How to be Happy?

As my frustration with things political and economic grows, and as I always feel I am on the cusp of a rant, I wonder how so many around me remain happy, at ease, and content.  I am not sure, but I have a theory.  I look closely at the areas of my greatest angst and wonder how I might release those feelings to achieve a state of daily bliss.  Perhaps if I believed the following I would be happier:

If I believed that the wealthy in our country not only had a right to be wealthy bestowed upon them as almost a divine right, they have a right to increase their wealth even at the expense of the poor, I might be happier.  I should absolve the wealthy of all notions of responsibility for others.  I should argue that promoting the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few somehow benefits those who are most needy.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

If I believed that our nation was founded on Christian beliefs and that the purpose of government is to enact law that promotes Christianity, especially certain conservative versions of Christianity that view homosexuality as sinful, same sex marriage as blasphemy, and that females should not have a voice or choice in their ability to reproduce, I might be happier.  I should argue that the state has both the authority and the purpose to promote this form of belief, that there should be staff led prayer in schools, there should be Christian symbols at public buildings, Christians of my ilk should be allowed to discriminate against those with a different sexual orientation, and if push comes to shove, that Anglos are superior to other races, and males are superior to females.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

If I believed the Bible was not only the literal truth, but that the book should serve as a superior resource to science for our understanding of our world, I might be happier.  I would argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Darwinism is a flawed assumption, that there was no big bang, that God created the universe in 6 days, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on the planet, that women should submit to their husbands, that God blesses the wealthy, and that the poor and the victims of disaster and violence must have sinned in some way.  I would argue that what we believe is more valid than what we know.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

If I believed that our government was in fact our enemy and should be curtailed as much as possible, I might be happier.  If I oppose all governmental intervention in the private sector, I should argue that there should be virtually no regulations controlling businesses, especially Wall Street, banks, environmental pollutes, safety in the workplace and fossil fuel companies.  I should further argue that discrimination in the private sector is OK, paying workers the least amount possible is OK, denying workers expensive benefits is OK, and that forces that work against such beliefs such as unions should be abolished.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

If I believed that global warming was a myth; more, that if there is global warming human behavior has not influenced such warming, I might be happier.  I should argue that this is merely a historical cycle and has nothing to do with consumption of fossil fuels and has nothing to do with deforestation, etc.  I would further argue that any governmental effort to curtail possible human influence on the environment is a clear example of government over reach in the private sector.  The pursuit of profit is more important than the environment.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

If I believed that America’s public schools are a huge failure, a source of incredible wasteful spending of huge amounts of tax dollars, and lacking the components of the private sector, I might be happier.  I should argue that any strategy that makes public schools look bad such as standardized high stakes testing, labeling schools A to F, holding teachers and schools accountable for student test scores, is a good thing because it helps reduce funding for public schools and promotes shifting tax dollars to the private sector via charters and vouchers.  I should argue there is something inherently wrong with a system of adults who perform public service for children and are immune to a sense of competition, incentives to increase income, and seek to perform more as professionals than technicians.  Such a group is very scary and market forces must be implemented in the school systems to warp them.  I should also argue that the most important function of public education should be to promote the status quo and support the beliefs outlined above.  Schools should never teach students to think critically, to look at problems from multiple angles and to question what we know and what we do.  Any such effort should be quickly squashed.  Further, if we find a public school employee who does not adhere to these beliefs they are dangerous and must be removed.  If I believed that, I would feel less angst.

I guess those are the main areas that are causing me such angst.  If I could just adopt those beliefs outlined above I would be happier, I think.  Should I adopt those beliefs I would find myself surrounded by like thinkers, I would find myself in the majority (at least in Texas), and I would celebrate the efforts of the current state leadership and national congressional leadership.  Oh, to let myself believe those things.

But:  I am the victim of an education.  I learned to read, to read a variety of sources and a variety of opinions.  I learned to think, to systematically analyze what I read looking for consistency and fact.  In short, I believe I know too much to support any of the above beliefs.  My knowledge conflicts with those beliefs and I when there is conflict, I choose knowledge over belief.  Hence my angst.

So I know that every time our nation has moved to promote wealth accumulation rather than provide a safety net for the poor and working poor, the economic system has approached collapse.  And yet we are doing it again.  I know that all those government regulations exist because the market and profit motive is not ethical.  Producers can make more money if they sell goods and services that may harm consumers or harm the employees.  When we have allowed producers to operate without government oversight we have faced terrible consequences for our well-being.  I know that our founding fathers were deathly afraid that our government would endorse or support one religion over another and took great care to separate the function of the government from any belief system.  I know that global warming is not a myth, and human influence on the warming is not a myth.  We helped create the current crisis by pursuing profit over well-being and the long term health of our planet.  I know that the Bible is not a science textbook and I would no more look to it for scientific understanding than I would look to it for help with a computer virus or to tune the engine of my car.  I know the universe is about 14 billion years old and that planet earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  I know that dinosaurs were on the planet from about 230 million years ago until 65 million years ago.  I know that the great apes, including humans, first evolved about 15 million years ago, that modern humans evolved about 1 million to 500,000 years ago.  No way is the planet 6,000 years old, no way dinosaurs and humans co-existed, and no way that evolution is not valid.

And I know that American public schools are doing great, thank you very much.  We are doing great despite the ongoing assault of the private sector to prove otherwise.  Each of the experiments developed by billionaires has failed; each of the efforts to divert public dollars to private efforts has shown no improvement, and each of the efforts to increase accountability has in fact pushed our education system in the wrong direction for selfish reasons.

I cannot forget what I know.  I cannot suddenly believe the sun rotates around the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe when I know so much more.  The beliefs that seem to be the majority in public opinion are for the most part wrong, misinformed or blatant lies.  I do believe that men and women of conscience must speak out against such false beliefs.

And I know that as long as I do not believe and speak out I will not live in a state of daily bliss.  That’s OK.  I firmly believe the knowledge revolution is here and growing and that in the long run knowledge will win over conflicting beliefs.  It always has and always will.  In that I do find some happiness.

The Failure of Public Schools

I was at first view amused by the latest Rob Lowe commercial for Direct TV entitled “Peaked in High School.”  Upon reflection and further exposure to the ad I grow ever sadder and madder.  I know far too many adults for whom the title of this ad is the reality of their lives.  Worse, many of the “peaked in high school” crowd sit on school boards working hard to ensure that the next generation of students also peak in high school with an overemphasis on extracurriculars and a diminished emphasis on academics.  If as I approached mid-life the highlight of my life was advancing to the state semi-finals in football while I was in high school then those in public education have committed a terrible disservice to me and other students. 

 

But that is not the biggest failure of public schools.  Such misdirected emphasis, resources and energy are but symptoms of the larger failure of our school systems.  Much as the current reform movement which includes the characteristics of high-stakes standardized tests, value added teacher evaluations, so called school choice are other symptoms of our greatest failure.  Electing state officials who are clearly anti public education and pro shifting public dollars to the private sector and wealthy families is another symptom of our failure.  I believe none of these trends would currently hold such sway in education had we done a better job in public schools of teaching certain basic concepts.  Having failed to teach these concepts we are reaping what we have sown.

 

A simple concept that many students fail to grasp and apply is the difference in fact and fiction or fact and opinion.  I would expand that to say the difference in knowledge and belief.  Without this simple skill falsehoods are perpetrated without scrutiny, without research, and tend to be accepted by those who failed to master this concept.  Fox News very frequently broadcasts opinions as though they were fact, and when caught misstating the facts life goes on without consequence.  Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity deserve far worse than Brian Williams, but to know that one would have to research the issues.  Obama is a Christian and an American citizen despite multiple repetitions of falsehoods to the contrary.  Believing that trickledown economics, or supply side economics works is a belief that flies in the face of the facts.  We know that Herbert Hoover’s, “What’s good for business is good for the USA,” led to the Great Depression.  We know that Reagan’s supply side economic theory created a huge national debt.  We know that Bush’s efforts to deregulate business, especially Wall Street, led to the 2008 financial debacle.  And yet, we have just elected a Congress hell-bent on repeating these errors from the past.  We know the earth orbits the sun.  We know the earth is billions of years old.  We know the theory of evolution is confirmed on a daily basis.  We know dinosaurs once roamed the earth.  And yet, there are those among us who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs are a myth, etc.  That is OK until such folks want their belief system to be state supported contrary to what we know to be true.  We know charter schools perform no better and often worse than public schools.  We know a voucher program simply provides tax dollars to pay private school tuition for the wealthiest parents.  We know measuring student learning via a once-a-year high stakes standardized test diminishes our ability to teach concepts such as this one, and yet we have Legislatures and Departments of Education who still look to such strategies as an improvement tool.  Worse, we have political demagogues and billionaires who support such nonsense.  Why isn’t the nonsense more obvious?  Why can’t we see the emperor is naked?  We have failed to teach the concepts of fact vs. opinion and critical thinking.

 

Had we done a better job of teaching the concept of fact vs. opinion and knowledge vs. belief I believe we would have much less ridiculous policy based on fictions, opinions and beliefs, and those who personally benefit from the promulgation of such falsehoods would not be held in esteem but would become fodder for laughter.  The problem, of course, is that those who benefit from the lack of critical thinking are those who are the strongest supporters of presenting only one side of each issue – their side.  If one only hears one side how will we teach students to think, to weigh, research, decide and evolve to critical thinkers?  I say this as our own Lt. Governor waged war on a curriculum system because it encouraged students to, for instance, look at the Boston Tea Party from the British point of view.  I see the Oklahoma Legislature considering the abolition of AP History because it promotes critical thinking in similar areas.  I see the resignation of our state education agency science leader over the requirement that we support intelligent design over evolution.  These same opponents of critical thinking, fact vs fiction, knowledge vs belief scream for these censorships out of fear that we are “brainwashing” our kids; and then they set about ensuring that our kids only hear their side ensuring that they are, in fact, brainwashed.  Public education has failed to teach this concept in the face of political pressure, fear, falsehoods, and insistence on only one source of information and one “true” basis for belief and opinion.  In other words, we have failed to be an educational institution and have emerged as a political pawn suffering today for the lack of critical thinking skills on the part of our current leadership while ensuring the next generation lacks the same skills.

 

Another concept we have dramatically failed to teach are the conceptual foundations of democracy and our brand of free enterprise.  Many assume the two are the same when they could not be more different conceptually.  Though there are many worthy scholarly works on these philosophies allow me to simply summarize by saying that democracy is based on what is good for the people, the people rule, and all people are equal with certain civil liberties.  Free enterprise is based on competition which is only good for the winners, rewards efficiency, rewards innovation, and values financial success of the few over the quality of life for all. 

 

Public education has been required in Texas to only teach one side of the free enterprise system, guaranteeing that we are not actually teaching the conceptual base.  Our state law requires us to teach, “Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits.”  Read that to mean a teacher better not teach the shortcomings of a free enterprise system.  Those who lack the ability to think critically probably just had a stroke at the very thought that free enterprise has shortcomings, much less that it might be in our best interest to educate our students on both the benefits and failures of the free enterprise system.  I’m on a roll now about economics so I will finish this train of thought then return to democracy and then highlight the differences.

 

Free enterprise operates via a “market” wherein producers of goods and services and consumers of goods and services meet to transact.  Consumers give producers money for the goods and services they want.  Producers supply consumers by making those goods and services.  The ongoing process of the market results in a market price that is determined by the demand of the consumer and the ability of the producer to produce in a cost range that consumers are willing to incur to purchase the good and service.  If iPhones could only be produced at a cost of $1 million per phone, few would have iPhones.  On the other hand, not every American consumer can afford an iPhone so they are not universally owned.  Cost effective producers earn more money.  People employed in areas that are in high demand earn more money to spend on the goods and service producers make.  Marginal producers expire.  Marginal earners come close to expiring.  The market weeds out the winners and the losers, the goods and services we demand and are willing to pay to procure.  How noble.  How pure and simple.  Adam Smith should be proud.

 

The problem is the market is immoral.  It operates on the consumer principle of getting the most for your buck and the producer principal of receiving the most bucks for your product.  Nowhere in that formula does anyone ask moral questions:  Is this the right thing to produce?  If we can produce a product cheaper and generate more money should we be concerned with collateral damage to health and the environment?  If as a producer I can keep any of my costs of production lower, like labor, why shouldn’t I do so?  Do I have a responsibility to consumers that supersedes my personal desire for revenue?  If I desire a certain product and have either the income or the credit making the purchase possible, should I purchase this product?  If it costs more but serves to improve humanity, should I buy it?  Do we have a moral obligation to the producers to ensure they do not fail?  Do we have a moral obligation to consumers to ensure they do not go without the basic necessities? 

 

These questions highlight our dilemma with the market economy.  Our foods are pretty safe to eat because we have learned that if the government does not monitor and regulate food production we will end up with edibles that might kill us or make us sick because it is cheaper to produce foods that way.  Same is true of our tap water.  Same is true of the safety and environmental impact of our vehicles.  We insist that a product is what a producer says it is because we have learned from too many snake oil salesmen and PT Barnum’s that false claims help producers and hurt consumers.  It is not surprising that producers hate the monitoring and regulations because it diminishes the revenue they could generate if they could ignore the moral questions.  We have returned to “what is good for business is good for the USA” philosophy.  As we wring our hands about the decline in the middle class we have turned a blind eye to corporate production moving overseas to avoid high labor and taxes.  Is it moral for a corporation to do that?  Our courts have said that corporations are people and may spend money in elections dramatically changing election outcomes.  Is it moral for those who profit the most to be able to influence elections more than the majority of consumers?  If you are a corporate winner, is it ok to gobble up your competition so that you hold an unassailable position in the market?  Is not the result of all competitions the eventual sole winner?  Is that what we want?  Do we want corporations so large that should they fail we all fail?  The most interesting development since the economic collapse of 2008 to me is that those very same corporations that most resent regulation and oversight, that have worked the hardest to consolidate their position in the market, and have spent the most money in an effort to influence elections were the very first entities to come to the government with their hands out when it appeared that they might fail as a result of the free market.  It appears that the only supporters of competition are the winners.

 

Necessity may be the mother of invention and it must be said that if there is a demand for a product or service there will be a supply.  Hence we have illegal drugs, pornography, prostitution, etc., etc.  If producers operated on moral ground the goods and services available in our economy would be markedly different.  On the other hand, invention also serves as the mother of necessity.  Who knew we needed smart phones and microwaves and desktop computers and even calculators until they were invented?  Yes, there are huge problems, huge shortcomings, and huge issues in a free enterprise system.  Failure to teach such concepts places the next generation in a poor position to evaluate proposed legislation regarding our economy and fiscal policy.  It comes as no surprise that such thinking opposes unions as they organize labor to better influence corporate decisions.  It comes as no surprise that it is corporate concerns that most strongly support teaching only the benefits of the free enterprise system while seeking, once again, to banish any other discussion under the rubric of brainwashing.  Public education again failed to teach the core concepts behind our economic system in ways that future voters might be encouraged to weigh the moral impact of governmental decisions, monitoring and regulation of our producers.

 

And what of democracy?  What of the basic notions driving a governmental structure that is truly a radical, liberal structure when compared to most of planet earth both today and historically?  Do we share with students that prior to John Locke, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson virtually every government on the planet was based either on divine right, that is God chooses the king, or on military might?  Kings came and went based on lineage, each arguing they were divinely chosen and the citizens were stuck with whomever “god” choose.  Or, someone with power and usually military backing assumed control via a revolution and force of arms.  Dictators came and went based on who had such might.  Though the Greeks toyed philosophically with both direct and representative democracy, it was with the Constitution of the United States that a new radical form of government was established.  A form of government that was not determined by birth right or who you are, nor was it determined by force of arms and fear and revolution.  This was a form of government where the citizens actually made decisions about their government!  Wow!  No King, no dictator, no special lineage, no designation of royalty, aristocrats, commoners and peasants.  All people were involved in the decision-making.  (Well, that is not quite true.  For years only white males, property owners, etc. were allowed to vote.  Then African Americans were allowed to vote, then women.  There has been a slow and sure progression to include more and more humans in the “people rule” group, at least until recently when we have seen concerted efforts to make voting by some groups more and more difficult.)  There has not been a more liberal expansion of the respect and rights of individuals in government than the establishment of the American democracy.  And even that notion we do not teach.

 

So, we have a new liberal form of government prescribed as a democracy where all men (sic) are created equal and have certain rights.  The government’s task is not only national defense, but to secure the ability of the people to pursue happiness.  Wow.  And, we have an economic structure that relies on a market place, but producers of goods are always trying to influence that market by gobbling up competition, opposing oversight and regulations, seeking to bust up organized labor.  There are no equal rights in the market.  Winners are rewarded with dollars and losers either barely hang in or go belly up.  And the rules of the American market place are written by the economic winners.

 

Worse, the economic winners also want to write the rules for the democracy side of the equation.  They want to dictate how to structure public education so that more tax dollars are shuffled their way and public schools look worse and worse based on an accountability system they developed.  Why do we sit around and let this happen?  We have failed to promote critical thinking skills because the economic powers do not want us to think critically.  Nor do they want our kids to clearly know the philosophical differences in democracy and free enterprise.  To teach either of these concepts requires looking at things in new ways, and we surely do not want that to happen.  Worse, educators would absolutely be burned at the stake if they shared facts with their students like America does not have the highest standard of living in the world, we do not have the lowest infant mortality rate, while we do have the most homicides by fire arm and the greatest gap between the wealthy and the poor. 

 

I stand in awe of our founding fathers who were able to look at governments and power in new ways and structure.  I am so disappointed in those who wrap themselves in the flag and oppose most of what the founding fathers stood for.  Only in the USA is it ok to be a minority, to speak out against the government, to hold different views from your fellows, and know that your core civil liberties will be protected.  We do not have the right in this country to shape our government just to reflect our own values.  We must always protect the values of others.  We must always be diligent against a tyranny of the majority.  If we do not demand the enforcement of civil liberties for racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual preference minorities and political minorities we are no different than Putin.  Given the option of protecting civil liberties for all or the ability of the few to make large profits I will always land on the side of civil liberties.  That is really the only thing that sets us apart from other nations.

 

I deeply regret that we have failed to teach these concepts to the graduates of the past 25 years or so.  We can claim we were hampered by those who only wanted their kids obedient rather than thoughtful.  But that is an excuse.  We should have taught kids how to think.  We are reaping the rewards of a generation of non-thinkers now and I am deeply saddened.

 

But then, my greatest memories and sense of success did not occur in high school and I was blessed by an educational system that taught me to look at issues from both sides.  As the Texas Legislature gears up it is clear who supports public education and who supports teaching only one side of the issue and who supports shifting tax dollars from a democratic effort to a free enterprise effort.  So sad.  We must allow teachers to teach.  Preparation for high stakes standardized tests all but eliminates teaching students how to be critical thinkers on a macro scale.  Passing a test is not the same as being educated; bubbling an answer document is not the same as thinking.  Give me an educated thinker any day.

 

And I apologize for not promoting the development of such thinkers in public schools.  We should have.  The current leadership could only exist in a climate where Fox News and Survivor are believed to be real.