Swickard: SJR 1 has a serious defect

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "The prison-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex are here with us and are multi-billion dollar enterprises. We can make more money off the kid in Compton if he's a criminal instead of a scholar. It's business." Henry Rollins

             I have written many times about the prison-industrial complex in New Mexico and our nation. Millions of dollars go to law-enforcement and the judicial-industrial complex for justice. From the pettiest of crimes to the most pernicious, the judicial system rides herd over thousands of citizens.

            Then there are prisons with all of the staffing. Somewhere in all of this money come bail bondsmen. There is something aimed at them that is not a good idea.

            This session in the New Mexico Legislature a proposed Constitutional Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, involving bail reform doesn't mean what people think. The test is easy. Another bill with the same language except for one provision, House Joint Resolution 13, is being offered and is said to be dead.

            The news media and casual observers may not see what is happening but the attorneys in the Legislature certainly do and they are "game-on" for this windfall. What is the one provision?

            That if someone is arrested and goes before a judge instead of having to post a bond saying they will make their court appearance, they can be released if they are poor and are not violent. For them no bail will be required.

            The easy sell on both measures is that Judges will have more power to keep violent people in jail without any chance of being released before their trial. That is a big push for a safer New Mexico. Many people are injured because a violent offender reoffends while on bail. The second set of victims naturally feels that the offender should have been kept in jail. So that change in New Mexico Constitutional Law is needed.

            The "More money for defense lawyers" provision in SJR1 which is missing from HJR13 involves that some people are kept in jail when they cannot arrange bail. Sometimes bail is ridiculously low such as one hundred dollars. Jails spend more than that per day housing those citizens.

            What is not being said by anyone but the Bail Industry spokesmen is that most people who can get bail do so by their relatives or friends coming up with the money and property collateral. Who would put up their house for their child if the alternative is to refuse to do so and their child is released for being poor and unable to afford bail?

            When someone is bailed out there are two parties that work together to make sure that person makes their court appointments: the people who provided the money for that person's release and the Bail Bondsman. Both have a financial interest in that person doing the right things.

            If people are just released on their own recognizance, there is not that pressure. Further, the private enterprise of Bail Bonds is such that the risk is weighed on each individual. Some people cannot bond out because no bail bondsman will take the risk. That is good to know.

            Finally, the real push for this provision is to free up resources from the parents and friends for the defense lawyers. Right now they see the bail as taking money from them since the friends and relatives come up with that money. With no bail required that same money that otherwise would go to bail would be available as extra resources for the lawyers.

            With this provision in SJR1 the lawyers see a pot of money glimmering and they assume most people will not think this through. They will just react to the notion of a debtor's prison where people sit behind bars because they don't even have a hundred dollars.

            I would like to see HJR13 pass and be voted on by citizens in November but not SJR1. It is making a bad situation worse and funneling more money to lawyers while ending a private enterprise that minute by minute in our system looks at the flight risk of each person.

            Are their abuses? Of course. But that is no reason to make the system worse.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: SJR 1 has a serious defect

Swickard: Mosquitoes like the DDT ban

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire

             The newest scare for Americans is a virus just making its way into our country named Zika. It is related to West Nile virus which we already are battling. The problem is we Americans have a cure for mosquitoes but for political reasons we will not use it.

            The way to deal with this epidemic is to kill all of the mosquitoes who spread the disease. While it seems hard to kill all of the mosquitoes, we have almost done it once before but politics gave the mosquitoes a chance to come back fully and kill millions upon millions of people.

            Several years ago two researchers had an article in Forbes, "Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies." This was published September 5, 2012. Dr. Henry Miller and Gregory Conko wrote that Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring" led to a worldwide ban on DDT use. Lacking DDT to kill mosquitoes is responsible for the loss of tens of millions of human lives, mostly children in poor tropical countries.

            They opine, "This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century."

            The insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was first discovered in 1874 and in 1939 a Swiss Chemist found it had great insecticidal properties. It was used in World War Two to control malaria and typhus. After the war the use of DDT expanded.

            The discovery of DDT's usefulness won the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine. Mosquitoes were controlled to the point that in just a decade they were seriously on the decline and therefore Malaria deaths were likewise on the decline.

            With no valid data DDT was banned and still is banned due to a political book by Rachel Carson in the 1960s. Malaria death returned and have stayed high. Mosquitoes have brought many other maladies of encephalitis and West Nile virus to the point that New Mexicans are injured or killed each year.

            It is a political campaign to keep DDT on the banned list when it has no known harm to humans and the presumed harm to raptors could not be replicated from Rachel Carson's book. Instead of telling people in New Mexico to put on mosquito repellent and to stay indoors, our government should kill every mosquito.

            Yes, the environmental lobby will not stand for it, but we could try. I have lost two friends to West Nile virus and have no patience for the environmental people who condemn our most fragile populations to death and diseases. If they, the environmentalists wish to die, so be it, but the great martyrs of our world did not send women and children into the wilderness instead of going themselves.

            Every death worldwide to malaria is an unnecessary death. Every death or illness from mosquito born viruses is not necessary. Millions are dying unnecessarily each year. Rachel Carson and her faulty research are responsible for millions of deaths.

            And we are responsible for those deaths because even by the early 1970s it was obvious to our scientists that the loss of DDT was far more harmful to human lives that we had realized before the ban. At that point there should have been an outpouring of information to reverse this ban. There wasn't because environmentalists are rabid about their agenda.

            In the 1950s, while I was living in Japan, early in the mornings the DDT truck would come down our street spraying the mosquitoes. We kids would often play in the mist to no harm other than ants refused to crawl on us for several days.

            Talking the truth gets people attacked because the environmentalists are political not scientific. If you join me in calling for the reintroduction of DDT all over New Mexico to protect our elderly and children you will be attacked. But the lives of our children are worth it.

            I'm all for setting up a Blue-Ribbon panel to investigate this controversy as long as politicians stay out of the way. They know nothing and only react to political causes. I always say to never use a political solution for a non-political problem.

            Mosquitoes are killing our citizens. There should be no politics as to the cure. It's DDT.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Mosquitoes like the DDT ban

Swickard: The five rights we need to do

Bill Richardson horsing around

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  We are living in angry times. Anger drives much of what we do. With the New Mexico Legislature in session there is more anger than normal. The political animals realize they only have a small amount of time to get what they want. So they spew anger to get their way.

            It makes me think of what Aristotle observed: "Anybody can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way... that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."

            There are big things driving anger in this Legislature like the impasse caused by driver licenses. Some want a driver's license for those who are in our country legally and another license for those without legal status.

            The anger has ratcheted up in the dialog so that thinking people want nothing to do with the debate since the flamers will scorch everyone who does not conform. That fight involves the political bases of both parties.

            Another flash point for anger is the desire of political animals to have their way regardless of the rules and regardless of any promises made earlier. Example: When Spaceport America was first proposed the idea was to get the construction paid by Dona Ana and Sierra County taxpayers. Those taxpayers stood to gain the most from an active and vibrant Spaceport.

            And I supported the idea of a Spaceport since, at the time many years ago, this was going to be the first one and the promises were rosy to say the least. Governor Bill Richardson, who was putting together a presidential bid, was looking for high profile projects and this fit the bill, er, the Bill.

            About the same time presidential candidate Bill Richardson unveiled the Richardson for President Rail Runner Express Transit system from Belen to Santa Fe which proclaimed Richardson's stature nationally that he understood mass transit.

            The enabling legislation never mentioned a rail project; it was aimed at New Mexico highways. That seemed a good idea and then the political animals dashed in and sprung the Rail Runner on New Mexico taxpayers without the taxpayers having any way to avoid the financial consequences which are huge.

            What do the Rail Runner and Spaceport America have in common? Both started with a political push and both are now mired in controversy about their financing. The Rail Runner is a deep hole in the Earth into which New Mexico taxpayers must pour money.

            I am not sure about the ultimate fate of Spaceport America. But the leaders of the project are doing things that anger New Mexico taxpayers and that is not good. The Spaceport is clearly not going as we expected when it started and putting lipstick on the project with cheerful press releases has not helped.

            State Senator Lee Cotter (District 36) who represents Dona Ana County has Senate Bill 157 to stop Spaceport America from paying salaries and other expenses with tax dollars intended to pay off the facility debt.

            Cotter has sponsored this bill previously. The proponents of hijacking the dollars say they need the money. But they don't want to come to the Legislature for those funds because they are afraid the legislature will say no.

            Senator Cotter said, "Dona Ana and Sierra County taxpayers are hurt when their taxes are diverted and do not go towards paying down the debt faster." Exactly. He points out that it is all borrowed money. If New Mexico had the money to begin with that would be one thing but both Rail Runner and Spaceport are with borrowed money.

            With the Rail Runner there is a day coming when many millions of dollars will be due. And it can only come from the taxpayers. We always need to do these projects with the five rights: the right people, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way.

            Hey, since the Iowa Caucus is now done, can New Mexico lose the Ethanol mandate. Why give that money to the Iowa farmers and take it away from New Mexicans? Why indeed.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: The five rights we need to do

Swickard: To deal with today's boy behavior

With glasses and a punch

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  I was born a small boy. Yes, small. And yes a boy. Both were a problem in public school. The first because it attracted larger boys who exercised boy behavior at my expense and the second because I accepted that is how boys are supposed to act. And so I had to adapt to being smaller than other boys.

            Sometimes I even admired how larger boys pushed me around since I thought at some point I would grow to be as big as my father. I didn't get a growth spurt until ninth grade. Previously I was one of the smallest in each class.

            But I have always been a boy and therefore I had plenty of boy behavior hardwired into my very being. If I was punched my automatic response was to hit back. No, I didn't go tattle to adults; I tried to land a blow on the tip of the offender's nose where it would start a nose-bleed.

            Public schools tried to extinguish all boy behavior when I was in public school since it was loud, chaotic and irritating to adults. We boys were treated as if we were dysfunctional girls. We were treated as if we had not thought of what would be acceptable behavior.

             "What were you thinking?" was a frequent question. Truth: wasn't thinking, just reacting as a boy.

            Public schools then and now try to make all children act like girls. Pay attention, don't take cuts in line and don't ever punch another boy. The expected behavior of schools is modeled after girls who act like girls.

            In the 1980s when my daughter was in third grade she was pushed around by a boy. I taught her something my Uncle Ralph taught me when I was young. It is a punch called the Hook. I didn't talk to the school about the boy behavior that is always at public schools, I gave her a way to deal with it. We practiced it.

            Young kids throw straight lefts and rights which are easily blocked. The hook comes out of left field and knocks the offender down. Her mother and the school weren't pleased with her knocking the boy down but he never pushed her again. Nor did any boy at that school. After her lecture was over, she came and high fived me.

            That is what Uncle Ralph's lesson did for me. I was much smaller but packed a punch. My father was in the Air Force and we moved eight times in my public school time. Each new school had a bully or a couple bullies that picked on new smaller kids. But not me more than once.

            My mother and the schools were exasperated with me hitting back. But I was usually left alone afterwards. And I learned to rely upon my own self instead of thinking I had to be protected by adults. They were never there when the flan hit the fan.

            It is in the public dialog that bullying in public schools is rampant and out of control. There are many new procedures. The newest ones command the kids to not fight back when attacked. Rather, to take their assault and make a report to an adult. The schools are ramping up anti-bullying administrators, hiring more and more adults to take over the fight rather than teach children to be their own advocate. That is pure crap!

            No I'm not saying the way to end all bullying is protective headgear and eight ounce gloves. But one thing is for sure. Throughout our children's lives they will be pushed around. Thinking that the only way to deal with abuse is to get a government higher authority to attend to it is lunacy.

            Yes, the government must deal with cases of physical abuse beyond a certain level. And often a restraining order only works when the person also has a pistol and is willing to use it. We need to teach our children to take responsibility for themselves as much as possible.

            Often it is just boy behavior anyway and should not trigger having a SWAT team parachute into the school. Let boys be boys and teach everyone how to cope.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: To deal with today's boy behavior

Swickard: The lost world of human capital

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "Achieving the highest possible return on human capital must be every manager's goal." 
     Brian Tracy  People in business know the value of human capital, but do we citizens? Brian Tracy writes about the value of good employees. I was thinking about the human capital of our citizens, as a whole, in our country. Some of that valuable human capital is being lost. And we are not attending to our losses.

            We spend lots of money educating all children. Billions of dollars are being used in public education and colleges. We get doctors, lawyers and engineers along with people in the trades who keep our country functioning. We, as a country, are only as good as all of our citizens.

            However, a third of all children drop out of a free education and often end up in jail. America loses when people who could have invented something useful or who would have raised children well are put in prison for non-violent crimes. America needs those Americans, but our leaders have a political need to ruin lives.

            The New Mexico Legislature leaders are talking for this session about getting tougher on crime. As if this country has not being doing that for decades. That sounds nice in political speeches but our country is either a Police State right now or very close to it.

            I do realize that violent crimes must be dealt with harshly. No, I am talking about non-violent crimes that have filled our prisons to capacity and more. We have allowed police units to become a military of their own.

            Everywhere I go I am under the watchful eye and firearm of the police. Every action I take is monitored by a government agency. Not just me, every American. Yes, the NSA said they were going to stop spying on Americans. They are such liars.

            Here's the problem: progressives from both parties over the last one hundred years have used any excuse to make government bigger and bigger. The War on Drugs for the last seventy years has just been an excuse to turn our country into a de facto Police State. Sadly, drugs are just as plentiful today as when they started.

            America's incarceration rates are far beyond any other free country and now the New Mexico Legislature wants to toughen up the laws, which means incarcerate more New Mexicans. These are just numbers to the politicians and leaders. But they are flesh and blood humans.

            And we are losing their potentials. When we incarcerate them then all of their talents are lost and often lost forever. Some convicts do come out of prison and restart their lives. And that is the lesson. We really lose when we keep people incarcerated their entire lives.

            In the last year I have gotten to know someone who five years ago was in prison. I think his violations were drug related. When he got out all he could get was a janitor's job. But amazingly he was the best janitor that company had ever seen. He is naturally clever without any college.

            Over a couple of years he first became assistant manager and then a store manager. I am being vague because I do not have permission to identify this person. I have owned several businesses and run others. This person's store reflects his great managerial skills. So do his employees. Even when he is not in his store I see him in every one of his employees.

            He is changing lives by leadership. Years ago he was in prison and only by the fortune of a company taking a chance on him do we see the potential of his human capital. How much value are we losing when we send so many to prison?

            Becoming a Police State benefits politicians and unions by having many more people employed in police departments, courts and prisons. It is a vast ever-growing industrial complex that knows no bounds. New Mexico is getting tougher on crime for more political benefits. And we all lose the human capital from our society.

            America thought their way to the moon. Can we readjust our legal system so as to not lose all of this human capital? Perhaps.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The lost world of human capital

Swickard: The wealth effect in politics

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  It's no secret money and power flows to and from politics. Lots of it. This has been the modus operandi of our political system for much of our country's history. Countering those politicians and money waving influencers are supposed to be the mainstream media.

            They're supposed to watch for bad behavior in politicians and take the side of the citizens. But now they are taking sides for themselves in the political fights. They are vicious against the politicians they oppose while absent from the watchdog role with the politicians they support.

            In the last twenty years the Internet has blossomed in a watchdog role despite taking no vows to be accurate. With all of these eyes watching politicians you would think scummy behavior by elected officials would be as dead as television rabbit ears.

            However, scummy behavior in politicians seems more rampant than ever. With the next session of the New Mexico Legislature set to start shortly there are many initiatives looking to reign in the influence of money in politics. Transparency watchdogs are pushing for tougher reporting of campaign donations.

            What it shows is that few people really understand the scummy side of politics. Paper shufflers and those who look at the paperwork only get a tiny look at scummy behavior. Filed paperwork only shows mistakes made in reporting but not the real intent.

            The real players when major money is given and taken do not intend for it to be seen. When a willing bribe giver and a willing bribe takers exchange there is not any paperwork filed. If both parties are happy no one will talk about it. The same is true for those politicians who sell out for sexual rewards or jobs for relatives.

            To see the real effect of money on politics you must look at a measured effect of the money. Not the decisions elected officials make because there are always explanations. If someone is on the take, their net worth goes up. But the watchdogs are not looking at net wealth increases.

            If watchdogs don't look at the wealth effect, they will not see it. What needs to be done by the investigative reporters is very mundane and labor intensive: chart every year of service as to the net worth of the person serving. Start with the year before elected and keep a running tab on how their wealth changes.

            There are ways to hide wealth with spouses and children and other relatives. But wealth sticks out in our society because to have wealth is to use it. Just piling up numbers in an account doesn't do anyone any good. To have money is to spend money.

            So when looking at a public servant on the take there will always be evidence of unbridled increase in wealth. This is especially so when you compare them to colleagues. Some people in politics will have a similar wealth before, during and after their years in service. Others hit the jackpot and pile up wealth.

            Of course there will always be explanations such as: I started a new way of investing. It is returning a thousand percent per month... Can we see your market report? Ah no.

            It is important to treat each wealth inquiry fairly and not with partisan zeal so that some slip through and others are caught. For this to be useful we must catch everyone who spins up their wealth briskly while in office.

            Questions of fantastic increases in wealth are not proof of taking bribes, but it certainly opens the door to looking very carefully. But if this inquiry is automatic to all who are elected it will discourage bribes because when caught politicians turn on the bribe givers. There is no one thing to clean up politics but this will help.

            Most importantly, it is unfair to the honest servants of the people to look at them like they are a chicken killing dog. The effect of the time served on honest politicians shows they give citizens a great gift of their time and effort while not taking any advantage of their position.

            We owe them this inquiry to catch scummy politicians. We are left with honest and faithful servants.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The wealth effect in politics

Swickard: The real statehood day in New Mexico

Bottom right, William Gallacher

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Today I am thinking of New Mexico Statehood Day, January 6th, 1912. Also I'm thinking of William Gallacher, the last surviving member from the New Mexico State University Class of 1908. He died at age ninety-eight a few years ago. He was living in New Mexico on statehood day so I asked him about it.

            From living in White Oaks, N.M. before the turn of the twentieth century and before the railroads came; he lived to see the landing of the space shuttle sixty miles from his ranch. He was thirty-five miles away from the first atomic explosion at Trinity Site, July 16, 1945.

            He was also one of the few who could look up in the sky and say, "Halley’s Comet, what do you know, there it is again."

            I drove out to his ranch in 1978 to ask him about the day New Mexico became a state. January 6, 1912 was the day that President Taft signed the official paperwork.

            Since Bill was four years out of college by then he would be a perfect person to ask. I pictured writing a story about people firing guns in the air, firecrackers going off, dogs barking, people toasting statehood at the local bar and speeches being made about, "Our date with destiny and our place in the sun."

            New Mexico spent sixty years trying to become a state with one thing or another stalling our chances. In 1912 we made it. Gallacher’s neighbor, William McDonald was New Mexico’s first elected governor, and owner of the famous Bar W ranch north of Carrizozo.

            Bill greeted me warmly and we sat over coffee at the kitchen table. He was the kind of person to always look right at you when he spoke. You knew right away what he thought. We started off by discussing the happenings of the day. Bill was like that, more interested in today than yesterday.

            After a while we had run through all of the available topics so I told him my perception that there must have been a big celebration in Lincoln County since the first elected governor was a local rancher.

            He thought a moment and then leaned closer, as a school master would a student who was a slow learner, "Celebrations?" He remembered back all of those years and did not smile.

            "On the day we became a state I got up about an hour before dawn, had a little breakfast and at first light went out to tend to sick animals, kill coyotes and do all of the chores that used up an entire day. About an hour after sunset I came back in and had a little supper then went to bed.

            "I was cold, tired and hungry. I would not have gone into town for any celebration. We hardly noticed statehood the first few years. Most of us were too busy just trying to stay alive, to feed ourselves and to carve out a place that would become our home to notice any politicians, not even a fine cattleman like McDonald.

            "Every day I got up early and worked late. I had no other energy and did not come in off of the range sometimes for months at a time."

            He noticed my lack of comprehension so continued, "Politicians and celebrations were a luxury most of us then could not afford. For thirty years on this land I worked with all of my energy. It was not a forty hours a week job, it was dawn to dark seven days a week or we would not have made it. Only after the ranch was on solid footing did I notice the government. I served on the Lincoln County Commission and the school board."

            I was thankful that Bill brought me back to reality before I wrote something silly about the celebrations the citizens all had when New Mexico became a state. It was a hard time back then, more so than most of us can even realize. And January 6, 1912 was, for most of the citizens of New Mexico, just one more working day.

            The way to celebrate the anniversary correctly is by going to work early and working late.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: The real statehood day in New Mexico

Swickard: Half of all Americans are below average

Surprise for my high school teachers 

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "For the first time ever, overweight people outnumber average people in America. Doesn't that make overweight the average then?" Jay Leno

            I salute the wisdom of Jay Leno. My high school nickname was "Slim" since I swam competitively in high school. Today when someone says, "Hey Slim," I know they are just trying to get a rise out of me. But I'm now average.

            Since the Clemson - Alabama game is a couple days away I was thinking of William "The Fridge" Perry who in 1981 played on the National Championship Clemson team and then on the Super Bowl Chicago Bears team. Coach Ryan gave him the nickname of "Biscuit." The coach said, "The Fridge is only one biscuit away from 350 pounds."

            And perhaps we could say I am just one bowl of green chile and beef away from having to buy new clothes. Hence this week is the start of the 2016 annual diet week where I do gerbil like activity until I get distracted from all of that exercise. However, this year I have a Fitbit activity tracking band that counts my steps so perhaps I will turn over a new leaf. Perhaps indeed.

            Americans try to understand average. I can safely mention this since we just got by the Thanksgiving Christmas and New Year's juggernaut of extra calories. After a successful holiday season, I resemble the average American.

            We swim in a sea of statistics with very few people understanding what they suggest. When I say that half of all Americans are below average the average American wants to do something about it. We can't have all of those Americans being below average, or can we?

            This notion has been humorously dealt with by Garrison Keillor's A Prairie Home Companion where in the segment News from Lake Wobegon he says, "... (Lake Wobegon) where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

            In 1987, John Cannell, a Virginia physician, noticed at that time every state claimed their students were above average. Further, the student scores were found to be uniformly above average in all states. This syndrome was then labeled the “Lake Wobegon Effect.”

            In a recent poll 95% of all drivers rated themselves above average drivers. Go figure. I admit it sounds bad to be below average if we care about whatever we are being judged upon. In public school I was a statistical average student consistently getting the grade of C. Teachers in exasperation would say, "You could get a B or an A if you tried."

            They didn't understand my philosophy: if you turn homework in, they will expect it every time. So the non-existent dog ate my homework. And I cultivated a persona of not being academically inclined. Truth be known I was just not tuned to their radio station as the saying goes.

            Should we rate my teachers down because I was not interested in high school except for the things that I found interesting? In a conversation about my lack of achievement since I had just over a two point zero grade point average my mother mentioned to the counselor that I owned a couple thousand books.

            Yep, I read all of the time when I wasn't doing sports. But I didn't find what they wanted me to know interesting. As far as students going to go to college I was very much below average. But they just did not understand me since I achieved a Ph.D. when I decided that it was what I wanted.

            The great failing of our public schools is that they are focused on the adults, not the kids. Some kids are more compliant than others. All of the measures of public schools are actually only measuring how compliant the kids are in today's schools. Most are just not compliant.

            Me, I would purposely get every answer wrong on the accountability tests if I was forced to take it. I know myself and how I dealt with public school fifty years ago. And I would be labeled below average. So? What the accountability would measure with me is my engagement with their agenda. I am not.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Half of all Americans are below average

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  In a small unscientific study looking only at myself I find that the years go by quickly. They are packed with victories and losses. If we have a loss, at least we should get the lesson. Getting lemons doesn't help unless you have sugar and water for lemonade.

            Let's look at 2015 as we think about 2016. We must remember the mistakes that were made this year so we don't repeat them. We also need to remember our victories so we have some chance to repeat them.

            George Santayana in 1906 wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Our society doesn't seem to learn. Let's make 2016 the year we learn from a previous year's mistakes.

            If there was an organization to remember society's wins and losses each year they would say you must acknowledge both the wins and losses. Losses are difficult because people gloss over them while fixating on wins.

            The biggest loss in the last few years is the loss of the truth. Truth has become the new hate speech. George Orwell wrote, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

            Many people are afraid of the truth because an expedient political power play has emerged in our society. It is to label as racist or worse anyone who opposes the wishes of the political parties. 2015 was a name-calling year with most of the name-calling being done for political gain.

            A friend runs a political blog and has a hard time with the inclination of some posters to name-call and act ugly. I am glad he is fighting that fight because we can never have truth in our society if the name-calling brigands are allowed to take over public dialogs.

            The year 2015 will be remembered as the year everything offended someone. David Bednar wrote, "To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else."

            This year I found I could concurrently offend both Republicans and Democrats. I got hate emails from both the same week. I have written a weekly column for more than thirty years so I am used to offending people. It happens. But this year it seemed that there was a virulent practiced response to opposing ideas and that was name-calling and ignoring the truth.

            One person was very offended when I wrote about something that happened in the 2015 New Mexico Legislature. The problem for me was that I did not witness this situation myself. But I found four people who confirmed to me what happened along with two others in law enforcement who witnessed it. I would not retract my column.

            This last year the two major political parties were nationally very similar. The only thing they disagree on was which person should be elected, not the will of the people and how Congress should protect the Constitution.

            The emphasis of 2015 for the national leaders of both parties was to make government bigger. This has been covered extensively by the national press that can be identified by their political editorial leanings. Both the liberal press and the less liberal press have their agendas. If it wasn't for the Internet they would succeed.

            Many years ago Bob Hope quipped, "No one party can fool all of the people all of the time; that's why we have two parties." A friend said to one politician, "Please act as if you actually talk to citizens and not just consultants and fixers." That didn't go over well.

            Comedian George Burns was asked, "How's your wife?" He answered, "Compared to what?" That is what we have to realize each year. When we do a year in review in some ways we are often comparing to other years.

            Can we learn from 2015? Yes, but we must want to learn. We may have to change some of our elected politicians if we want real change. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789, "Whenever people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government."

            We have many well-informed citizens but everyone loses when truth is politically inconvenient and so is absent from our society.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Question: when is the best age to start children in public schools? This is like the question: why not teach algebra to five-year olds? Answer: our brains must develop before we can do formal logic. The age to start formal public school education is not until the age of six.

            However, a big push in our society by well-meaning people and power-hungry politicians is that earlier contact with school makes a better scholar. They say that while ignoring the research. They have many reasons not involving the welfare of the children when they want to start children younger.

            However, others people, myself included, feel that certain brain development phases must occur for children to thrive in a formal education setting. Research which I will point to suggests you can injure young children by putting them in formal academic settings too soon.

            We should look at the research but the way many professional educators have been operating of late is to ignore all research that doesn't support what they want. They say, "Forget the research we want to have a bigger empire and employ more people."

            When I was young most students began their formal education at the age of six. The generation that sent men to the moon and returned them safely started their schooling at this age. It works. The children were in family or church daycare until it was time to start school.

            Then there came kindergarten. In the 1960s there was the adoption of public school kindergarten for many students. In New Mexico it was the middle of the 1970s when the public schools uniformly started offering kindergarten. But that kindergarten was vastly different than what we see now.

            Back then it was only for half of the day and focused on play activities. Children sang songs and played games and took naps and went home saying, "I love school." Then well-meaning people said, "Why don't we keep them all day." It made sense since parents would not have to accommodate the other half of the day.

            The beauty for the politicians was it allowed public schools to hire twice as many kindergarten teachers. And for a while that was how schools went. But then administrators started talking about changing kindergarten into a formal academic activity.

            They justified changing kindergarten to formal education for five year olds so when these young students are in fourth grade they will do better making the school seem more successful. Kindergarten now doesn't look like it did. The play and informal curriculum is gone and the five year olds are just trying to learn the six year old stuff a year early. How is that working? Terrible but no one is paying attention.

            Research at Stanford University suggests the move to get children into academic classrooms sooner comes with liabilities. There is an interesting study that even mainstream news organizations are noticing. It is: The Gift of Time? SchoolStarting Age and Mental Health.

            This research from Stanford University looks at when students start and if starting a year later would be better. There are countries that start their children later in school. What is the outcome?

            The later starting children do better on the fourth and eighth grade tests and seem to not have as many mental health issues. But the research doesn't fit the political needs of our education leaders. The vast industrial public education complex needs the young children in the system.

            And I am fine with that if these politicians will just read the research and see that they can make the first year a year of curiosity, play and social involvement but they cannot teach formal education to the majority of the five year olds.

            Further, we must see our young children by their number of day alive and not birth year. I was born seven days before the cutoff so I was the youngest and smallest boy in most of my classes. Some of my competing classmates were fifteen percent older than me that first year.

            The Stanford study, which can be downloaded for five dollars talks about all of these issues. I do wish some of our leaders would look at this great research.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling