsi products, and yes, I knew the difference.  In discussing this, my Mom shared, he had posters hanging in the back of the store.  They were pro-Pepsi and anti-coke banners.  I got the message.

Years later, my family moved from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Lexington, Kentucky, Bluegrass Country.  This was the same year Pepsi introduced Mountain Dew.  Though I was a loyal cola drinker, I was interested in the new product, as was my Dad.  The company began advertising eight weeks before they brought the merchandise to the shelves.  I was anxiously awaiting it.

My Mom theorized I was hooked on the advertisements; I was not.  I hated these, thinking them silly.  Originally, the soda was promoted as one bottled by “hillbillies” Patsy and Bill.  The slogan was, “Yahoo, Mountain Dew.”  Now, living in hillbilly country, I thought I must be meant to try this.

Finally, the drink hit the shelves and soon appeared at our dinner table.  It was bright yellow.  Yes, I heard the chuckles and the words comparing it to urine.  These had no effect on me.  I indulged and indulged and indulged.  I changed my preference, my “poison,” I switched from cola to Mountain Dew.  

When I was living with my grandparents for a summer, in Florida, my grandmother became quite concerned.  She called my parents and said, “Betsy seems to be drinking an awful lot of soda.”  My father and mother did not share her apprehension.  They assured her, it was all right.  She relented, allowed me to, and I continued to drink.  In my mid-to late teenage years, I began freezing the liquid ambrosia.  I would pour the fluid into plastic cups.  I prepared five to eight of these nightly.  The next day, I would then eat them.

Once frozen, the Dew developed a layer of syrup on the top.  The carbonation kept it from freezing as a hard as a rock; there were air pockets.  It was a delicacy.  I would run home at lunch, during breaks, and after school to grab a frozen “Dew.”  I was in a hurry as I dashed for my delight.  On these occasions, I could not be stopped.  I was on a mission.

By the time I reached adulthood, I was an addict, a devotee, and an aficionado.  Those in the grocery store would insist, `You should do ads for the company or buy stock in it.’  They knew, as did I, I could sell Mountain Dew to anyone.  I could profit from my own purchases.  We would laugh.

Later in life, I hurt my back, then my arm.  I could no longer lift large bottles from the grocer’s shelves.  Nor could I push shopping carts loaded down with the quantities I drank daily.  Thus, I would call ahead to the request that these bottles be made ready for my arrival.  I would say “this is Betsy.” and the voice on the other end of the telephone would reply saying, “How many?”  I would answer twenty-four.

That meant, “Please put twenty-four two liter bottles in a cart.”  Place these in the front of the store, I would be right over to pick them up.  I back-stocked.  The stores knew me so well that they gave me my own blue crates.  Typically, there is a deposit on these; yet, for me, there was none.  I would store three crates in the trunk of my car and more in my pantry.  I worried; I did not want to run out.

I realized this was ridiculous, as was my consumption.  I read and read of the effects of soda, what the caffeine, sugar, phosphates and more were doing to my body.  I knew and I was scared.  I wanted to end this cycle; I wished for the cascade of effects to be eliminated, or at least reduced.  With time and age, these were increasingly apparent.  My teeth alone were evidence.  There were other maladies.  I suspect these too were related to my consumption.  However, I did not think I could stop.  I did love the drink.  

I would think of what I was doing and justify.  At least I had never had a drink of alcohol; I did not gamble or do “drugs.”  Though I wondered, what were sugar, caffeine, and phosphates for me?  Were these not my trappings?  Corn syrup and high fructose were other topics I could discuss.  However, I will leave these for another investigation.  I told myself Mountain Dew was a health drink.  Among its main ingredients was orange juice.  A friend that traveled to China said in that country, it was advertised as such.  That worked well for me.  Rationalizations, are they not quaint?

More than seven years ago, closer to eight, which seems a significant number in my life, I began saying aloud, “I need to quit.”

Each day I would go to the store to retrieve my drug of choice and instead of simply laughing with the cashers of my habits, I would say aloud, “One day I will give this up.”  The question was would I or could I?  A year and one half went by, and for no specific reason of note, I decided to stop consuming caffeine.  I would switch to a soda without that.  It was April 30, 1999.  It was a challenge.  I really did not enjoy the other options; nevertheless, it was important that I do this.  I needed to try to stop the flow of caffeine.

I continued to read of the effects of soda.  Instantly, I realized eliminating Mountain Dew would not improve my worn tooth enamel.  The calcium was still being leeched from my bones.  Soda was the source of much of my concerns.  It was not merely the ingredients in the Dew.  

By May 25, 1999, I was done.  I stopped drinking all soda.  I digested no more empty calories.  I thought I would go through withdrawal.  I expected the sight of soda to stimulate salivation.  I though I would be as Pavlov’s dogs.  Surprisingly, I was not.  None of what I was told would happen occurred.  I did have an eyeball headache for a few hours; that was all.

Actually, I began slowly, to eat better, to improve my habits in other avenues of my life.  I felt empowered.  I had made a choice and followed through.  Imagine that.

More interesting to me was that I did not white knuckle this.  I never went back to soda.  I did not substitute another addiction for this one.  The years of thinking of this habit, telling the story had helped.  Working on me was the wonder.  The reflection was the labor; the change was my love.  I gave up nothing.  I gained so much.  Words will never accurately describe this.  It must be felt from within.

Therefore, I have a sneaking suspicion that I could share more statistics, offer more facts, promote greater fear, and still do nothing to help those of you with a craving.  I believe that facts are futile, interesting, and possibly might stimulate thought and a decision.  However, only you can cast your habits aside.  I will not remove distractions, soda, or the source of your addiction.  Bill Clinton may have the power to do this; I do not.

I only ask you to think of yourself.  Please do so before you do much more damage.  I know the process is slow and you can and will progress at your own pace.  Please do not be discouraged; do not rely on the government or manufacturers to help you work through your habits.  They may offer a quick fix, a simple solution; however, typically, these are short-lived.  While I appreciate Mr. Clinton’s attempts and I am awestruck by the soft-drink companies willingness to reduce soda sales in the schools, I do not think in the end, this plan is a solution.

We are familiar with the process.  Persons on diets empty their homes of the foods they fear eating.  They find these same sweets elsewhere, or purchase them again later.  Individuals that want to quit smoking do, some do this time Habits are a challenge; change is not a whim.  Much conscious thought goes into altering who you are, or who you thought you were. You have long believed what you think, say, do, feel, and are is your nature.

I offer this.  A thought stimulates action.  Without our thoughts, we remain as we are, as we were before we knew more.  Think through your habits and chose those that are healthy.

Maybe the research will be your motivation, thus I share some of this.

The sugar from soda takes a great toll.
James A Howenstine M.D. writes in A Physician’s Guide to Natural Health Products That Work

“In an interesting experiment the sugar from one soft drink was able to damage the white blood cells’ ability to ingest and kill gonococcal bacteria for seven hours.”

“Soft drinks also contain large quantities of phosphorus, which when excreted pulls calcium out of the bones.  Heavy users of soft drinks will have osteoporosis along with their damaged arteries.”

Caffeine has replaced calcium in America diets.  The effects of this are documented.
Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influenced Nutrition and Health (California Studies in Food and Culture) offers, “caffeine has replaced calcium in American diets.”  She believes there is cause to worry.  In her text, she continues . . .

“Soft drinks have replaced milk in the diets of many American children as well as adults.  School purchases reflect such trends.  From 1985 to 1997, school districts decreased the amounts of milk they bought by nearly 30% and increased their purchases of carbonated sodas.”

“The relationship between soft drink consumption and body weight is so strong that researchers calculate that for each additional soda consumed, the risk of obesity increases 1.6 times.”

“Adolescents who consume soft drinks display a risk of bone fractures three to four-fold higher than those who do not.”

“Sugar and acid in soft drinks so easily dissolve tooth enamel.”

“Americans drink 13.15 billion gallons of carbonated drinks every year.”

“Soft drink consumption in children poses a significant risk factor for impaired calcification of growing bones.”

Soft-drink consumption leads to calcium loss via the kidneys.
Dr. Neal Barnard, MD reinforces the earlier stated sentiments in Foods That Cause You to Lose Weight: The Negative Calorie Effect

“Another advantage of avoiding sodas is that you will avoid the caffeine that is in many of them. Caffeine is a weak diuretic that causes calcium loss via the kidneys.”

Soft drinks lower calcium and raise the phosphate level in the blood.
Michael Murray ND and Joseph Pizzorno ND, write in the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, Revised Second Edition

“Soft drinks have long been suspected of leading to lower calcium levels and higher phosphate levels in the blood.  When phosphate levels are high and calcium levels are low, calcium is pulled out of the bones.  The phosphate content of soft drinks like Coca -Cola and Pepsi is very high, and they contain virtually no calcium.”

“Many general dietary factors have been suggested as a cause of osteoporosis, including: low calcium-high phosphorus intake, high-protein diet, high-acid-ash diet, high salt intake, and trace mineral deficiencies.  It appears that increased soft drink consumption is a major factor that contributes to osteoporosis.  A deficiency of vitamin K leads to impaired mineralization of bone.  Boron deficiency may contribute greatly to osteoporosis as well as to menopausal symptoms.”

Diet soda drinkers do not escape harm as they too consume empty calories.
According to Carol Simontacchi, author of The Crazy Makers: How the Food Industry Is Destroying Our Brains and Harming Our Children presents this.
<blockquote”One liter of an aspartame-sweetened beverage can produce about fifty-six milligrams of methanol.  When several of these beverages are consumed in a short period of time (one day, perhaps), as much as two hundred fifty milligrams of methanol are dumped into the bloodstream, or thirty-two times the EPA limit.”</blockquote><blockquote”What may happen, in the face of day-to-day, continuously high levels of sodium in the diet and the bloodstream, is that we experience a type of acute hypernatremia.  [It is] not enough to kill us or cause the myelin sheath to lose its integrity, but enough to keep our sodium potassium pump slightly dysregulated and throw off the electrical system of the brain.  Americans drink soft drinks that are often loaded with more sodium and which further unbalance the mineral stores.”</blockquote>

Weight Gain Occurs, with or without exercise.  Reduced caloric intake does not change this.
Greg Critser, penned, Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World.
He offers . . .

“A joint study by Harvard University and Boston Children’s Hospital researchers in February 2001 concluded that such excess liquid calories inhibited the ability of older children to compensate at mealtime, leading to caloric imbalance and, in time, obesity.”

“One extra soft drink a day gave a child a 60 percent greater chance of becoming obese.  One could even link specific amounts of soda to specific amounts of weight gain.  Each daily drink added .18 points to a child’s body mass index (BMI).  This, the researchers noted, was regardless of what else they ate or how much they exercised.  “Consumption of sugar [high fructose corn syrup]-sweetened drinks,” they concluded, “is associated with obesity in children.”

There is much to consider, more to reason to choose wisely.  Please, be happy and healthy.

References for your reveiew . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Louis Rukeyser, My Mentor, My Memory ©

CNBC Photograph, Washington Post

Tonight Louis Rukeyser, a bestselling author, columnist, lecturer, and television host of Wall Street Weekpassed.  I heard the news of his demise on The News Hour, a Public Broadcasting program, as was Rukeyser’s long-running show.  I came in late in the program and knew nothing of the upcoming report.  I wondered why Jim Lehrer was introducing film clips of Wall Street Week with Mr. Rukeyser.  I feared the worst and hoped for much better.

After the snippets were shown, Mr. Lehrer announce the beloved man had passed at the age of seventy-three.  My first thought was “No.”  My second was, “How young he was!”  Then I wondered “Why?”  I recalled when his father met his maker and reflected on how close the two were.  I knew this because I began watching Wall Street Week in 1970, the year it first aired.  I continued to view this program until it ended in 2002.  

I watched when I had no money to speak of or invest, and no connection to the study of economics.  I was a regular viewer even though, for years, the idea of understanding finances literally brought me to tears.  Nevertheless, I loved this show.  I rarely, if ever missed it.
Earlier this week John Kenneth Galbraith passed and I thought to write of his influence on my life; however, I did not.  It was odd for me to let that moment go by without offering a serious reflection.  My Mom was more than an admirer of this great economist.  Nevertheless, life took precedence, and I concluded others might honor the loss better than I.  I decided there are economic experts that would pay homage to this mentor.  Their praise might be more substantial than my own.  [Tributes and eulogies offered below.]  I have since regretted that decision repeatedly, for I know that at times sentimentality is apt.

Thus, I write.  For decades, people were willing to purchase cable television and I was not.  I relied on PBS.  My relationship is longstanding.  It began in childhood and continues.  Allow me to interject, I was never a Sesame Street aficionado; I struggle to relate to that type of programming and did even as a child.  Considering I read my first fairy tale at the age of twenty-one, this may make sense to you, dear reader.  No,  my parents did not bring the “unreal” into my life.  [The term in quotes is the one my Mom used for such stories.]

However, not in the style of today’s reality programming; instead in the form of news, I was hooked on information.  I still am.  As a child, adolescent, and adult, there was never enough.  I was and am frustrated by my own inability to recall it all exactly.  Nevertheless, I am able to remember events, experiences, and conversations in great detail.

I remember where I was the first time I saw Wall Street Week [and Washington Week in Review.]  I delighted in the camaraderie.  I noticed the connections between political news and finances.  [I became a political junkie at the age of five when my natural father, a Republican Right-winged reactionary, and my Mom, a strong Democratic Socialist, engaged in an animated political discussion in front of me.]  I appreciated the ease and flow of conversations between host Louis Rukeyser and his guests.

As Money magazine stated of Mr. Rukeyser, “He brings to the tube a blend of warmth, wit, irreverence, thrusting intellect and large doses of charm, plus the credibility of a Walter Cronkite.”

To some observers Louis Rukeyser was a sex symbol.  “People magazine termed him “the dismal science [of economics] only sex symbol.”  Modern Maturity magazine honored this host with the title one of the world’s “50 Sexiest People Over 50.”

As an author, Rukeyser was prolific.  He wrote, “What’s Ahead for the Economy: The Challenge and the Chance.”  This book became a best seller and was revised and updated; it was released in paperback.  The book became a bestseller nationally and was ultimately a selection of the Literary Guild.

It has been acclaimed as “the best book on economics”; Nobel laureate Milton Friedman hailed it as “exciting and important”; and former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon said it “tells where the economy is really going, and what you can do about it.”

His Doubleday book, “How to Make Money in Wall Street,” has long been a classic in the field–twice a selection of the Literary Guild and a best-seller in both hardback and paperback.”

Mr. Rukeyser has received numerous awards and acknowledgements.  This amazing man was a distinguished political and foreign correspondent for the Baltimore Sun periodical for eleven years.  He was Chief Political Correspondent for the Evening Sun, Chief of the Sun’s London Bureau and Chief Asian Correspondent for the Sun.  His career is noteworthy.

Yet, for me, he was more than an image on the television, a name on a page, a celebrity, or esteemed for his economic finesse.  He was real and I felt, even with all my fears of finances, I could relate to him.  He was a family man.  The warmth that he emitted felt genuine.  If some thought him sexy, I suspect it was because there is nothing as precious as unadulterated personality.

Dear Louis Rukeyser, I missed you when you were here, when your program left the airwaves; I now grieve with your friends and family.  I am certain you are not gone in the hearts and minds of many.

[Multiple Myeloma was the cause of this sad departure.  Mr. Rukeyser may you realize the best in whatever may follow.]

Discussion . . . While I doubt Rukeyser’s politics were as mine; nor do I believe he and I were aligned philosophically as I was with Galbraith, I believe I/we can admire a man, as a person, even if we differ.

Please review references . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Immigration. Why Wail For A Wall or Agitate About Amnesty? ©


Al Podgorski, Photographer. Sun-Times

On Monday, May 01, 2006, another May Day will come and go.  However, for those in the United States this international holiday that honors laborers will be different. This one will live in the memories of Americans forever.  In this country, citizens, and non, will speak out on the issue of immigration.  For, it is the newest immigrants that makeup a large portion of our labor force.  These persons are planning not to go to work today; nor will their supporters.  They and their allies will stand up for themselves, their beliefs, and their desire for freedom.

Other will also venture out.  They will take to the streets, the blogs, the bars, and airwaves.  They will wail for walls.  Some will agitate over the issue of amnesty. Whether they themselves are residing in this country legally or not, people will demonstrate.  They will express their opinions loudly and openly.

The undocumented workers here in the USA are not loved; they are loathed by a vast majority of the populace.  Numerous liberals, those that usually support the downtrodden have turned their backs on this population.  They see them as law-breakers, union busters, and less than those born in this country.  
On this day, people from any and many political parties will be heard denigrating the status of those that migrated to America recently without proper papers.  They will call them “illegals,” as though they are less legitimate human beings than the rest of us.  

Americans, whose ancestors came from abroad, will chastise those that are now doing as their families had done decades earlier.  Citizens living in this country, those who can rarely produce the papers that brought their relatives here will shun those that arrived in the States in this century without authorization.  

Our countrymen will claim to be compassionate and they are, when their livelihood is at stake.  George W. and his buds welcome entrance of the undocumented.  They are willing to promote the idea of  “guest workers.”  They embrace cheap labor; however, only if, how, or when, it serves them well.

Yet, other Americans find this plan or any agenda that offers opportunities to undocumented distasteful.  Many Americans are singularly focused.  For them, it is my family, my familiars, and me first.  These US citizens are clannish.  They are often heard to utter words such as these, `We were here first and those that wish to follow are forbidden or must be filtered through [our subjective] system.’  

However, some recognize their dependency. Thus, they reluctantly offer official pardons to those that have helped them survive.  They have housekeepers, landscapers, chauffeurs, and nannies.  The faces of these employees have become real.  They feel as “family.”  American homeowners that pay these people can relate to their plight. Therefore, they are willing to offer them amnesty.

However, even these immigrants must prove themselves pure in the empty eyes of the native born.  There must be fines.  People need to be punished for intentionally placing themselves in a land not their own.  These laborers too, must pay a price.  Everyone knows, there is no free lunch, no free ride, and migrants must set their pride aside.

Have they not?  Is it not true that many immigrants are bending over crops in order to collect a pittance of the pay that professionals do.  They clean toilets, wash windows, and work hard for their earnings.  They pay and contribute to society daily; they always have.  I offer these findings from the Pew Charitable Trust Research Center.  This may assist some in understanding the impact immigrants have on America’s labor force. Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S. Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey.

About 7.2 million unauthorized migrants were employed in March 2005, accounting for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force. They made up a large share of all workers in a few more detailed occupational categories, including 24% of all workers employed in farming occupations, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction and 12% in food preparation.

Nevertheless, according to that native born and some naturalized, the nascent émigrés must fit-in better.  They must speak English only.  “They” must immerse themselves in our culture; they must forget their roots, at least when they are in front of us, US citizens.  

If they do not assimilate with the authority of official papers, we will deport them.  At least that is what the House of Representatives declared.  People of the United States protest and postulate; it is those Mexicans that are the problem.  Minutemen and more express their desires; `Let us build a wall between the States and the nation south of the border.’  

Though geographically these two countries exist side by side, both being part of North America, people in this sanctioned land see themselves as separate and unequal.  They profess, America is better, and America is the best.  Are we?

Is an egocentric superpower better even when they attempt to maintain an ethnically clean country?  I think not.  For me, being the best does not merely equate to being the wealthiest or the place where people living in poverty wish to flea.  I think there must be more.

For some there is; the problem is more than Mexico.  A few of our fellow citizens state, `We must also wall off the borders with Canada.’  These naysayers consider themselves objective, not xenophobic for they acknowledge that Latinos, Hispanics, or those of Spanish descent are not the only trouble.  However, these more “liberal” lefties still deny what is.  We live in a world of disparate conditions, opportunities, and circumstances.

Walls will not solve the crisis; they never have fully.  Thinking that the calamity is a calling will end what now exists.

I believe the disaster is not whether those in Mexico cross or whether those in Canada pass through the poles that separate the two countries.  It is not the fact that immigrants come from throughout the world, though they do.

* Please review the local statistics from the Chicago Sun Times.  It won’t just be Latinos marching.
Read of the 120,000 Filipinos in the Chicago area alone or of the 250,000 nationwide that have lengthened their once legal visits.  Cogitate on the five to seven thousand Irish immigrants dwelling in Chicago and out lying areas.  Reflect upon the seventy thousand Polish migrants milling about in America’s heartland or the one hundred and ninety thousand throughout the United States.

Consider there are Rumanians, Russians, and those from Ukraine.  European émigrés are a plenty.  There are Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and more migrants living here as well.  People come from many nations.  Not all immigrants are Mexican or South American.  As in one my earlier exposés, I offer outdated government statistics, those collected during the 2000 census.  A reader may ask, how many were never counted, never found, and never presumed to be here legally or not.

Yet, for me, the issue is not immigration at all.

Most of the migrants in the USA have adopted this land as their own.  Registered citizens or not, those from afar think of themselves as our newly arrived family members once did; they are Americans.  A large number of settlers do as our forbearers did; they prosper.  I refer you dear reader to a recent Pew Charitable Trust report.  Please peruse . . .

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, Pew Hispanic Center and the Urban Institute  . . .

“Nearly 80 percent [of Mexican immigrants] live above the poverty line, and 68 percent of those who have lived here for 30 years or more own their own homes.”

While this revelation is not as expected, there is a stereotype that seems likely true.  The Latin culture advocates hard work.  Those born into it endeavor to do their best. Their well learned beliefs and practices have empowered them.  Therefore, many Mexican migrants have “pulled themselves up” and out of poverty; they have done well.  These émigrés are as our parents, grand, and great were; they are melting into, and becoming a meaningful part of the American middle and working classes.

Some strive to do even better.  They want to become entrepreneurs, and they too succeed.  “Census figures show Hispanic firms growing three times faster than average,” By Scott Miller, Washington File Staff Writer

Washington — Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States are growing three times faster than the national average for all firms and generating more than $200 billion in annual revenue, according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The bureau’s March 21 Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 indicated that the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States grew 31 percent between 1997 and 2002 to nearly 1.6 million. Those firms generated about $222 billion in revenue in 2002 — the most recent year for which data are available.

Yes, there are other reports that might support the cynics view and a few of these are also from the Pew Charitable Trust. You might wish to assess ,“Unauthorized Migrants, Numbers and Characteristics,” By Jeffrey S. Passel.  You will notice that aspects of this study conflict with the accepted and other aspects strengthen the impression, immigration by the undocumented is awful.

Immigrants in general, but especially the unauthorized are considerably more likely than natives to have very low levels of education.  For example, less than 2% of natives have less than a 9thgrade education, but 15% of legal immigrants and 32% of unauthorized migrants have this little education.  (Note that education in Mexico is currently compulsory only through the 8thgrade, so finding this many with this little education is not surprising.  Further, the level of compulsory school attendance was recently raised from 6thgrade.)

At the upper end, legal immigrants are slightly more likely to have a college degree than natives (32% versus 30%).  This difference is particularly noteworthy given the high percentage of legal immigrants with very little education.  Even the unauthorized population has some at the upper end of the educational spectrum, with 15% having at least a college degree and another 10% having some college.  Not all of the unauthorized population fits the stereotype of a poorly educated manual laborer.

Nevertheless, for me, the issue is still not one of immigration into the United States of America. What for me is the topic for a truer discussion is, America as part of a whole.  We are citizens on a continent, one of many on this planet.  We must assess our attitudes and expectations, and realize that they are egocentric.

I believe we must evaluate our place in this universe.  We are not here alone; nor are our priorities and preferences the only reasonable ones worth considering.

Whether we refer to statistics that strengthen the argument for or against immigration, the true subject is the same.  We as a nation are engaged in what might be a possible evolution.  If we choose to embrace it, we will learn from our history, our errors, and our misperceptions.  If we seize the opportunity and avoid shortsighted solutions such as walls or amnesty, neither of which has ever completely resolved similar issues, then we can grow greater, together.

We could as a nation and as part of a globe recognize that we are as the wave in the story that Morrie Schwartz shared.  We are part of the ocean.  If we act as one, think as a whole, we can and will progress beyond.

“I heard a nice little story the other day,” Morrie says. He closes his eyes for a moment and I wait.
“Okay. The story is about a little wave, bobbing along in the ocean, having a grand old time. He’s enjoying the wind and the fresh air — until he notices the other waves in front of him, crashing against the shore. “
” ‘My God, this is terrible,’ the wave says ‘Look what’s going to happen to me!’ “
“Then along comes another wave. It sees the first wave, looking grim, and it says to him, ‘Why do you look so sad?’ “
“The first wave says, ‘You don’t understand! We’re all going to crash! All of us waves are going to be nothing! Isn’t it terrible?’ “
“The second wave says, ‘No, you don’t understand. You’re not a wave, you’re part of the ocean.’ “
I smile. Morrie closes his eyes again.
“Part of the ocean,” he says. “Part of the ocean.” I watch him breathe, in and out, in and out.
 – Tuesdays with Morrie, page 179

Once we acknowledge that America is not an island and our concerns cannot be ours alone, then we can create a world in which all people, men, women, and children are genuinely created equal.

Let us unite, not as states, or as a continent.  Let us join, together, and help each other.  After all, we are all people and have similar needs, wants, and wishes.  As long as Mexico, South America, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Japan, and other nations work separately, we will bicker, belittle, and belie what is true.  This Earth is our global village.

References for your Review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

FEMA 2006, Failure Everywhere, Management Absent ©


The history of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] is long and varied.  Now, it may end; a Renaissance is proposed.  There are formal recommendations; this agency must be abolished. Co-chairs of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Liebermann held a press conference this morning declaring FEMA a disaster.  

Chairwoman Susan Collins told reporters today in Washington “FEMA is discredited, disorganized, demoralized and dysfunctional.”  She continued, “It is beyond repair. Just tweaking the organizational chart will not solve the problem.”

Senators Collins, Liebermann, and the Senate committee submitted a plan to ‘key senators this week, the details of which will be released publicly next week.’  In this, there are 86 recommendations.  These would undo what our current President did to change the structure of FEMA.

The 800-plus-page accounting is titled, “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared.” This text is a summation of three government studies. Earlier House and White House evaluations are present in this report; however, they are cursory in contrast. This final record is far more comprehensive; its assertions are less delicate.

Katrina survivors and those lost in this storm, deservedly required this attention. The 2005 hurricane killed an estimated 1,460 people. Seven hundred and seventy thousand individuals were forced to flea their homes. Many are still not able to return some eight months later.

In earlier hearings Congressional committees realized blame was simply being bandied about; nothing of substance was concluded. As of today, a report has been filed. Recommendations are pending; however, there is no certainty that things will change.

FEMA was officially established in 1979. The idea for such an organization was developing for more than a century. The Congressional Act of 1803 was considered ‘the first piece of disaster legislation.’ This bill was enacted after a New Hampshire town experienced extensive damage in a fire. People needed to be rescued; rebuilding was important. However, the community was paralyzed. They desperately required help.

For years after, haphazardly, emergency efforts throughout this land continued. Attempts to organize a unified front for disaster relief were numerous, yet, disjointed. Ironically, some might say the state of affairs then, is similar to the one we now have. However, I digress.

Ultimately, the nation’s governors came together and requested a centralized endeavor. The Governors wanted to be certain that we, as a country, were prepared for a crisis. These state and local leaders knew planning, in advance, was important. Procedure must be set in place. Coordinating clean-ups is vital; no community could do it alone. Thus, the National Governor’s Association sought the help of Former President Jimmy Carter. They asked for a federalized emergency agency.

Mr. Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The mission was and supposedly is, “to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disasters with a vision of “A Nation Prepared.”

FEMA grew and was improving. During the Clinton years, Director, James Witt was appointed. All was going well. Many marveled at what this man, with the support of Bill Clinton, was able to produce. James Witt received “bi-partisan praise for his leadership.” There was a consensus; this man has taken the agency in the right direction.

However, under the guidance of a quivering King George II, the institution has taken a fall. It stumbled. During Katrina, and likely years before, operations were bumbled, repeatedly. After September 11, 2001, the agency was placed under the auspices of the Homeland Security office and that, some believe, is when troubles began.

Former Director, James Witt spoke of this in 2004 at a Congressional hearing. He said, “I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared.” It had and would have continued to; then, there was a hurricane. It hit New Orleans hard; the gulf coast was crippled. As predicted many years earlier, the region, the nation, and FEMA, were unprepared.

The situation, post-Katrina was bad. It got worse. Though the weather had been rough, the internal departmental storms of dissent, for some seemed, rougher. Questions were raised, people [Michael Brown specifically] were excused or resigned from their posts. The “blame-game” was banded about.

The circumstances could not be ignored. Congress chose to act. Now it is done, or possibly, it has just begun. We will not know for a time.

There are recommendations and reports, as there often are in situations such as this. However, it is said, this time is different. Instead of the hype and hoopla, post-Andrew, the actions now being proposed are looked upon more seriously. Senators Collins and Liebermann are asking for the total abolishment of the existing Emergency Management Agency. They are requesting a new organization, one that would be “better equipped with the tools [needed] to prepare for and respond to a disaster.”

According to a draft of the proposal, the new agency will remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. The organization needs to be more powerful than the older model. Additional mechanism for support must be put into place. The committee advises that this novel organization receive a budget twice as large as the current FEMA.

The current Emergency Management Agency has a budget of $4.8 billion. There are 2,600 full-time employees. However, after careful study it has been decided these are not enough. The money was inadequate or misused. Employees were over worked; the organization understaffed. Effective systems were non-existent. Awareness was absent and communication was just a concept.

Hurricane Katrina brought the tragedy, otherwise known as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to light. Actually, that debacle brought more to the surface. On television and in newspapers throughout the globe, America was seen for what it is, a nation of “un-equals.” The display was quite disturbing, even for those at home. Worldwide people saw that “Federal Preparedness” and equal opportunities were an illusion.

Plans were not executed. Disaster relief was nonexistent. Operations were inefficient. People professed empathy, and yet; they were without it. Barbara Bush welcomed the lost and hopeless, as long as they did not stay in her neighborhood for too long.

Promises went by the wayside; proposals remained only that. Execution of these has yet to occur. The Gulf coast poor were homeless, helpless, and hurting. There was little regard for the impoverished. For days, the administration was absent. Our country was righteously embarrassed. Leadership was little; compassion short-lived. The world wondered, was America simply being conservative in its approach? The middle class felt the pressure; however, they have no real power. They lost theirs long ago.

Fortunately, during this calamity, the affluent were also affected and that made a difference. The wealthy were injured and offended. They were upset. Senator Trent Lott was a casualty of the storm. His oceanfront house in Pascagoula, Mississippi, was destroyed. The Senator’s 154-year old home was completely awash. There was nothing left to call home. After twenty plus years of living in this graceful abode, the Lott family was left with only memories.

Democratic Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi was also victim of this tempest. His Bay St. Louis home was ruined. He, as an individual, was so deeply pained by the “Emergency” process that he asked about it later during a congressional investigation.

Congressman Taylor was able to query Former FEMA Director Michael Brown. The Representative asked, “What part of the FEMA plan envisioned that the first responders in Hancock County and in much of the Mississippi Gulf Coast would have to loot the local grocery store and loot the local Wal-mart in order to feed themselves, would have to loot the local Wal-mart in order to have a change of clothes? What part of your plan was that?”

Dissatisfied with the Directors answer, Taylor respectfully replied offering, “I hope you’ll admit your mistakes. That’s the best way to learn from them.”

The Representative spoke for many. Hurricane Katrina, then Rita, and ultimately Wilma affected thousands. Many pleaded forcefully; they want answers and relief for their friends, families, and themselves. Thankfully, the voices had influence, ability, and they were able to reach the public’s eyes, and ears and that made a difference.

CNN correspondent Kathleen Koch, did an in-depth assessment of her hometown after the storm. Ms. Koch returned to the city where she was raised, Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. She found friends, family members, and herself devastated. Koch realized as did residents, recovery was not forthcoming. Promises were not kept. Relief was little.

Nine months later, families are still waiting for trailers, a home to call their own. Insurance companies had no compassion; they merely dismissed and denied homeowners claims, [even those of Senator Trent Lott.] Frustration filled the hearts, souls, and minds of those effected by the storm. An ineffective agency made all matters worse.

““Saving My Town” The Fight for Bay Saint Louis,” aired continuously on the Turner Cable News Network. This documentary was calculated and deliberate. Ms. Koch covered this story with heart felt and heart warming finesse. Her personal narrative may have had an impact on today’s reported decision, Let us “abolish FEMA.”

Before Katrina, we as citizens saw the inattentiveness of the President, his Cabinet, and appointees. We knew this was standard. The nation long ago recognized that the Emperor of Errors could not or would not separate himself from a Crawford vacation. His associates and subordinates would not disturb their fair leader. These behaviors were expected. We as a country had become complacent. After Katrina, mercifully, all this changed. Every storm, perhaps, does hold a silver lining.

On this occasion, after this incident, Big-Man Bush had no ground zero to stand on. There was no war to instigate. The invisible force truly was. Mr. Bush could not claim Katrina was a terrorist. The weather could not be classified as the enemy. In fact, the foe was he, his organization, his ineptness, and his inadequacies. When he quipped emphatically, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” He knew, the bell tolled for he and his idea of a Federal Emergency Management Agency.

• Senate Panel Urge FEMA Dismantling, By ERIC LIPTON. New York Times. April 27, 2006
• Senate Report Urges Dismantling of FEMA, By Spencer S. Hsu. Washington Post. April 27, 2006
• A Short History of FEMA Public Broadcasting, Frontline
• Barbara Bush on Hurricane Katrina Refugees About Thursday September 8, 2005
• Sen. Lott’s home destroyed by Katrina, From Joe Johns. CNN Washington Bureau. Sunday, September 4, 2005
• Cut the red tape, Lott says CNN. Monday, September 5, 2005
• Trent Lott Sues State Farm over Katrina Damage ConsumerAffairs.Com. December 16, 2005
• 9/29/05 Senators Lott’s Katrina Airport Repair Bill Clears Senate Office of Senator Trent Lott
• How Reliable Is Brown’s Resume? By Daren Fonda and Rita Healy. Time Magazine September 08, 2005
• Congress Questions Brown, PBS Online News Hour. September 27, 2005
• Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA’s effectiveness? A Can’t-Do Government,By Paul Krugman. New York Times Friday, September 2, 2005
• The latest on Katrina’s aftermath CNN News. Tuesday, September 13, 2005
• Katrina Archives CNN News
• CNN Presents Classroom: Saving my town: The fight for Bay St. Louis. CNN News. Monday, April 10, 2006
• President Arrives in Alabama, Briefed on Hurricane Katrina, [“Brownie, You’re doing . . .] September 2005

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Duping Doctors©


A recently released study reports that the famous and often used, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders is not the reliable source it was once thought to be. The DSM offers definitions and analysis of mental, or personality disorders.  Treatments are also prescribed.  More often than not, these require drug therapy.  For decades, psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, and other medical specialist have turned to this guidebook for counsel; it was considered the Holy Grail. This large book was looked upon as an objective reference; it is not.

Apparently, according to a recent study published in the Journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, most of the expert authors have financial ties to the very drug makers whose medications they promote.  56 percent of 170 psychiatric experts who worked on the most recent 1994 edition of the Diagnostic Manual, had at least one financial encounter with a drug maker between 1989 and 2004.  
The relationships ranged from speaking engagements to consulting fees.  Some specialist owned considerable shares of company stock.  Gifts were given.  Travel was also a frequently token.  Many “experts” were awarded funds for their research.  It is likely, all were the recipients of perks from the very drug-makers they promoted in the DSM.

In the group of specialists working on mood disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, all had significant ties to pharmaceutical companies.  According to the assessment, “The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders.”

After ample research, lead author of the study, Dr. Paula Cosgrove reported that this guidebook differs little from any other paid advertisements.  The integrity of the information is in question.  Now that we know how much influence these companies had on the writing of the DSM IV, this source can no longer be considered trustworthy.  

Benefits befell all tied to this Diagnostic Manual.  The doctors and researchers did well and the pharmaceutical companies prospered.  Speaking of the physicians, Lisa Cosgrove, a clinical psychologist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston said “They can certainly leverage their participation on the DSM, which is very prestigious, into lucrative consulting contracts.”

Drug manufacturers brought in a whooping $35 Billion dollars this year from the sales of psychotropic drugs and if history is a telling sign, the number is going to grow.

According to the Mental Health Policy and Psychotropic Drugs . . .

The amount of money spent on psychotropic drugs grew from an estimated $2.8 billion in 1987 to nearly $18 billion in 2001 (Coffey et al. 2000, Mark et al.  2005), and the amount spent on psychotropic drugs has been growing more rapidly than that spent on drugs overall (IMS Health 2005).

For example, spending on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications  grew 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, in 2003, whereas  spending on drugs overall grew at 11.5 percent in 2003 (IMS Health  2005). “

A Washington Post article, Experts Defining Mental Disorders Are Linked to Drug Firms . . .

There is disagreement as to  the validity of this study.  One of the psychiatrists who worked on the current DSM was disparaging of the investigation. Nancy Andreasen, of the University of Iowa, headed the schizophrenia team.  She stated, this latest review is “very flawed.” She declared that there needed to be a distinction between those that had connections to the drug industry while working on the panel and those that established an association after.

Ms. Andreasen offered, “Two out of five researchers on her team had had substantial ties to industry.” In speaking of herself, she noted `she would have to check her tax statements to know whether she received money from companies at the time she worked on the panel.’ She did add declaratively “What I do know is that I do almost nothing with drug companies. . . . My area of research is neuroimaging, not psychopharmacology.”

I find this interesting.  I am the granddaughter of a pharmacist, a scientist, and a curious soul.  I learned much from him.  My grandfather worked when chemicals were hand mixed.  He ground the concoctions people purchased in his own mortars and pestles.  Drugs were delivered to his store in glass bottles; some stood three-feet high.  I thought of these as toys.  Once again, I digress; my apologies; nevertheless.

My grandfather told me long ago as did a friend, a medical doctor, a man practicing in the field of psychiatry, if you want to learn of medicines, ask a chemist, a scientist, or a pharmacist.  These persons study chemical reaction on human cells.  They know what might be beneficial or harmful; what interacts well with other medications, and what might lessen the potency of a drug.

According to my friend, the doctor, physicians know only what the salesperson tells them.  Drug company representatives give gifts, small trinkets, and expensive dinners.  They cocktail and court a doctor while discussing the quality of their wares.  Ultimately, a physician is convinced this pill, caplet, or concoction is the best.  The doctor may know of no other.  A doctors knows what drugs representatives tells him/her.  He who enters or telephones the office is most influential.

Considering the validity of these opinions, the reality of drug interactions and side affects is not unexpected  Drug side affects were not documented in 1994, the year the most recent DSM IV was published.  Since then questionable practices are being investigated. Conflicts of interest have become an overriding issue; actually, it is these that may have promoted this just released survey.

While many question the reliability of the report, all seem to agree, transparency is necessary.  The researchers discovered the DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Foundation was fundamentally flawed, what was not known was its downfall.  On this, Dr. Cosgrove said, “Transparency is especially important when there are multiple and continuous financial relationships between panel members and the pharmaceutical industry, because of the greater likelihood that the drug industry may be exerting an undue influence.”

Undue pharmaceutical influence; now there is a study that even a novice researcher can do.  Clearly, there is a recent trend in medicine, push the pills on patients, and they, in turn, will tell their doctors what they need [or want.]  We see evidence of this everywhere.  On television and radio broadcasters tell us, take the purple pill and your stomach will be settled.  The blue pill will help you perform.  The yellow pill provides power, and the green capsule will make you mellow.  Looking for love, try potion number 9.  

Commercials call us to action; they instruct.  Infomercials dominate the airwaves.  They teach the public to self-prescribe.  Of course, people are advised to consult their physicians before taking any medication.  However, it is well known in today’s world of medical malpractice suits, physicians fear denying patients their desires.  Thus, people are able to self-medicate legally.

There was a time when individuals believed that doctors knew best; they were as father figures. It was thought that a physician would not prescribe what is not necessary.  Those days, if they ever existed are long gone.  Some within the general public assume that a person willing to devote years of his or her life to study is dedicated and altruistic.  Doctors are thought to be knowledgeable.  They truly care for people.  Some do; however, many if not most are just human.

Rarely do health care workers engage in studies that correlate chemical and cellular interactions.  Yet, these are the persons, through the auspice of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders prescribing drugs to treat psychological and personality maladies.

Are they qualified?  Might they be influenced by the almighty dollars that the drug companies throw their way?  Was there any doubt?  Not for me.

Now, there is solid proof for what my Grandfather and my friend the psychiatrist have always said.  Physicians and pharmaceutical companies are pushing pills aggressively on every front.  The public must be cautious.  Do not trust the diagnosis, the doctor, or the documentation.  Consumers and “crazies,” Be aware.  You may not be as sick as you think.

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Civil Disobedience, Thoreau, Anti-Iraq War Tax Resisters, Mary McCarthy ©

On income tax day, I was wandering about and discovered a post that brought me joy.  Steven Josselson, of Troubled Times: An Online Journal of Policy and Politics, offered a commentary that I found invigorating.  It stimulated my mind.  

The topic was, “Refusing to Pay Taxes: Civil Disobedience and the Iraq war.”  I read. Then I began pondering the actions of these “defiant” peace protesters.  
Many of the persons discussed in this essay were not willing to contribute their tax obligation to a country engaged in war; yet, they were willing to give their funds to charities.  These individuals consciously choose to donate their tax duties to organizations that embody a civic-minded philosophy.  However, society labels them civilly disobedient.  I wonder.

Since that day, my mind has been absorbed in the idea of Civil Disobedience. Today, I think of the dismissed Central Intelligence agent, Mary McCarthy. I read the papers, listen to the news, and I ponder.  Is the phrase a misnomer?  When we peacefully act in accordance with the founding principles of our forefathers, are we civilly disobedient or caring and concerned citizens.  I believe we are the latter.

Currently Mary McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer once assigned to the White House, is in the battle of a lifetime.  

This Central Intelligence agent, and analyst, was recently released from her post and accused of leaking classified information on the rumored CIA prisons.  Mrs. McCarthy was given a lie detector test, failed, and then confessed.  On Thursday, April 21, 2006, McCarthy was escorted by agents from her CIA offices, This woman was publicly humiliated, while only a week earlier, Washington Post reporter, Dana Priest was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her reports on the prisons.

The dichotomy is fascinating. Mrs. Mary McCarthy is also accused of civil disobedience. Dana Priest is praised for disclosing the same information.  Some think McCarthy and her disclosures are treasonous.  Yet, they think the public has a right to know and they applaud Ms. Priest.  I question these cross-judgments.  Why would one woman be scorned as “civilly disobedient,” and the other praised as socially dutiful?  How do we define the term “civil disobedience?”

I feel certain some would consider both women wrong; others might think them each saintly.  Even the phrase civil disobedience can be defined as a good or bad. I think this needs to be discussed.  I am asking for discourse.  I pose my belief. When acted upon peacefully, with intentions to better the system, not abolish it, I consider the phrase my definition of “principled lessons in civics.” I think the apathetic disobedient

I believe if we truly care about our country, we participate, peacefully.  We communicate and ask for a dialogue, or present circumstances that create one.  I think citizens have a right and duty to improve our nation. We must commit to excellence.  We must work towards a peaceful union.  I think if we follow our “leaders” blindly, then we are not acting as responsible, concerned citizens.  We are merely compliant and not publicly minded.  

Our government is meant to be a body that represents us, not decides for us.  Sadly, in recent decades the “government” is seen as a separate entity.  People in today’s world often consider themselves pawns, not powerful or vital.  They no longer see themselves as the solution; they think of themselves as helpless.  I struggle with this reality.

I believe that as individuals, and as part of a greater group we need to reflect, to act with intent, so that we might grow greater.  To this vision, I am inviting you dear reader to join me in a discussion of Civil disobedience.  To facilitate this dialogue, I am offering some thoughts of my own.  Please feel free to comment.

In reference to Central Intelligence agent Mary McCarthy, what were her motivations and might they possibly been more honorable than those of the President?  Does this woman not have a history of caring?  Does she contemplate the causes and effects of American actions, specifically aggressive assaults?  It seems from her co-workers, she does.  

In a New York Times article, “Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by the Rules,” By David S. Cloud, Mrs. McCarthy is said to be quite a cordial worker.  She is comprehensive in her investigations and states her concerns openly.  She is known to be thorough and appreciates the same.  Her posture favors humanitarian efforts and not those that are hasty, unthinking, or knee-jerk.

“We’re talking about a person with great integrity, who played by the book and, as far as I know, never deviated from the rules,” said Steven Simon.  Mr. Simon was a Security Council aide in the Clinton administration.  He worked closely with Mary McCarthy while serving the former President and he trusts that Mrs. McCarthy is honorable.

According to former government officials, in 1998, Mrs. McCarty warned former President Bill Clinton that the plan to militarily strike a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan relied on inconclusive intelligence. Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer has long stood for informed decisions.  She frowned upon aggressive attacks that she believed did not promote a civil stance.  One former co-worker attributes this to her disdain for clandestine agenda.

“She was always of the view that she would rather not get her hands dirty with covert action” says Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. official. Scheuer also served during the Clinton years.  He claims to have been in meetings with Ms. McCarthy when she voiced her misgivings.  Mr. Scheuer recalls that McCarthy had strong suspicions about the intelligence on Al Qaeda.  She expressed her doubts to Mr. Clinton; she wondered whether chemical weapons were being produced in these Sudanese factories and thought it better to be certain before attacking.

However, the strike took place just as they were planned.  Ms. McCarthy’s qualms did not stop the retaliatory aggression against Al Qaeda.  After all, Americans want revenge and two American embassies were bombed in East Africa. Nevertheless, this earlier incident, and the current discussion of McCarthy leaks as they pertain to what some consider American abuse, do demonstrate that this woman is willing to dispute intelligence data and the methods sanctioned by her “superiors.”  She can and does question authority.  Is this wrong?

Is it not the manner in which we, as a people, as part of a republic choose to defy, challenge, or confront the circumstances that matters.  Can we register our complaints with compassion?  Can we communicate carefully in our attempt to reconcile our conscious and still be civilly obedient?  I think so.  I offer this component to the dialogue.

In the Christian Science Monitor article, “When the Tax Man cometh, they don’t answer the bell,” many tax resisters were interviewed.  Some, I think were merely manipulating a system that they disdained.  Others, such as Mrs. Ruth Benn of Brooklyn, New York are my heroes.  Mrs. Benn did not hide her actions or beliefs; she stated these proudly.  In a letter to the Internal Revenue Services, submitted with her 1040 form, she explained why she was not enclosing a check and where her funds were sent.  

This lovely and thoughtful woman filed her 1040 on time.  She communicated her concerns stating, “I do not want my tax dollars to be used for killing and war.”  That sentiment for me is truly civil.  Apparently, an approximate 10,000 other Americans did the same; they too withheld their tax payments.  They also object to this less than sanctioned war.

There were those persons that did not pay their taxes for religious reasons, others because they conscientiously object to war.  Numerous individual were motivated by “personal politics.”  However, these individuals chose, in good conscious to donate the duty-bound capital to charities.  They wished to commit to causes that were indeed working towards a greater good.

Philosophically, this practice works well for me.  I do not understand those that think killing, maiming, and aggressively attacking those that disagree with them promotes a sense of community.  Nor do I comprehend how reactive behaviors such as these can be considered egalitarian or democratic.  For me, when the government dictates deeds that are counter to the common good, then it is not being civil, polite, or acting for the common good.

I do struggle however, with the reactive stance of those that hide and purposely avoid paying their taxes. Those that do not communicate their reasoning and rationalize that they need not, I consider less than ethical and aware.  I believe, as John Donne did, that “No man [woman, child, or being] is an island.” if we are to exist well together, we must work collectively and support each other.

When our countrymen in Congress do not represent us, we must stand and be counted. After all, this government was founded on the principles of civil consciousness.  We are a government “of, by, and for” the people.  If we are to truly be the United States of America, we must work as “us.”

Is a signature on a social security card similar to that on a professional contract? When we sign either, do we lose our right to question indignities imposed by a warring government?  

When we know of activities that go against the grain of what is commonly considered for the common good and civilized, then, I believe we must speak. We need to take a stand respectfully.  Participating in practices that promote man’s inhumanity to man for me is not glorious; speaking against them is.  If questioning behaviors that glorify killing and maiming is considered legally disobedient, then I am willing to advocate defiance.  

I strongly suspect Mary McCarthy and Ruth Benn felt they were obeying a higher authority than that of the Bush Band, one that is benevolent and not hiding behind the phrase “compassionate conservative.”  They did not think themselves disobedient.  I believe they thought they had an obligation to goodness, grace, and to their community.  If this is true, then I support them.   I even think them courageous.  And you, what do you think?

The following references may help you to decide . . .

Schools, New York Offers Housing Subsidies, Bribing Educators ©


Sadly, our schools and districts mirror the shortsightedness that permeates our society.  Solutions are simple and never novel.  We, as a people, rarely learn from our mistakes.  We repeat what was done, even if it did not work well in the past.  New York City Schools are an example of this.

Today, the New York City School District offered “experienced” educators a gift; they are giving those that are willing to teach math or science in the inner city schools, a home, or at least the down payment on an abode.  New York City schools are in crisis, and are taking action.  Actually, they are reacting.  For I believe that actions are expressions of love, we react when we fear.  New York Schools, the Teachers Union, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg are running scared.  Thus, they seek solutions, shortsighted as these may be.
Currently, New York City schools are experiencing a shortage of trained teachers. Science, Math, and Special Education instructors are badly needed.  The lack is greatest in the city’s most challenging schools, those in the inner city.  Trained personnel considers urban institutions far less appealing, therefore they go elsewhere.  Mayor Bloomberg is trying to change this.  He, the District, and the Union agree, offer trained personnel money.

As parents, we learn bribing a child does not work.  Children do not grow greater when rewards are superficial, financial, or external.  Enticements might excite a child, an adult, or an educator initially; however, ultimately reality sets-in.  What was once a bonus becomes a burden.  Expectations are tied to these and they do not feel good.  Early on, we may be willing to do what we disdain for a dollar; later we will not.

As educators, we witness the short-lived stimulation of an external incentive.  Some of us realize that intrinsic rewards are authentically valuable.  Nevertheless, society teaches us tokens are attractive.  Even teacher education seminars spew this “truth.”  Vouchers may be appealing for a moment or two, and then the novelty wears off.  We conclude if we must suffer to receive a reward, it is not worth it.  If our minds, bodies, and hearts are overwhelmed while doing as we loathe, then any prize is not enough.

However, in a district that spends $15 Billion a year, money may seem the only answer.  This district may be as an absent parent. They offer material possessions to their offspring to compensate for the fact that emotionally, they are not there for them.  This District, as many if not most, is not there for the teacher; nor is it available to the students.  Education no longer considers genuine learning; it focuses on administering, teaching to, and the taking of tests.

Requirements for President Bush’s infamous, No Child Left Behind program amplify this.  These have taken a toll on scholarship.  Mr. Bush speaks of accountability.  In determining this, he and his comrades have created a structure that is void of learning and ignores the parameters that exist within our poorer and better schools.  Memorization, rote, and rules are the agendas in a kinder and gentler, benevolent Bush school.  In most educational establishments, students and teachers no longer experience a joy in teaching or learning. City schools suffer more severely.  Nevertheless, this strategy persists.  However, I digress, somewhat.

No Child Left Behind is magnifies what we as a society have done to our schools.  We have made them into prisons. We corral our students into a “classroom” and then discourage them from learning.  Curriculums are “standardized.”  School buildings are often locked down, computers locked up, pupils and instructors are locked in.  Creative, productive minds are left with little stimulus.  

Books are often outdated, dry, and not readily available. Learners rarely relate to the material or the mentor. Teachers tend to be remote; some feel they have to be.  In truth, a genuine relationship between student and teacher is frowned upon.  

In “good” schools and in those that are not, classrooms are crowded.  Discipline might be merely a concept.  Chaos is all too frequently the norm; some call this cooperative learning.  Individual learning styles are usually ignored.  There is too little time; teachers must teach to that basic skills test.  Success on these is vital.  Teachers’ jobs are on the line.

Parent involvement varies greatly.  To educator, administrator, and pupil, it can feel as too much or too little.  Instructors do a delicate dance and students’ needs are often lost in the shuffle.  For an empathetic tutor, this only adds to his or her frustration.

Resentment, dread, antipathy, apathy, and antagonism fill the schoolhouses.  Everyone inside is on edge.  Staff, students, and teachers long to be free; they desire the luxury of thinking, feeling, and doing what brings them pleasure.  Ultimately, they are liberated.  They pass their classes, dropout or burnout.  All are outcomes of a system gone awry.

An estimated 50 percent of all new teachers nationwide leave the profession within five years.  According to the Teacher Support Network,

“In a survey of head teachers by the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) in May 2000, 40% of respondents reported having visited their doctor with a stress-related problem in the previous year. 20% considered that they drank too much and 15% believed they were alcoholics. 25% suffered from serious stress related health problems including hypertension, insomnia, depression and gastrointestinal disorders.”

“Stress impacts greatly on teacher retention. A study conducted for the Times Educational Supplement in 1997 found that 37% of secondary vacancies and 19% of primary vacancies were due to ill-health, as compared to 9% of nursing vacancies and 5% in banking and the pharmaceutical industry.”

A career as an educator is a dichotomy.  The respect is little, the responsibility great.  American society shows its teachers little understanding.  This profession is interesting to say the least.

While it is nice to think as the New York Times article espouses, teachers are finally being honored and valued for their worth, this is not the case.  The incentives and stipends have strings, three years of service.  In other districts that have tried the same, monies must be paid back.  Service might be considered the same.  If the New York teachers leave before their contract is up, there are repercussions.

This plan will cost the New York City Schools have a $15 million, a drop in their $15 billion budget.  I can only wonder why they never think to spend their dollars on improving conditions.  Physical structures remain in a state of disrepair, more importantly; effective educational practices are not adopted.

Every endeavor in this District as in most seems a Band-Aid.  School districts, Administrators, Instructors, and parents focus on symptoms, short-term solutions and do not consider what truly caring for their progeny might look like.  

I believe that a thoughtful education considers the love of learning.  This is not encouraged or promoted in most classrooms.  Advancement is to the next grade is the goal.  We do not train our young to progress from factual repetitions of rote; nor do we allow our teachers to evolve.  We, as a society, and within our schools do not applaud the creative, productive, and imaginative mind.  We do not reward independence or innovation in our educators or pupils.  We want these bodies to just exist and do as they are told, even if we have to bribe them.

Do I think that these “experienced” teachers that New York is now recruiting for their inner-city population will work effectively, will be happy in their new positions, or will serve the students well? No, I do not.  

Just as the student population, the teachers will want to fly, to feel fulfilled, and to grow.  They cannot do this is a system that is stuck in what does not work.  People are as plants; they do not grow healthy, wealthy or wise when they are locked in, locked down, locked up, and rarely see the light of day.  Money cannot motivate an instructor or a student more than a moment or two.  Three years in a school or a system that imposes improbable standards, isolates, and insulates intelligence is a very long time!

We destroy the love of learning in children, which is so strong when they are small, by encouraging and compelling them to work for petty rewards–gold stars, or papers marked 100 and tacked to the wall, or A’s on report cards, or honor rolls, or dean’s lists or Phi Beta Kappa keys–in short, for the ignoble satisfaction of feeling that they are better than someone else. –John Holt

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think