Austintown Schools' Free Lunch

Apparently there is a free lunch. Nothing is more symptomatic of our nation’s ills that the story that appeared on local television and in the Vindicator relating to Austintown School’s free lunch program. Enough is enough.

The Austintown Ministerial Association has announced, in conjunction with the Austintown School System, the school free lunch program will be extended past the school year to July 31 for those students who qualify for free lunches during the regular school year. The lunches will be distributed between the hours of 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM at Woodside Elementary Schools. The project will be operated by “staff” and volunteers. It is funded through the USDA (the United States Department of Agriculture).

The Austintown School Superintendant Doug Heuer was quoted by WKBN television as saying "So during the summer months, although those children still needed to have food supplements, the school district wasn't available to provide it." He stated that just under half of the systems 5000 students are either on a reduced or free lunch program. Again being quoted by WKBN, Pastor Rick Stauffer of Tabernacle Evangelical Presbyterian Church said: "There's money available given by the USDA. That money is there. We thought, well if we can tap that money, and provide these lunches for these kids, that that was the right thing to do."

Why is this the right thing to do? How much responsibility can parents pass on to the public sector for raising their children? Look, the function of the school system is to educate the students. The do-gooders of the world have morphed the schools into being a primary provider for the children…with extended school hours, with free breakfasts, with free lunches, with free pre-school, with personal aids for special needs children. In the middle of this mess, the average John or Jane is short shifted from the education which should be the primary focus of the schools. For what is the family responsible?

If these folks qualify for free lunches, would I be wrong in surmising that the families are already receiving assistance in the way of food stamps and other government programs? You mean to tell me that Mom and Dad cannot supply these kids with a peanut butter sandwich: total cost about 30 cents, if that? That’s what I got for lunch, and my folks weren’t poor.

Call me Scrooge, but this goes way beyond providing nutrition to children. It represents another step in shifting the responsibility in raising children from the parent(s) to the public sector. What does this teach those kids? It teaches them that Mom (and Dad if there is one) would rather see the school provide for the kids than the family. Why not just keep them there for dinner and provide free babysitting service for the entire afternoon?

I know that there are truly needy folks among us, and we should do all we can to help these folks. But I have a problem with ½ of the school system’s student population qualifying for free meals from a nanny state through the summer rather than food for nutrition and the soul at home with their families. I simply don’t believe that the families of 48% of the students in that system can’t afford lunch for their kids during the summer.

And folks, these aren’t hungry 5 year olds. You qualify up to the age of 19 years old, when these adults should be looking for a summer job rather than a free lunch.

Thus another generation learning the definition of entitlements.

Of Jews and Episcopalians

Sometimes something comes along that is just too good to pass up. While thumbing through last week’s Newsweek magazine, I came upon an opinion piece entitled Uncle Bernie and the Jews written by a guy named Joseph Epstein. Mr. Epstein wrote: “Madoff soaked the rich, but he seems to have specialized in soaking the Jewish rich. The spectacle presented by a Jew swindling Jews is itself flush with interest.” He then goes to opine that Madoff was the quintessential Jewish stereotype, and because Jews are “still tribal enough” to think of their fellow Jews as family, the author has come to think of Madoff as “Uncle Bernie.”

Then the fun stuff starts. Mr. Epstein goes off on a tangent and talks about the WASP-ification of Jews in America, and of their general Episcopalianization. Now there’s a word. His premise is based on his observations of the development of parallel Jewish institutions to WASP institutions, including schools and country clubs, and the anglisizing of Jewish first names, such as “Tyler Ginsberg, Kelly Rabinowicz, Mackenzie Rosenthal, and Hunter Fefferman.” He then goes on to say that as this process has developed, there is something “trivial” that is “unseemly” about Jews playing golf, and that the parents and grandparents of this Jewish Country Club set would have preferred the offspring to be pursuing “studying, arguing, thinking, working, making money, and contemplating why God has put him through so many trials.”

He then concludes that if Madoff’s bad behavior “will bring a few Jews off the links, perhaps that is not an entirely bad thing.” He then concludes this interesting article by quoting an Hungary born historian who told the author to write a book about the success of Jews in America…. “But you know, of course that the end (of the book) is already written. The story of the Jews in America is over.” The historian implied that the “Mackenzie’ Jews have lost their edge, and are susceptible to the sharks that are swimming around us.

Well…where does one start? Why would Newsweek print such an article? It was offensive to Jews…but also offensive to Episcopalians who, by inference, are treated as slothful, country club types who do nothing but play golf and slither around in old money. Although I was raised Catholic, and currently attend a Lutheran Church, I was a member of the Episcopal Church for 22 years, and consider it to be my home church. It is a beautiful religion, one built around tolerance, hard work, and inclusiveness. It has led the way in racial, women and gay rights in the church.

It allows for individual interpretation of doctrine, and tries to make sense of conflicting beliefs. I remember when I joined St. James Episcopal Church, I asked the priest if the church believed in transubstantiation, a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Church. He asked, in turn, what I believed. I told him. His response: that’s good enough for me. Most of the Episcopalians I know are hard working, middle class folks. And as a point of information, the largest single segment in the Anglican communion, to which the American Episcopal Church belongs, are Africans, which are now the dominant force in the religion.

I don’t know where to begin with the Jewish references in the article. I grew up in a neighborhood where you were Greek, Irish, or Jewish. I was the sole Italian-American in the bunch. Since most of the Catholics kids attended Catholic schools, and I went to public schools, most of my friends were Jewish. I attended so many Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs, the rabbi of the local temple told me he would Bar Mitzvah me if I showed up for anymore.

What I learned growing up is that for all of our differences, we are mostly alike. We work hard. We want the best for our families. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we don't. We are all human and have been subjected to the antics of the underclass of the human species, which may have cost us some money. Our commonality far out weigh our differences. Good people are good people, and thieves are thieves. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with it.

The publishers of Newsweek ought to give that some thought before publishing that kind of article again.

Just Words

Words are important. President Obama, during his campaign, spoke of the value of words. In his famous “just words” speech, he quotes Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and the Constitution saying “don’t tell me words don’t matter”. He is right. Words matter.

Here are the words I think are the most important : “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” How simple and eloquent.

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, set the theory about the Divine Rights of Kings upside down. The rights of citizens are not those that the government determines citizens should have. The rights of citizens come from the Creator, God, and passed through to the government. That is the foundation of our great nation. It comes with good and bad. There are no guarantees that we will always be happy…but the right to pursue happiness, the right to live, the right to freedom, is sacrosanct, and allows for mankind’s fulfillment.

Those words have served as a beacon to this nation for over 200 years: to end slavery, to provide for women’s suffrage, and to pave the way for racial equality through the civil rights movement. Government cannot subjugate human beings. Given these rights, human beings will flourish. Currently, in the United States, ancestors of slaves are now major players in government, from the White House, to the Attorney General, to the current Chairman of the Republican Party, to the Supreme Court. Our rights come from God. Jefferson’s words are not “just words.” They are the bedrock of hope for humanity.

Hillary Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child. We joke about the nanny state, but will the state love and care for our children, for our spouses, for our seniors? When a child is born into a family, the family rejoices. The parents would give their own lives to save the lives of their children. When our parents get sick, we take care of them to the best of our ability, attempting to bring them comfort in their old age as be we can.

Will the government do the same? What kind of care will a nanny state provide? The nanny state will provide enough to get by, and no more, and probably less. While a human family views the birth of a child as a miracle, a gift from God, to the nanny state it is another mouth to feed, therefore expendable. Abortions decrease the surplus population. As we move towards nationalized health care, the nanny state will provide to our seniors only that care which it deems acceptable…that it deems cost efficient. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is practiced by state sponsored physicians on a regular basis. Tom Daschle, who is this administration’s guru for health care, praised the Dutch for their acceptance of death and the ravages of old age and their discouragement of medical treatment. Is that what we want?

Freedom and liberty are precious. How much are we willing to sacrifice for enough comfort just to get by? Thomas Jefferson’s words are the lifeblood of the nation, spelling out our rights as human beings, and wariness of an unlimited and omnipotent government. We should cling to them as we cling to our children and our aging parents. If we don’t, to our children, they will be “just words!”

The Current Financial Conspiracy

Something is askew. I should have been suspicious when Barack Obama chose as his financial advisers, the very same people who were working behind the scenes with George Bush, a bunch of gool ole’ boys Ivy Leaguers. I should have been even more suspicious of these advisors’ ties to Wall Street and organizational ties. What is going on?

I have repeatedly written about the mark to market rule which is decimating our financial system. This is the rule that forces a bank to write down performing assets to almost zero. One of the purposes for the formation of the Federal Reserve Board was to minimize the normal business cycle of boom/bust. The mark to market rule does just the opposite. It over inflates the value of bank assets in good times, and under values the assets in bad times. It is a bad rule that has only been around since 2007. Prior to that, the rule was mark to value, in which a formula was used to determine the value of the asset, including a factor for performance. The mark to value rule was implemented in 1938 by Franklin Roosevelt.

Numerous economists have talked about the devastation caused by the mark to market rule. It has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. It has destroyed our wealth. So, if we got along without mark to market from 1938 to 2007, and in a little over a year it has been lethal to our financial system…why isn’t it being changed?

My general rule is that if it doesn’t make any sense, follow the money. The key may be found in those folks who are calling the shots, both under George Bush and now Barack Obama. Given that the most common sense solution to bank re-capitalization is being ignored, I can only conclude that these folks have deliberately set out to destroy our financial system, and so far, they have succeeded.

Why would they do it? Why would behind the scene economists and business folks want to destroy our financial system? One only has to look to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He is visiting the United States this week, and is going to address a joint session of Congress. In his speech, he is going to talk about the need to establish a new, world financial order. He wants a global new deal. Have the power brokers in this country, both Republican and Democrat, decided that a major, radical change to the world financial system is needed? Are they selling us down the river?

Conspiracy theorists have claimed for years that the world economy is run by a small group of financiers with ties to various Ivy League schools. The truth may be something less sinister, but still disconcerting. Secretary of Treasury Tim “do I have to pay taxes?” Geithner belongs to an organization called "The Consultive Group on International Economic and Monetary Affairs, Inc.”; the more common name is The Group of 30. It is an international group of high powered financiers who control monetary policy. This organization has existed since 1978, with a membership role that is a who’s who in all things internationally money. It is global by its very nature..and “global” is one of President Obama’s favorite words. Many of its members have been advisors to Bush and Obama.

Have these guys decided that it is time for a new world financial order? They couldn’t do it if things were going well, so they would have to create a diversion. Perhaps all of the derivative financial instruments floating around the world spooked them. Or perhaps they felt that a shrinking globe needed a more unified system. At any rate, if the system we had here was working, we would be resistant to change. So…sabotage the system. If you look for the starting point of the collapse of the American economy, you can almost pin-point it to the implementation of the mark to market rule. It is death sentence to our banking system, which, by the way, is an instrument of monetary policy as opposed to fiscal policy. To quote Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Of course, those things may have nothing to do with the crisis.

I can hear your collective moan through the computer. But if someone else can give me a better explanation to what I am seeing…I’m listening!!!! In the meantime, we should still be looking for the second assassin in the grassy knoll.