Bad Policy

It was a day when nothing much got done. Yes, I wrote a longish post in the morning, and then it was time to go, time to take the train to 42d street, examine the map, and decide that the A train to Far Rockaway was the ticket out of the city. Time to leave, time to go home.

And what had I seen in New York? Oddly, everything was as normal, except that there seemed to be a new breed of poverty and homelessness. There had always been street people, but they had seemed different—maybe drunks, maybe drugs, maybe just crazy. The point was that they couldn’t fit in—that’s why they were on the streets.

There was the woman sitting halfway down the stairs to the 42nd Street subway. She was sitting on cardboard on the landing; the air was a mix of the 40 degrees outside and the 60 degrees inside. Still, it was cold enough that she was bundled up and yet still shivering. And her sign was clever: Donate What You Can to Polish Your Karma.

Nor was she the only one—there were many more people like her. “One in five of our neighbors can’t put food on their tables,” stated the public service ad on the subway. Is it true? What would a Google search reveal?

Well, as usual, the picture isn’t clear. Yes, the rate of poverty in New York City inched up to 21.2%; it had been 20.9 the year before. But Bloomberg came out blazing—he stated that of the 20 largest cities in the country, New York was the only one whose level of poverty had not risen since 2000. It was 21.2% then, it’s 21.2% now. In other words, it’s gotten worse for every other city except New York.

It’s also true that I was in Manhattan all of the time I was there, unless you count passing through Brooklyn to get to the airport. And The New York Times has this to say about Manhattan:

Manhattan retained the dubious distinction of having the biggest income gap of any big county in the country. The mean income of the lowest fifth was $9,635, compared with $389,007 for the top fifth and $799,969 for the top 5 percent — more than an eightyfold difference between bottom and top.

All of this is based on new data from the Census Bureau, which leads me to wonder—how do you count homeless people? And in fact, looking it up, it appears that the Census Bureau itself has come out and said that its count of the homeless for 2010 was off by three million. Not surprising, really, since many state and city ordinances prohibit sleeping, loitering, or camping in public. So there are a lot of people who go uncounted.

The train to the airport had the usual buskers—in this case a really bad mariachi duo (a singer and an accordion) and a good trio singing songs from the 40s. But nobody except for the out-of-towners—maybe Minnesota nice?—seemed to be giving anything. Oh, and there were the people selling candy for a dollar—often their signs proclaimed them homeless or out of work.

It was a study in contrasts. The city has unimaginable wealth, both now and in the past. And I had been staying with my brother and sister in law, who live on Riverside Drive. Their apartment is hardly palatial, neither is it small; but that’s not the point.

And that is? John and Jeanne are living a bit better than their parents did. They had had good public school educations, they had gone to graduate programs, they were now taking vacations and spending in ways that their parents wouldn’t have dreamed of. And that’s good—that’s the way it should be. The American Dream, right?

Assuming a level playing field, yes. But I sat next to a young black woman and her daughter; mother had clearly picked up the five-year old from school. And her first action, on entering the train? Take out and power up a small tablet and hand it to the girl.

Two days earlier, I had been in a bus in Manhattan watching a white mother talking to her son of roughly the same age. No tablet, instead it was questions to the child—what had he learned at school, was his teacher happy with the class, was everybody there? By the end of ten blocks, the mother had gotten the boy to remember the material presented in school, had reinforced it, and had added to it.

Nor is it a white / black thing. There were black guys in very good three-piece suits who were getting on and off the subway in midtown New York. But I would wager any money that their parents had done the same thing that the woman on the bus in Manhattan was doing.

“I am a girl, and I am beautiful just the way I am,” the child with the tablet on the subway began to recite. She was reading a poster on the train. And as kids at that age will do, she started to repeat it endlessly.

I know what the lady on the bus would have done. She would have agreed, she would have probed—what were the best things about you, she would have asked. What things are most important to you? What kind of person do you like and what kind of person do you want to be?

The mother on the train shushed her child up.

Which was a shame, really, because the child was obviously very intelligent. There’s something about the eyes, you know, and the quickness of response to stimuli—you could tell this kid could go places.

“It was my librarian,” said Jeanne, when I asked who had made the difference in her life. Her parents had never read, never even completed high school—but the librarian had hooked Jeanne on books, and gave her the message: you’re sharp, you’ll go far.

Will there be anyone there for the little girl, who is beautiful just the way she is? Or will our cuts in education, arts programs, and Head Start mean that only the rich have a shot at a better life? I wish we could see that neglecting people, and especially kids, has another dimension than morality or equality.

It’s also disastrous economic policy.

On Schools and Teaching

It all started yesterday, when I began to realize that the conservative right—the Tea Partiers who have us by the short hairs and are dragging us ever closer to the financial cliff—have now set their sights on education. And why not? The idea is attractive for many reasons. There’s money, there, for one thing. How much? Well, according to the head of the Chicago Teachers Union, 380 billion dollars.  Oh, and what better time to instill a little conservative ideology? Let’s not forget old St. Ignatius: give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man for life, or words to that effect.

And if you read Diane Ravitch, a professor of the history of education at New York University, you’ll find out: the prevailing theory is that our public schools are failing. But is it true?

Ravitch says no—nor is it an opinion that she’s held long. In fact, she served in the first George W. Bush administration, and supported the No Child Left Behind program. What was not to like? The idea of standardized testing, quantifiable results, strict accountability—wow, great stuff.

So what happened? Well, teachers got the message—better teach to the test, because your evaluation, or maybe even your job, depends on your results. So what happened? The teachers crammed the info into the kids—and what happened to the subjects like art and history and music and science? Sorry—the focus was reading and math.

In addition, there have been reports of…well, Let the Huffington Post tell the story:

The indictment last week of 35 teachers and administrators in Atlanta for manipulating test scores is just the latest chapter in that city's long festering "teacher cheating" scandal. In turn, Atlanta is just one of many cities where evidence has surfaced that educators fudged testing data.

Perhaps the best way to think of these cheating scandals is that they are the result of a natural experiment: What happens when you change incentives so that low test numbers translate into pain and high test numbers translate into rewards?

OK—so teachers will cheat if their jobs depend on it. And why shouldn’t they? Because, according to Ravitch, they’re a pretty demoralized bunch right now. There was a time when parents took their kids to school on the first day of class, and made the following speech to the teacher—though it really was to the kid: “my child gives you any problems, you smack a good one, and send a note home. I’ll beat the tar out of him…..”

And we don’t want to go back there, tantalizing as the phantasy might be. But the larger question is what we are asking our teachers to do, and with what resources? It used to be that kids were generally better behaved, a teacher had broader range of disciplinary tools, and could teach pretty much how she saw fit. Oh, and that was all she had to do. Now, she has to be a psychologist, social worker, nurse, and then—at the end of a long, long school year—get told that her kids didn’t score the additional five points that an educational psychologist had decided was appropriate.

So what’s happened to our schools since No Child? Well, we’ve certainly created a huge testing industry, which has made some people rich. But what has it taught the kids? How to take tests.

Nor is Obama’s program, Race to the Top, much of a change from No Child. It, too, puts lots of emphasis on testing, with the difference that if the school consistently fails, then bam! It turns into a charter school. And according to Ravitch, Race to the Top puts the blame for poor scores squarely on the teacher.

But is that fair? What does a teacher do when confronted with a hungry, sleepless kid who has spent the night in a homeless shelter? In fact, what correlates with poor performance in school? Poverty.

Right—so how does Ravitch feel about charter schools? Well, she’s not impressed. According to her, charter schools tend to “skim,” selecting the best students, and consigning the learning disabled, non-English speaking, to the public system. And why not? They have a product to turn out—wouldn’t you select the best raw material?

Ravitch suggests two things: first, that we get rid of the high-stakes testing, and second, that we regulate charter schools more, so that they admit everyone, not just the best students.

However well or badly the schools, either charter or public, are doing—I wonder if compared to seventy years ago they are much better. I took a 5^th grade test, recently, from 1930, in which I was asked through what bodies of water I would pass if I went by sea from Malaga, Spain, to the Philippines. Errr—don’t think I got full credit on that one….

It can be argued—is it producing anything of worth to know the answer to the question above? Do kids really need to know this, much less adults? Wouldn’t learning how to read a map be of more use?

Yes and no. I think that there has to be a certain amount of basic information that is drummed into a kid’s head. Anybody should be able to figure out a 15% tip in a restaurant, without having to resort to the calculator on his cell phone.

So it may be the work of childhood to learn where the Philippines are, what the capital city is, and the five main exports. But something happens when a child becomes an adolescent: he or she becomes capable of abstract thought.

Tracy Kidder wrote a book about teaching, in which the teacher struggled to get through her curriculum, and in fact never really made it. At one point, the teacher worries that her students are going to go through life never knowing who won the Civil War….

Here’s what I think: in elementary school, you learn the fact: the North won. In short, you learn answers. In High School, you ask the questions: didn’t the South have the right to secede? To what extent was this was based on a principle: the freeing of slaves? Wasn’t there also an economic basis for this war? And what would have happened if England….

In short, you learn questions.

I’m officially on the fence about charter schools. If they work, I’m for them. Having worked for the largest company in the world, I’m a little uncertain that the corporate model is appropriate for education. The only things I am sure of?

That education of our kids is a lot more important than making money. And that any system—public or private—that fosters inequality because of race or socio-economic status is heinous. 

The Beatitudes Banned?

Every day, the same guy hits me up for food, and I have to confess. I’m annoyed with him.

Annoyed because he hits me up twice or three times in a day—shouldn’t once be enough? Annoyed because I give him three dollars—enough for bread, ham and orange juice, and he wants five dollars for “a hamburger at Burger King.” Annoyed because he now has taken to coming into the café where I “work” and asking for money while I’m busy writing. In short, he isn’t acting like a properly grateful beggar—I have become his bank. And so? I am not a cheerful giver, which I should be.

Right—so why don’t I tell him to go to hell?

Because he’s hungry, dammit.

How do I know? Well, he’s rail thin. And I see him “selling” parking spaces on the street, as well as pushing shopping carts with food for customers at the grocery store. In short, he’s struggling, and he’s just getting by.

I write this because Susan has sent a link to a church website in Raleigh, North Carolina, which has apparently banned churches from giving out food to the homeless. The church, Love Wins, had for 6 years given coffee and sandwiches to anybody who came by on Saturday and Sunday mornings. They were recently told this is illegal.

Second confession—I have not been able to access the link, and I suspect that everybody else in the country is having the same problem. I did read, however, news of the affair in The Daily Kos, and here’s the link.

In chasing down this improbable but seemingly true story, I came upon the interesting news that many major American cities have done the same. In Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter has prohibited groups from distributing food in city parks, saying the practice is unsanitary and lacking in dignity. (Hey—just the facts; that’s what he said…)

And it goes on and on—New York City, Orlando, Dallas, Las Vegas and Houston have all restricted feeding the poor in some ways. Here’s what one blogger wrote:

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Yes, this is really true.

The following is from a recent Fox News article....

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

You know, I’ve often believed that the internal combustion engine was the ruination of America. Why? Because too many of us wake up, leave our houses, drive to work, come home, eat, and go to sleep. Maybe it would be better to take the bus, as I do. Then people would see, as I once did, a whole family in a parked car at five in the morning. They were all asleep, all except the father, sitting in the driver’s seat. Nor will I forget his eyes, which plainly told me—“this is all we have, all we can do.”

Or people would see—as I do—the guy who routinely goes into the dumpster up the street, fishing out scraps of food. Oh, and the guy in Houston who did so in March of this year? Here’s what the Houston Chronicle said:

James Kelly was hungry and looking for something to eat. He tried to find it in a trash bin near Houston City Hall.

For that, the man, who said he spent about nine years in the Navy but fell on hard times, was ticketed by a Houston police officer.

According to his copy of the citation, Kelly, 44, was charged on Thursday with "disturbing the contents of a garbage can in (the) downtown business district."

"I was just basically looking for something to eat," Kelly said Monday night. "I wasn't in a real good mood."

Houston, by the way, passed an ordinance in 2012 requiring organizations to get a permit to distribute food, and socking any organization in violation with a $500 fine.

You know, there are days when I think the Victorians did it better. However bad the workhouse was, it provided shelter and food. I give it to you, which would you prefer, the streets or this?

Workhouse in Ripon, England

The Plutocratic States of America

It may be that I’m thinking about money, lately, because I’m about to buy an apartment. Or it may be because I’m generally broke. Or it may be simply because that’s one of the two things—won’t specify the other—that guys think about.

At any rate, if you have half an hour or so, you might want to look at the three videos below. In the first, you’ll see how drastically unfairly the wealth is distributed in our country. In a nutshell, most people have no clue how radically rich the 1% is. But consider this lead from an article in the Christian Science Monitor:

4 out of 5 US adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty, or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

4 out of 5? 80%? Ummm, I hate to write incendiary words in an age of surveillance—but shouldn’t we have insurrection in the streets? Looting, riots, marches on Greenwich, Connecticut?

We have CEOs making hundreds of millions annually—and 80% of us are poor? Say whaaaa?

OK—consider the following facts, gleaned from a blog in the Washington Post:

·      Average pay for the CEOs of the top 350 firms, including the stock options they exercised, was $14.1 million in 2012–up 37.4 percent from 2009. 

·      That’s a bit higher than it would be if you just measured stock options granted. “Firms apparently pared back the value of new options granted because CEOs fared so well by cashing in options as stock prices grew,” the report’s authors write.

·      The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is 273-1, down from a high of 383-1 in 2000, but up from 20-1 in 1965.

·      CEO pay has increased faster than wages to high-skilled workers, suggesting that the salary market isn’t very efficient. “Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on output or employment,” the report concludes.

·      CEO pay is now also closely tracking the S&P 500 index, which didn’t used to be the case.

OK—the first ingredient in the stew: we seriously screwed up who gets the cookies and who hopes for the crumbs in this society.

Now then, the second video. Caveat at the start: this was produced by the AFL CIO, which understandably has a hatchet or two to grind. But here’s the gist: what happens—even in a game, even when you know the game is rigged—when you get rich? Well, the video will tell you. You become entitled, you think you deserved it, you have no empathy for somebody who didn’t do it the way you did—by hard work and the sweat of your brow. Sure, your name is Rockefeller, but that didn’t mean you had it easy, that just meant you had to work harder to prove yourself! So fuck the poor!

I met twice the wife of Oscar Mayer—yes, of the bacon and hotdog fame. She was a nice lady, she adored my father, and she also completely stunned me by ordering Gunnar Johansen, a famed concert pianist, to sit down and play. After a bit, she told him to stop. Johansen was a gracious man, but was it just charm that made him get on and off the piano bench? Or did the fact that Mrs. Mayer had given him the piano (a rare double keyboard) enter into the equation?

Right—now we get to the last video. In which we hear, at about 9:30, that “capitalism at its most ruthless rewards psychopathy.” And then, 10 seconds later, that capitalism at its most ruthless is a manifestation of psychopathy. And guess what? I’ve worked for one of the biggest SOBs in the business; from the reports I got from the upper levels, it’s true.

And consider—what is the rate of psychopathy in the general population? 1%. That should ring a bell—remember that the 1% of the richest people own over thirty percent of the wealth. And guess what those guys are? You got it—psychopaths.

Oh, and they own us, because they bought Congress, and the media as well, and-I-hate-to-sound-like-Edward-Snowden but the only people who are speaking out are nobodies like me.

When I lost my job—yes, I’m part of the 80%—I went down to get my unemployment insurance with Moisés, my brother-in-law. We got up at 4:30; we were making the line at 5AM. Nor were we the first—we were number thirty or so. There were perhaps a hundred people at 7AM, all mulishly lined up against plate glass windows in the Puerto Rican sun; we were waiting for the 150 bucks a week that we could get for a year. The office was on a street that has the water company, the housing department, the labor department—in short, every social service department in the government. Three blocks away, men in three-piece suits were strolling into the corporate offices of the largest banks on the island.

Why weren’t we storming them?

The Same Old Bastards....

Well, it’s nothing to be proud about—not now, not then.

“Then” refers to the thirty states that practice forced sterilization of those women who were judged “feeble-minded” or “dim-witted.” It also, in Puerto Rican terms, refers to the Ley 116, of 1937, which established free sterilization clinics throughout the island.

As you can see in the video below, there were historical and economic reasons for the decision. Puerto Rico had been largely agrarian—the advent of the large corporations and King Sugar drove some people off the land and into company housing or cities. Overpopulation was seen as a real threat on an island where the rate of unemployment is substantially higher than in the states. And employers greatly favored sterilized workers—and what was our industry for many years? The garment industry, traditionally a female-dominated affair.

So public health workers went from house to house, putting on the screws. The worst abuse was that, as reported in one 1968 study, one third of Puerto Rican women were unaware that sterilization was permanent. It made sense, in a way: if you could “tie the tubes,” then obviously you could untie them, right? Worse, women were routinely not told of other contraception methods—it was sterilization or nothing.

So effective was the effort that Puerto Rico had the highest rate of sterilized women anywhere—35% in the 1960’s. Eventually, as Dr. Rodríguez Trías states in the clip below, people realized that Puerto Rico was serving as a training area for sterilization programs in the states. She and others banded together and started CESA, the Committee to End Sterilization Abuse.

Yes, thirty other states had eugenics programs and laws permitting forced sterilization—the difference seems to be that the programs in the states tended to be directed at the mentally ill, epileptics, the mentally retarded, though Native Americans seemed to be much more highly targeted. In other words, a normal WASP woman had nothing to worry about; a normal Native American better watch out.

Right—and now?

What Rodríguez Trías says at the end of the clip is chilling. Abortion rights are being chipped away as never before. My own state, Wisconsin, has just voted in a law requiring ultrasound tests to be done and discussed with the expectant mother. Why? Is there any medical reason to do this? Isn’t this more coercion on a woman who is already quite stressed? Since the government is not paying now for abortions, who is going to pick up the bill for the ultrasound? The state? Don’t think so.

So abortion rights are getting ever more flimsy—but what’s happening with sterilization?  Well, the graph below tells the story:

(Graph’s source: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/07/21/sterilization-of-women-of-color-does-unforced-mean-freely-chosen/)

The cream bar is American Indian / Alaskan Native, and the grey bar is non-Hispanic white women. OK—but what about Puerto Rican women, both on and off the island? In a study done by Iris López, the situation has gotten no better: this is what Ms magazine said about the matter:

During the U.S. colonization of Puerto Rico, over one-third of all women were sterilized. And today, still, Puerto Rican women in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. have “one of the highest documented rates of sterilization in the world.” Two-thirds are sterilized before the age of 30.

Nor is that all—44% of the women were forced into sterilization by poverty: they wanted children, but could not afford them, or were living in places where crime and gangs made raising children difficult. And yes, many of the women reported that their health care providers didn’t discuss any other alternative besides sterilization for birth control.

And here’s where Rodríguez Trías’ point about birth control versus population control becomes especially true. Population control happens when someone makes a policy and imposes it on (mostly) women or (sometimes) men; birth control happens when an individual freely and knowingly chooses the option best for her.

Two more thoughts—there’s something quite perverse about the conservative ideology. The moment a woman wants an abortion—she can’t, she’ll have to bear that child through hell or high water. But the moment a poor woman or minority woman wants birth control? Sterilization, which is still free in the United States. In both cases, it seems that men almost perversely cannot allow a woman to have control over her body.

Lastly, if 66% of Puerto Rican women are sterilized before the age of 30, don’t we have a word for that?

Genocide?

A Little, and a Long Way

OK—this is profoundly embarrassing. I am sitting in a café, which is where I spend a lot of my time. There are two reasons for the hours I spend here: the first is a need for people, since writing can be a solitary profession; the second is that I’m too lazy to make my own food.

I am therefore wasting huge sums of money, something that nobody but the shop owner could condone. And the worst thing? Though I am barely making enough money to keep afloat—as is Mr. Fernández—we are in the richest 4.0% of the world.

I know this because I went to a site called givingwhatwecan.org and entered a (probably too high) estimate of our combined incomes after taxes. And there, right on the page, was the button for “how rich am I?”

The sum I entered was 50,000 USD. OK, what happens when I put in 100,000 USD? “You are in the richest 0.15% of the world’s population,” was the answer. And 1,000,000 USD? Less that 0.1%.

The site is absolutely fascinating, as was the talk by the philosopher Peter Singer, which you can see below. I live perfectly well on $30,000 a year; I am 56; I am willing to donate 10% of my income; I will “retire” at age 65. OK, so I went to another page to see what effect I could have. And guess what? In the 9 years of giving, I would have saved 11 lives, I would have saved 491 years of healthy life, and I would have produced 9,000 years of school attendance.

But wait—suppose I retired at age 85? How would the world fare?

Total you would earn: 870,000 

Total you would donate: 87,000

Lives you could save: 35

Years of healthy life you could save: 1,582

Years of school attendance you'd produce: 29,000

That’s the graphic that popped up at me.

How is it possible? Singer has the explanation:

However, it is also possible to make extremely effective donations towards the world's poorest people. Because they have so little money, every dollar you give can make a tremendous difference — especially if spent on the world's most efficient aid programs. Read on to see just how much you could achieve and how little it would really cost you. 

 OK—so now you know what you’re worth, relative to the world population; as well, you know the effect of contributing whatever percent of your income you’ve chosen; now, where should your money go?

And it’s an important question, because the right charity can be a hundred times more effective than another, less effective one. So which charity gives you the biggest bang for the buck?

Here again, Singer sails through with the answer. He recommends four charities that are the most effective. Here are the four.

Against Malaria Foundation. Why? More than a million people die each year of malaria, 70% of them are kids under 5. A 3$ net can prevent the disease—and 100% of your money goes to the nets. Best of all, you can see where your nets are distributed.  Here’s the website: http://www.againstmalaria.com

Schistosomiasis Control Initiative. The initiative aims to control and then eliminate the parasitical disease schistosomiasis, which afflicts more than 400 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. Untreated, schistosomiasis leads to kidney, liver, and spleen damage; 76 cents will provide a dose of the drug needed to treat and cure. Here’s the website. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/schisto

Deworm The World. 600 million kids around the world need to be dewormed; less than fifty cents is all it takes to treat one kid. This organization has treated 40 million children in 27 countries. Best, treating kids leads to significantly improved school attendance—a nice added benefit. Here’s the website.   http://www.dewormtheworld.org

Project Healthy Children. The project aims to confront malnutrition by food fortification, essentially supplying the vitamins that you and I take for granted. But a child goes blind every minute—80% of them because of vitamin deficiency. Zinc deficiency kills 800,000 children a year; Vitamin A deficiency kills 2.5 million children under age 5 every year. Here’s the website.  http://projecthealthychildren.org  

Singer came up with the idea of asking people to pledge 10% of their income until the day they retire. Here’s the pledge:

The Pledge to Give

I recognize that I can use part of my income to do a significant amount of good in the developing world. Since I can live well enough on a smaller income, I pledge that from today until the day I retire, I shall give at least ten percent of what I earn to whichever organizations can most effectively use it to help people in developing countries. I make this pledge freely, openly, and without regret.

As well, he came up with the idea of forming chapters of people who are working together to practice effective charity. So far, there are 10 chapters, 317 members, and $126,300,000 pledged.

OK—this is what I’m gonna do. Every day, I’m going to put my change into a piggy bank, which I will empty when full. I’ll take it to the bank, and get it changed; then, I’ll send a quarter of that amount to each one of the four charities.

Second strategy, I’ll play Bach suites once a week in the café where I am spending so profligately my money. I’ll put up a little sign announcing the charity of the week, and ask for donations.

Singer makes two further points—the materialist rat race of working to make money to spend money on stuff that doesn’t make us feel better but does mean we have to go back to work the next day is ridiculous. But oddly, giving money to a worthy cause does make us feel better. So shouldn’t we change trains?

Second, in terms of human impact, the money you donate may be the most important thing—by far—you’ll ever do in your life. 

Now Then

Well, having dispatched our puppet—La Comay—to wherever it is he went off to, what’s next? We have, as we used to say corporationally (OK, computer, businessly? Companally? Does ANYTHING make you happy?), many opportunities down here. One person in seven is using drugs. Murder rate is over a thousand a year. Forty eight percent of the population is living below poverty level.

‘Well, at least we have absolutely no problems with snow removal,’ I thought on the morning trot, after having glanced at the New Day’s front page. Gobierno irá contra los padres, announced the headline. The Government Is Going After the Parents?

Hunh? Why? What have they done?

It started when our new governor visited a school two days ago, and discovered that very few of the parents had bothered to pick up their children’s report card, much less attend parent / teacher conferences.

How few?

A Department of Education spokesperson says only 30% of parents pick up the grades.

So the government gave the parents un halón de orejas or an ear pulling. It’s a common Puerto Rican chastisement. And now, they’re hitting where it hurts.

It seems that parents get all kinds of benefits from the state—plan 8, that’s the apartment. Tarjeta de salud—free medical care. Departamento de la Familia—money and food. You’ve pretty much got your life taken care of, right there.

But to get all this, the agencies require documents verifying that you do have a kid, and that she or he is in school. So the teachers spend time filling out these documents.

Hunh?

Let me put this car in reverse and tell you that I’m not at my best today. Yes, I did the trot, but it was more instinct / habit than Marc out there. I spent most of yesterday on the only throne I’ll ever own, and when I wasn’t there, I was in bed. I am, to speak frankly, metaphorically and literally flushing out the holidays.

Which may be why this situation, even on an island with a zest for absurdity, seems crazy.

OK—let’s do a list:

1. Teachers teach. They don’t fill out documents, or teach values, or police the school grounds. They just teach, for which they should be paid as much as the governor, easily.
2. Parents parent. Part of which is to say to the kid that the teacher is to be respected, and part of which is to make sure that the teacher is…respectable (OK, but you know what I mean.) Another part of which is to make sure that their kids know—school is work, your education is the most important thing in your life right now, and will be for the rest of your life.
3. Governments govern. Which means that I can drink the water (no), drive the roads without breaking an axle (no), go out on the street at night (what, are you crazy?), or send my kid to a public school (unthinkable).

Right, so now we have all the roles defined. Let’s talk about those public schools.

“Lock your kid in the marquesina!” I was once busily saying—actually repeating—to a student. She had just told me that she had announced to the director of the private school her kids were in, “the only reason I’m paying you ten grand a year is that gate over there!”

(A break for anyone who doesn’t know what a marquesina is. It’s a garage, but much more. It’s also a place where you sit, where you entertain neighbors, where you drink beer and watch fights. Importantly, it’s enclosed and has a gate that can be locked. So it’s safe.)

In the public schools, there are no substitute teachers. So what happens when missis (common nickname for a teacher—a little hangover from the Americans) is missing? The school dumps the kids on the street.

OK—so maybe your child has a cell phone and you’re at home, eating bonbons and reading French novels. You hop in the car and get your kid.

Oh, sorry—forgot. That was the fifties.

If you really would prefer that your child not become a street urchin, then you pay for a private school. The education—with some exceptions, of course—is just as dreadful. But they’ve got a gate and a lock and you know where you kid is gonna be when you drop him or her off at seven in the morning. Now all you gotta do is deal with the boss.

Well, my solution was to lock the kid up in the marquesina every day—with, of course, the 500$ of textbooks you shelled out for him. No, it’s not abuse. You’ll give him food and drink, safety, bathroom, etc. You could, of course, put a closed-circuit monitoring system in the marquesina, and follow him periodically throughout the day. Tremendous idea, if I do say so myself: thinking outside the caja as usual!

Well, I thought it was a good idea.

Predictably, it was shot down.

What I am telling you at obscene length is that the public schools are terrible, for the most part.

It now must be said.

You don’t have a right to have a kid. Not if you’re so damned stupid and lazy and uncaring that you can’t hustle your fat Departamento-de-la-Familia-fed ASS down to the school to pick up a report card. I can’t prevent you from having a kid, but I sure as hell won’t support you, you lazy fat cow who stands in front of me in the supermarket while your kids play tag between my knees, and you’re eating chips and drinking Coca-Cola—too damn busy to fish out your tarjeta de la familia card to pay for all the junk you’re slopping into your kids!

Whew….

Now then, back to bed….