If businesses don't want to come to New Mexico, nobody's gonna stop 'em

 © 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - "If people don't want to come out to the ball park, nobody's gonna stop 'em." Yogi Berra
      Likewise, if businesses don't want to come to New Mexico, nobody's gonna stop 'em. This Thanksgiving we pause to count our blessing. Many of us have many blessings to count. But some New Mexicans are not as fortunate because New Mexico is not a business-friendly state. Many New Mexicans are long-term unemployed.
      New Mexico is government-friendly. The number of government jobs is amazing. However, the private sector is not as blessed. So while we wipe the butter from our lips from our Thanksgiving dinner and say our blessings, we must confront the part of New Mexico that needs help: private businesses.
      Those of us in business are aware of anti-business attitudes but most New Mexicans refuse to see these actions as harmful. Business unfriendly means the government; state, county and local, makes it harder to conduct business in New Mexico than it needs to be.
       Often government makes it harder to do business in New Mexico than in competing states. We rarely know about businesses who thought about moving their operation to New Mexico but upon investigation decided to move to a different state. But it would seems lots of businesses are not coming.
      Part of the problem is governance which makes things harder on businesses than it needs to be. There are inspectors who can dispirit businesses with over doing regulations and enforcement.
      Example: every restaurant owner knows the state inspectors can close them any day. No one can endure a really rigorous inspection. But for the humanity of the inspector, every New Mexico restaurant is red-tagged and closed.
      And part of the problem in New Mexico is finding a professional workforce ready, willing and able to work for a new business. A man asks a friend, "How's your wife?" The friend replies, "Compared to what?"
      Everything that happens in a workforce is compared to other workforces. Both Albuquerque and Santa Fe have higher minimum wages which is a barrier to a first job by young people. There are many young people who are in their twenties and still have not had a first job. Employers want workers with a work history to predict how they will work.
      Additionally, many benefit programs provide more resources than working so some people who might be available to work are disinclined by the comparison of work to benefits. The longer New Mexicans are able to go without a job, the less likely it is they will find a job.
      We do not know the names of the people who did not move to our little slice of heaven. We are a people that can and do shift to places we like better. Some states attract businesses while others do not.
      On my radio talk show years ago I asked a man what brought him to my hometown. He smiled, "I lived in Michigan. It snowed one hundred days in a row and I snapped. I tied a snow shovel to the roof of my car and drove South and West until I got to a place where someone asked, 'Hey Buddy, what is that thing?' I've lived in Las Cruces ever since."
      So the number one reason to live in New Mexico, as compared to other states perhaps is the weather. We cannot harvest that bounty of people sick-to-death of snow unless our state becomes business friendly. Let our government in New Mexico not make it worse to be in New Mexico than in a comparison state. And let us get our young people ready for jobs by getting them jobs while they are teenagers.
      I give thanks this Thanksgiving for my life, my friends and family and my state. It could be vastly more business friendly. But we have to insist. We also must stamp out the crony corruption. It is not easy.
      No one has to move their business to New Mexico, but we can adjust our government to make New Mexico more inviting. More businesses sick of snow can move here and hire our citizens. And next Thanksgiving more New Mexicans can be thankful for their jobs and improved standard of living.
Dr. Michael Swickard is co-host of radio talk show News New Mexico 6 to 9 a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Schools becoming vast educational wastelands

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set... and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper... I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland." Newton Minow, former Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
     Newton Minow was concerned about commercial television's effect on children. He is remembered for the phrase, "Vast Wasteland." I have been thinking of that phrase and how it now refers to public schools.
     I cannot understand why when people become educational administrators they forget the enterprise of education is supposed to be centered on children. It is not in today's world and educational administrators are unable to grasp why schools have become vast educational wastelands.
     Question: should students enjoy school? Like most discussions the problem is understanding the word, "Enjoy." Research to the contrary, most modern administrators are afraid of being criticized for students enjoying the day.
     Know this: it is essential students have a relationship with school based on five principles. First, the school must trigger their curiosity. Research highly suggests that the currency of learning is curiosity. Second, the focus of the school is providing tools for students to satisfy their curiosity. Many things that schools wish to teach can be easily taught if they are in response to student curiosity needs.
     The third principle: students must enjoy the passage of time. It does not have to be a carnival but if students hate every moment no real learning will take place. Fourth: the instruction must be age-appropriate and fifth, students must be able to retain their dignity at all times.
     I was at an elementary school some time ago where there were two types of teachers. One type was the kind gentle teachers who looked at and thought about each child individually. They try to make the educational experience the best it can be for each student.
     Balance that with the new breed of teachers who are just trying to show off to the administration by proving that they teach with RIGOR! That is the new buzz word, rigor. It means teachers use what some people call "Tough Teaching" and do not worry in the least that students may not like what they are experiencing.
     The teachers who center on rigor make sure no child enjoys any moments during the day because if they do then the teacher is being too easy on them. These rigorous teachers, supported by rigorous administrators never consider the feelings and emotions of students. The more students hate every moment of school, the better these educators feel. But that is completely contrary to research.
     At this school during Christmas time one teacher's class was singing songs while the teacher helped the students make presents for their mothers. In short, this classroom was buzzing with interested students. The other classroom was silent and very depressed because often they did not even get recess since to show rigor that teacher, with the support of the administration would skip recess.
     The teacher felt recess took them away from studying for the accountability tests which is how they, the teachers, are to be judged. These teachers want the students to sit quietly and prepare for specific questions on the upcoming accountability tests.
     As I was standing there in the gleeful classroom a student from the other classroom walked by, looked in and spoke mournfully. He said, "Hi Mr. Snowman," to a full-size Frosty the Snowman. I wanted to go bring him into the circle but I was just an observer of instructional practice.
     Every teacher this year says that they are instructed to keep students pointed toward cheating the accountability tests by practicing the specific answers. Students do not find this interesting. They detest school and everyone in it. A few teachers keep trying to blow life into this aberrant style of education and they are uniformly smacked around by the administration who only care that their schools score better.
     I invite each of you to spend quietly a whole day at a school looking for joy. Do so looking carefully at the students who even in first grade hate school. Vast wasteland is not strong enough.
Dr. Michael Swickard is co-host of radio talk show News New Mexico 6 to 9 a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Would someone get ready to run for office?

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - Why would anyone run for office in today's world where outright lies and personal attacks are the currency of the political kingdom? We Americans have just endured months upon months of one candidate calling their political opponent everything but smart and handsome. The lies and innuendos have flowed throughout our towns.
       The non-stop attack advertisements sound like middle-school kids shouting, "You're a poo-poo head." Followed by the rejoinder, "No you're a poo-poo head." Mostly I am very sorry for the family members of the candidates who had to listen to attacks upon their loved ones for the purpose of politics. Some even were the targets in some communities.
      Worse, there is a price to pay for business people who run for office since the first step is to declare a party. Often members of the contradictory party then boycott that business such that the business suffers because someone wants to do their civic duty.
       Why, oh why, would anyone with any kind of sense put up with such shabby treatment? More so there is the concern that the people we would like to get into public service will not submit to this kind of treatment. The business leaders of our communities support people running for office but often will not tolerate those personal false attacks, therefore, will never run for office.
       The First Amendment question: can people knowingly lie but hide behind the Constitution's protection of free speech? Yes, they can and do. This does not mean there are no consequences for those who campaign by falsehood. We who value truth will remember falsehoods and act accordingly.
       Even though an election has just ended if someone was thinking about running next time, that decision must be made soon to get all of the things done to have some kind of chance against an incumbent. But the sting of the false statements and insults are still ringing in our ears. We may forgive but never forget the lies told.
       Certainly there are some candidates who decide to run for office to even old scores like the one who is trying to get even with those in middle school who called him "Fish Face." And there are some megalomaniacs who crave power for power's sake. If you told them that the way to get elected was to push a hard-boiled egg up main street at noon, there they would be doing it.
       But many of the people running for office are just normal everyday citizens tired of yelling at the television. They decide to try to make a difference. Some won, some lost, most were treated to attacks that most normal people do not welcome.
       Yes, there are some people who love a good scrap and will fight for fight's sake. There are some people who start fights just to be able to fight. Some have thick skins and are able to tolerate all sorts of abuse on the campaign trail. Most are like me in that intentional insults are remembered.
       Why I am writing on getting someone to run for office right after an election has just ended is that more than half of the representatives in the New Mexico Legislature were unopposed in this recent election. We went through the motions of an election but the outcome was already decided before the first citizen voted.
       We have a legislature not of the people since no opponents could be found. In some districts the seat, either Republican or Democrat is so safe that the opposition just cannot find someone to waste time and money in such an unwinnable race.
       Part of this is the apportionment of districts to make safe Democrat and safe Republican districts. Both political parties push for that, sadly. If we are to take government back from the professional politicians we must break the barrier of safe districts.
       The incumbency effect insured the entire congressional delegation was returned. There was some turnover in the New Mexico House, but not much. Again more than half of the representatives did not have to stay up waiting election day, they were unopposed. That needs to change. That change must start with citizens quietly deciding to run in the next election cycle.
Dr. Michael Swickard is co-host of radio talk show News New Mexico 6 to 9 a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Unemployed not considered in minimum wage debate

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - For those talking of increasing the minimum wage, what about the unemployed? A higher minimum wage makes it even harder to get a job. This is especially so for low or no-skill workers looking for their first job. Sadly the proponents of increasing the minimum wage do not even invite the unemployed to discussions.
      We hear from employers, employees and certain members of the buying public who are overjoyed to pay more money so workers making the minimum wage take home more money. Well, I am a bit skeptical that people want to pay more money.
      So the unemployed are not at the table. How do they feel about raising the minimum wage? Many cheer because they do not equate an increase in the cost of labor for employers with a diminished job market for no and low-skilled workers.
      And the most important people not sitting at the table when we discuss what it takes to support a family of four are the unemployed who have not found their first job. Know this: everyone is worth a certain amount to an employer. Skilled workers trade productivity for wages and both the worker and employer are made better by the transaction.
      For most people their first job is the most important job they will ever get since without that they cannot get better jobs. We are seeing young people reaching thirty without a first job. The valuable lessons of the first job are best applied in their teens.
      That first job often in high school usually is a "no brainer" sort of happy hands job where the drill is to do exactly what the boss says and be on time. The most important thing young people must learn is be on time and do what the boss says.
      In those first several jobs employers find diamonds in the rough, young employees who can be encouraged and turned into skilled workers. All workers are not the same and the first job reveals this for better or worse with those employees.
      Those making the minimum wage are tasked with increasing their skills so they get the next round of raises. Often they move jobs a couple times. At some point most realize what they certainly do not want to do and move in a different direction. Being employed, even at the minimum wage is infinitely better than being unemployed.
      There is a bad job for first time job seekers: government. In my experience working for the government does not always give the same feedback for first time workers. This is especially true when government is just doing stuff to get money and employ people. When you work in the business world you know if you are being productive because the boss cannot stay in business while employees are slacking.
      The lessons learned will stay with you forever. I had a job while in college at White Sands Missile Range on a swing shift from three in the afternoon to midnight. My job was in a long-roll photo processing lab where cameras had run film of missile launches at ninety feet per second.
      These processors handled a mile of film at a time and everything had to work correctly. Riding back into town the first week I commented to another worker that he had made a holster for his stapler and oiled it every day.
      He said, "When you take someone's dollar you have to work the best you know how to work. No one on this crew wants to be here but I am giving a hundred percent until I leave." He was a professional worker and I copied his dedication.
      I got no more pay but had few problems because the stapler was key to splicing in the dark. It was one of my first jobs and left me more professional. Over the years I might make a note to myself to find another job but I gave all I had.
      Which brings us to the unemployed who have never had a job. Maybe they should be allowed to work for whatever wage someone will pay in their first job. Or would you rather keep them unemployed the rest of their life?
Dr. Michael Swickard is co-host of radio talk show News New Mexico 6 to 9 a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Time, the great destroyer of students

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Last week I wrote about standing in line at college. So this week I pondered the lessons from my time in college. During my career at college I came to understand that time is the great destroyer of college students. Understand, it is not having too much time or, as most think, too little time doing the damage.

      Rather, it is the act of saying, “I don’t have to do this assignment now, I have plenty of time.” When we say that to ourselves, one part of our brain thinks, “Wait a second, you just don’t feel like doing it now.”
      While we mull this over the North and South parts of our brain go through some rationalizations: “If I don’t spend the evening studying, I’ll flunk the test.” This is countered by “No, you won’t, you really want to go out tonight.” Hmmm, “I want to go out tonight, but I don’t want to flunk the test.”

      That lazy brain says “You can study when you get back, there's plenty of time.” Well, “After the party I won’t feel like studying.” College logic, “You don’t feel like studying now!” But but,“But I don’t want to flunk.” One voice gets the upper hand, “You won’t flunk. Besides right now everyone else in the class is out partying, you will do at least as good as them and since the course is graded on the curve you will get a C and heck, a C is OK.”
      “Well, maybe you are right; I’ll go for a little time.” Time passes. It is now 2:00 a.m. and you sit at your desk. You have recreated until closing time. The words in the book swim before your eyes when North and South speak again: “I have to read the material.” Yawn, “You don’t want to read the book; you want to go to bed so you will be fresh for the test in just 6 hours. Go to bed now and get up an hour early, you’ll still have plenty of time.”
     “You’re right; I’ll get up an hour early.”
      As you drag into class at 8:32 a friend asks if you studied. You say, “A little.”
      What you don’t say to your fellow classmate is that you woke up at 8:23 a.m. which didn’t leave much time to do all of the studying you had been avoiding. You begin writing. As you scan the test questions you recognize a word here and there, but you wonder if you sat down in the wrong classroom.
      While grading your paper the professor notices your fine work such as, “Christopher Columbus discovered America with his ships the Nina, the Ford Pinto and the Santa Fe.”
      Your professor is not amused and rewards your work with the grade of an F minus, minus, minus. When you get your paper back you say to yourself, “Well, I still have other tests. I can pull my grade up to a C if I get an A on a couple of them. I’ll start studying tonight.”
      There’s that voice, “But I thought you were going to go out tonight.” “I don’t want to flunk the course.”
      “You won’t, you have plenty of time to study.” “Yeah, you’re right, I have plenty of time to study, but I’m going to start studying tomorrow so I can ace the other tests.”
      In the Southwest we have a term for this kind of thinking: Mañana. While the dictionary reports “Mañana” means “Tomorrow,” in colloquial usage the word means, “Not Today.”
      “When are you going to start on that report?” Mañana.
      It is not a promise to do the action tomorrow; it is only the statement that the action is not going to be done today. The semester is like a parachute jump. It seems you have a long time and then the ground comes rushing up.
      If you make a mistake in the amount of time it will take to do all of the things you have to do this semester your only hope is that some soft-hearted professors may cancel some assignments due to whimpering of students who thought they had plenty of time.
      I wouldn't count on professors being soft-hearted.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: A funny thing happened in line

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Years ago one August I was standing in a line at New Mexico State University, the usual kind college students must stand in. No one was speaking; each person barricaded in their own world of misery, trying to not snarl at other people, but secretly wishing the other people would all have a heart attack so they could step over the fallen bodies and go to the head of the line.

      The air conditioner in the building had “gone south” so the temperature hovered many degrees above the human sweat point. Standing in line that afternoon had all of the charm and enjoyment of mucking out a goat shed on a hot humid summer afternoon.
      It was Friday; 4:45 p.m. Closing time was five p.m.
      You would think that with the computer age, lines should be a thing of the past. But I guess no matter what happens to our world; we will still have two things: lines to stand in and cockroaches to step on.
      Then someone walked up, looked carefully at a piece of paper and stared worriedly at the sign in front of the line. He started to leave, wavered, almost spoke aloud. He looked at the paper again, uncertain where he should be, fearful of being in the wrong line. He seemed angry that what he wanted to know wasn't easy to find.
      At last, with an air of resignation, he stuck the paper in his pocket, sighed heavily and stepped into line; having decided it was the wrong line but he was going to have to wait until he got to the front of this line to find out which line he should be standing in. Further, he knew at 5 p.m. he would be in the correct line, but the person at the window would close the window before he got to the front.
       A trickle of sweat ran down the small of my back. I turned and said, matter-of-factly, “I wouldn't mind these lines if it wasn’t for all the waiting.”
       The effect on the people in line was immediate, most smiled. I was sure it was the first smile seen in that line all day. It was an important smile because I also smiled and my need for an aspirin/antacid/valium was relieved. Like the air rushing out of a balloon, the tension in the line vanished and people started talking to each other. It was an important lesson.
       You cannot stand in line with people who are on edge, ill-tempered and full of anger without it affecting you. Likewise, if person after person steps to the front full of bile, it rubs off on the people behind the window until they are surly, grumpy and full of bile. So they hand that mouthful of bile right back to someone in the line forming a destructive cycle.
       The way out of this is to talk to the people around you. These people are not doing anything else anyway and it is a tension reliever. Try a little humor if you like. Something like: “I hear the Governor just flew in from Santa Fe, I’ll bet her arms are tired.” Or, “How many psychology students does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the bulb has to want to change.”
       Or you can just speak to the people in a friendly manner. You will be surprised how much better you feel. While it is true all workers should be nice to us regardless of how they are treated, the way it works is: the nicer you are, the better your chance to get what you want.
       Seriously, when standing in lines to ask simple questions, ask hard questions, ask unanswerable questions; whatever you are doing in lines, take your humor with you. Be gentle, I may be in the same line. Also if you can’t bring yourself to laugh, at least smile, even if you have heard the joke, like:
“I understand the NMSU Aggie football team is so tough...”
       “How tough are they?”
       “They are so tough that when they play horseshoes, they do not even bother taking the shoes off of the horses.”
       That will move the line right along.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: My story of being innocent while presumed guilty

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Several weeks ago I protested the way the media fosters the presumption of guilt for people arrested. There was lots of pushback from people who know that whoever the police arrest are guilty regardless of our constitution. I did not explain that this is personal. I have not been arrested but there was once that I came close.

      At the time I was teaching at Albuquerque High School and it was Christmas. One evening I went to the recreation room at my apartment complex and played Christmas songs for two hours. In the audience was a Bernalillo County Deputy Sheriff who was black. That had nothing to do with singing but later was important.
      This deputy sheriff was more than an acquaintance but less than a friend. The security guard that night looked in on us singing Christmas songs and then continued his rounds.
      About 9 p.m. we broke up. As I was walking out of the recreation room a woman asked for a dime for the pay phone. I handed her the dime. She looked disheveled as if things were not right.
      I went to my apartment, put my guitar away and grabbed my writing pad. At that time in my life I usually walked a mile to a Vips Big Boy Restaurant for coffee and writing. It was my preferred place to write.
      About half of the way there, on a ditch bank shortcut I was contentedly walking when two Albuquerque Police Department motorcycles came roaring up to me. I stood transfixed as they ran up to me and pointed their weapons at me. My quiet walk turned chaotic.
      They radioed, “We have him.” That did not sound good. I produced my driver’s license. They had not handcuffed me but I could tell that was next. I asked, “What is this all about?”
      One officer said, “An hour ago you raped a woman.”
      “Did not!” I said forcefully. “I was playing music the last two hours at my apartment recreation room. Do either of you know Gene, the black deputy sheriff? He was there and will vouch for me.”
One of them did know Gene so it stalled them a bit. They were going to handcuff me and have a patrol car take me downtown. But I caused enough doubt. They radioed for a description again as we walked back to the apartments.
      The radio broadcast, “Six foot, 25 years old, white, close cut hair and he has braces on his teeth.”
Yep, that was me. They were just about to wait for the patrol car when the security guard walked out to meet us. He immediately said, “You’ve got the wrong guy. He was playing Christmas songs the last two hours. A deputy sheriff was in the audience.”
      One policeman asked the dispatcher to contact the hospital and check the description. In a short while it came back: “Five seven Hispanic dark hair and eyes.”
      Then I remembered giving the woman the dime. This poor woman had been assaulted and when asked for a description gave mine since I was the last person in her mind. At that point Gene, the Deputy Sheriff, came out and confirmed my story. So the policemen apologized and left.
      Consider if I had not been playing guitar for thirty people and as was my habit I decided to walk to the restaurant. Leaving the apartment complex a woman asks for a dime. I would have been arrested for rape.
      While I probably would have been cleared at some point, I would have been immediately fired from my job at the high school. It would have been blazed on the front page, Teacher Arrested For Rape. People would be quoted as saying, “It just goes to show you never know what evil lurks in someone’s heart.”
      At some point I would be cleared of the rape but presumed guilty by most people regardless. I have never told that story before, but for the grace of God I would have had my life ruined.
      Let us be careful to give the presumption of innocence in our media for those arrested. Americans are to be presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: The very best fatalities

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  He was six years old with an innocent angelic face. As I was talking to his mother I noticed him looking at a sales catalog so I asked, “Did you see something you want for your birthday?”

      “Yes,” he pointed, “I want this video game.”
      From the lurid description in the sales catalog, the game seemed to be extremely violent so I asked, “Why this game?” He smiled broadly, “It’s got the very best fatalities.”

      “Excuse me?” I said. Hmm, I must have heard wrong. “This game has the very best fatalities,” he repeated. His mother wasn’t paying attention as I asked, “What does the word ‘fatalities’ mean?” He looked up and said, “That’s when people die.”
      I was still puzzled, “What does ‘the very best fatalities’ mean?” He broke into a grin. “That’s when the blood spurts out and their bones show and the skin burns off while they die.”
      He went back to the catalog. I motioned to his mother who gave me the look, “Boys will be boys.” I asked her if she thought it was good that a six-year-old wants a game featuring death. She told me most young kids feel exactly the same which is why there are so many violent games on the market.
      Certainly when I was a kid we played cops and robbers with simulated gun violence and there was a certain satisfaction with the death scene when we were gotten. In my circles you did not just plop over, there were a few moments of acting.
      Still, there has been much concern about violence in our society. Some people postulate that the escalating violence is caused by a lack of communication. I believe the reason we have so much violence in America is that many Americans like violence.
      Somewhat simplistically the answer is they like to watch it and like to do it. As children they learned to like violence. The enjoyment of violence, for itself, is a product of the American entertainment industry.
      Violence in America is promulgated by those people who find violence enjoyable. Much of the violence in America happens because the perpetrator simply felt like hurting someone. Guns and knives are not the cause; rather, the source of violence is the sickness of enjoyed violence within our society.
      There are gentle people and violent people here in America. It is hard to spot any difference in their appearance. The lambs and lions look alike. They lay down together but only one gets up. The difference is lions enjoy violence while the lambs do not.

      I accept that there are times in our lives when violence may be the only option. However, much of the violence in our society is not needed; it is promoted as personal enjoyment. Even after thousands of years of human intellectual advancement, the same blood lust central to the society which enjoyed going to the Roman Coliseum to watch gladiators kill each other, is alive and well in our own society.
      Can we lump those who enjoy watching violence with those who enjoy doing violence? Research suggests that what is experienced abstractly in a movie theater is often repeated in life. The people who enjoy watching violence may not always commit violence, but statistics indicate that as more people watch violence, we have more violent crime. 

      Know this: the reason gangs all over America look and act like gangs in Los Angeles is they are copying what they have seen on television and in the movies. Do gangs kill people because they have to or they want to? I suspect it is their blood lust which drives the violence. They enjoy doing it.
      In a few years the young boy who likes fatalities may move from abstract deaths in a video game to real life death on the streets. At the murder trial a lawyer may call his mother to the stand. She will have to admit that she allowed her son to devalue life by letting him learn to enjoy violence.
      Society will then have to decide what to do with him once it has been established by his testimony how much he really enjoys the very best fatalities.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

When big government is never big enough

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  -  Government was small when our country was founded. In fact, it was between small and non-existent for most American citizens. Contrast that with our government today where for some Americans government is never big enough. It always needs to get bigger year by year.

      Much of the reach of our government today, that Americans take for granted, would be as foreign to our founding leaders as going to the Moon and returning safely. If our founding leaders were not already dead, a look today at our bloated government would kill them.
      In essence bigger government was the central fight when our current constitution was constructed. Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted as little government as possible. However, the Articles of Confederation which was what they were trying to amend was clearly not enough federal government. Our founding leaders knew this.

      Some delegates saw things only a larger government could do. Of those Benjamin Franklin and George Washington especially saw the need of a stronger federal government for the defense of our country. There was the need for balance in our government and the new constitution had a balance of power which was designed to hold the power of government down.

      So our country was founded with a small federal government which inspired small state governments. But an interesting thing happened over the years. Our federal and state governments got bigger. New tasks were given to government and government reached further into the lives of Americans.

      Every year of our nation’s existence our government was said by some citizens to not be doing enough and was said by other citizens as getting too big. Citizens argued year by year about we must reign in big government or government must do even more.

      At some point it became part of the national dialog to vote money out of the pockets of other citizens and into our own pockets. The way to do that was with big government providing the muscle for such theft. 

      Another issue was that nearly every American, regardless of their thoughts about big government, will have that one new law they want. Therefore, the opponents of “Big Government” seem to have at least one law they insist is needed so year by year government gets bigger and bigger. 

      The increase of government power in our country in the last fifty years has overwhelmed personal liberty. The adults of my childhood would not recognize the America of today.
      When England took too many liberties away from their citizens, some left England as our country did in mass in the Revolutionary War. When people all over the world reached a point of dismay they came to our country. Albert Einstein immigrated to our country to leave a repressive government.
      Then America was drawn into World War Two to end the repressive governments of Germany, Italy and Japan. Our country was the reason for victory. For generations people have come to America to escape repression.
      However, in the last twenty years the tide has turned and personal liberty is on the run in our country. Political correctness and political corruption has caused our American federal, state and local governments to increase the repression of citizens.
      More and more citizens have lost all notion of private property. We are spied upon and used as giving units. Every year more laws are put upon us, the latest requiring us to buy health insurance, not to favor us but to make government bigger. A hoax of global warming is perpetuated to make government bigger. A flood of people are coming across our borders. No nation can survive unfettered immigration.
      And still people want government to do more even though American is no longer a rich nation. Millions of American citizens expect other Americans to care for them. No one wanting smaller government can ever be elected because voters vote for politicians who promise to take care of them with other people’s money.
      It would seem people who desire to be taken care of by other Americans would vote for things that brought more money to our country but they do not. I would like to end this column on a positive note but cannot.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Our American way today of being Americans

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Talk show host Dennis Prager was asked to name the biggest threat to our country a few years ago, “We have not passed on (to the next generation) what it means to be an American.” 

     He is correct, but it is much worse than that. Many Americans today only think of themselves and their needs. And our politicians feed this insanity to the point our country may not recover.
     America was not founded on what you get. It was founded on an ideal of having a chance to get what you want by earning it. There was never a thought back in 1776 that as soon as America was rid of England then the treasury would be thrust open for everyone to have all the money they want.
     The American treasury then, much like today, was firmly in the red. We are lucky foreign governments still take our non-backed paper because we are no longer a rich nation. We have not been food independent since 1992, have not been energy independent even longer and we no longer have military dominance.
     We are acting rich as a country but the time of consequences is near. Today, with heads firmly in the sand, despite our treasury being empty, free is the political way of life. Even the media dares not tell Americans that the bank is empty and even Fort Knox has no gold. Yes, some Americans know but no one is listening.
     Americans put themselves before country and feel no obligations. President John Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural speech implored, And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
     He would be voted out of office today. Many Americans wait patiently and not so patiently for a government check from our treasury. However, this column is not about those Americans who are entitled to a check, and by that I mean they paid in and are receiving what they are truly entitled.
     Rather, let us think of the Americans who play the system and receive more than they paid in or are receiving when they did not pay in at all. Those Americans vote the money to themselves with the political word entitlement, but they are only given that money in a political trade of votes for spoils. The spoils go to those Americans who vote the givers into office trading votes for plunder.
     We must distinguish the word entitlement from political reward. Food stamps are not an entitlement like Social Security even though politicians have labeled food stamps an entitlement. The money given in food stamps is not being returned to the entitled citizen. It is political patronage.
     Much of the spending for benevolence is a political reward for voting for the people who set up the system and keep it going. It is well known that the opponents might stop all of the political payola so those getting must keep electing the givers to office to keep getting.
      But do not forget, whither it is entitled or not, this country is spending about forty percent more than it takes in. That means the bad check will have to be picked up someday. Inflation is how we pay bad checks. Is inflation coming? Yes, but we do not know when.
     The problem for trying to define what it means to be an American is that many citizens among us believe that the money is just sitting in America’s treasury waiting for someone to grab it so they decide it is right to get more than they give. As W.C. Fields said, “My dear we are like Robin Hood, we take from the rich and give to the poor.” The woman asks, “Which poor?” Fields hastily concludes, “Us poor.”
     Is that what it means to be an American? That each of us should get more than we give? In decades past there was the idea of duty and honor to our country. Now a tiny sliver of Americans defend us while we ignore their plight and often spit upon them.
     We are going to have to get enough Americans to act American or we will lose this country.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Once arrested never innocent in the media

 © 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. Malcolm X
      Several times a week there is something in the media that makes me queasy. Someone will have been arrested so the media gives all the details of the crime in such a way that for most people there is no other conclusion than the person is guilty. Every detail is on the front page for all to see, even those details that the police plant in the press to move the case forward.
      The presumption of innocence is one of the founding principles of our country. But over the years citizens have lost that presumption. In the Old West often the low-down dirty varmint was hung and then given a trial. Example: at Boot Hill in Tombstone, Arizona is this marker:
Here lies George Johnson hanged by mistake 1882
He was right, we was wrong,
But we strung him up, and now he's gone.
      Several times a month I protest the way the media frames the story such that guilt can be the only conclusion. I protest to the media that they only carried the prosecution’s message. They are usually huffy about any criticism since everyone knows that when someone is arrested they are guilty.
      They answer the defendant will get his or her day in court. But that is not the issue. The jury pool is contaminated by the media framing the story from the prosecution’s point of view. The media often is intimidated by the police and if they do not play ball, so to speak, they are frozen out of the information loop.
      Further, as some of us remember there have been several seemingly iron-clad cases against citizens that subsequently turned out to be incorrect. What is remembered is that the person was handcuffed and perp-walked into the jail on nighttime television. It is rarely remembered that the person was really innocent.
      Other times the police are fishing and the media work hand in hand such as the attention paid to the boyfriend of Katie Sepich, a Las Cruces, New Mexico woman murdered in 2003. The boyfriend turned out years later to be completely innocent. But he was the number one suspect for a while. The media cried foul when he hired an attorney… whispering, only guilty people do that. Again, he was completely innocent.
      The arrest is big news. We citizens hear of the charges on the front page with all the personal details including the name of the arrested person’s dog. Story after story is published that gives the details of the facts of the case over and over again with no prosecution stone left unturned. No exculpatory evidence is mentioned.
      Then the story changes for some citizens and we learn they are innocent of the charges. But many Americans do not see the clearing of innocent citizens since the story of innocence is usually published in the middle of the newspaper next to the Bookmobile schedule.
      Again, what we are talking about is the presumption of innocence. This is an American legal principle that requires our government to prove the guilt of the defendant, and even more importantly, it relieves said defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. If someone decides not to defend themselves against charges they are still presumed innocent unless and until convicted of the crime. At least that is the theory.
      One of the problems I am seeing is the reporter haste to be the first with the story, right or wrong. The problem is that journalists no longer consider that they are in the middle of a story; rather, they become in effect junior policemen because that is where the information is initially. And again, the police and prosecution play the journalists as far as they can to win their case.
      Perhaps the Constitution is dead; perhaps there is not even a First Amendment. Perhaps the journalists who rush to judgment will find themselves one day on the wrong side of the law and truth and the presumption of innocence.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Job is not a four letter word

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. The most important job young people will ever get is their first job. It may not pay well; but it leads to their second job. They cannot have a second job without a first job. Without the all-important first job, many young people will flounder and never get into the job market therefore wind up living on the street.

      Our society has put up many barriers to young people working. So many young do not get a no-brainer job and learn to work. They must learn to work as the boss says and to not quit until they have another job lined up. There is nothing wrong with working and going to school to get that first job.

      In the summer of 1968 I arrived at New Mexico State University, the next step from high school. As I walked across campus there was a sign outside the Computer Center: Get into keypunch and you will always have a job. Of course keypunch is deader than Elvis and while he may come back, keypunch never will. Still I considered it but I had other talents.

      By that time in my life having a job was important to me and I had gotten several jobs over the years starting with delivering newspapers, yard work and my favorite, I was a photographer in high school which let me free-lance photographs at dances and also sell sports pictures to the local daily newspaper. 

      The photography I learned was what Air Force photographers learned since my father’s last job before he retired was to teach at the Air Force School of Photography in Denver. We had a basement in that Denver house and he constructed a darkroom where I went through all of the photography learning activities that my father taught. I enjoyed it but did not realize what a gift I was given: a way to make money wherever and whenever.

      So at college I had a way of supporting myself because in effect I already had experienced my first job. From when I was twelve to now work has been a habit. My parents did not give an allowance; my dad gave me the gift of photography and a stocked darkroom that I could work out of free of charge.
      After college I worked at KOB-TV in Albuquerque and was on my way as a professional journalist. A few years later I transitioned to education and educational media production. Every lesson about working was important to everything I did then and now.

      The key to my success over forty years was to get that first job and learn from it so I could get the next job and so on. Today many young people are in their middle twenties and still have not had a first job. I say to them that job is not a four letter word.

      There are three reasons many young people have not had their first job: first, they have not valued the things to learn from a first job. Secondly, many are not being forced by the economics of their life to get a job as long as they do not mind going in debt with student loans. Finally, many young people have not gotten that first job because the job market has collapsed.

      Many jobs are not open to young people because these young people do not have any job skills so employers are reluctant to hire young people who must be paid the minimum wage while they cannot return that productivity for the employer. 

      In this tough economy many employers are slimming down their workforces and paying more to productive members of their staff while not hiring young people. There is a national push to make this worse by raising the minimum wage further. No one is speaking out for these young unemployed. 

      Know this: they cannot get a second job without getting their first job. Further, they cannot get productive skills if employers will not hire them because of the minimum wage.

      There should be a waiver that if someone has never had a job previously then they can make any deal with an employer for a first job. Suddenly, they would be attractive.

Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Lack of imagination: a fatal flaw

Commentary -  © 2014 Pat Temple

A lack of imagination can make life worse than death, in ways.  And, sadly, the way human beings are made, they simply can't think ahead when it comes to certain specific areas. They're pretty good at laying out fields and irrigation systems.  They can picture a pecan farm twenty years in the future, and the way the house might look, with rich hardwood floors, high ceilings, and hand-created tile counter tops, but they are nearly hopeless at combating "common folklore" such as "the hook doesn't hurt the fish," despite the fact that the fish appears to be trying desperately to get off it.

H. L. Mencken wrote, about 100 years ago, that people hadn't bathed until the last 75 years.  He did that deliberately to see how many people would believe it.   My father said he was thinking about that statement (and believing it) standing in front of a Roman bathtub in the Pliny Gardens in Florence, Italy.  He said the dichotomy almost did not occur to him.  He was standing directly in front of proof that people bathed 2,000 years ago while thinking   "I believe that people did not bathe until 75 years ago … and yet, here I am, standing in front of a bathtub that was hand-carved out of marble 2,000 years ago."

It must have helped us survive, somehow, to have this ability to believe a certain set of facts that aren't facts at all, but it might not be so good for us as individuals.   I know that for years the school system has said that children have to go to public schools "because they have to learn to get along with these people; they will be with them when they grow up."  It's not true.   Getting along is among the most natural of any human qualities.  Any two people sitting next to each other on an airplane can adjust to each other's differences in minutes, and find grounds for a first-rate conversation.  But that statement keeps parents worried that somehow if they don't send their kids to the local public school -- every day, no matter what else of interest is going on somewhere else -- they will grow up to be hopeless, socially.  We're very good at accepting platitudes that justify the ends we want, or think we want, rather than trying for the truth.

People aren't very good at parallels, either.  Young people, unable to imagine that they might someday want to bare clear skin at a party or a job, suddenly believe a tattoo is the answer to a bad mood.  It doesn't occur to them to figure out ways to determine if they're likely to want that tattoo in a few months.  They seem to think that they have to get the permanent mark, and then hope they've guessed right, rather than try one of several alternatives -- draw on themselves with a ballpoint pen, and vow to keep the ink refreshed for a week -- and see how they feel -- or wear the same shirt for a month.  Worse yet, they sometimes get tattoos to punish their parents -- to show the parents they can't be pushed around, not realizing that someone who can't be pushed around "by Mr. Smith" does not react at all to Mr. Smith.  He certainly does not get a tattoo to "show him."

And then -- there's hoarding.  We don't seem to be able to judge the value -- or the detriment to our quality of life -- of items we keep.  We see something delightful in a store, pick it up and wait the requisite three seconds for it to glue itself to our hands (a bond only broken by putting it in the cart), buy it, take it home, put it on a shelf, admire it for a week, and are then annoyed, slightly, every time we see it, having to dust it, move it, or realize that that formerly free space will never be free again and the house is beginning to look more cluttered than comfortable.  I try hard to "get outside myself" and develop strategies to defeat these terrible mental traps.  Once I went into Marshall's determined to find something I "had to have", to put it in my cart and walk around with it for twenty minutes, and then to put it back on the shelf -- and that actually worked.  I made myself endure a slight bit of discomfort, but my buying 'cute' items dropped by about 90% after I went through that exercise.  I realized, too, that going into Marshall's was like letting a five-year-old into Santa's workshop, but as an adult, I had to tell myself "No" at every turn.  It was agony; I finally quit going (well, ok, once a month now, but not twice a week.)  And sometimes I walk out empty-handed.

If we had enough imagination, we'd get more courage, and we'd be more responsible for our actions.  We'd take a look at how the British royal family educates their children, and we'd save to educate ours, and put them in the schools we wanted them to go to. We'd quit saying, "I've already paid for public schools so I'm going to send my kids to them" even when we feel there's a better alternative, just as when, if we're unlucky enough to get cancer or heart disease, we say, "I know Mayo costs 15% more than my health plan pays.  I'm going there anyway."  Sometimes money isn't that important, and when it comes to the education of our children -- that's one of those times.  But the real problem here is not money -- it's fear that we may not be doing the right thing -- that our educational system is too large to be wrong, or the folk wisdom about getting along with others is too strong.   Imagination -- and the facts -- are needed here. Likewise if you're told you must not teach your child to read at home so he "won't be ahead of the other children" -- nonsense.  He doesn't have to be a jerk just because he knows how to read at the age of five.  He can just know how to read.

My mother was a hoarder, and I suffer from the same psychology.  Fortunately Dad, though he didn't understand the compulsion, figured out some things to say to me to help guide me in living a life that appears, at least, quite normal, and is certainly easier than having to walk through paths to get to the kitchen.  I've read that one good trip on LSD reroutes the pathways in the brain, and gives the patient the idea that we are all interconnected and the china from your great-grandmother that you have dedicated your curio cabinet to for twenty years (though you kind of hate the stuff) is really part of the universe and even if you give it away you will still retain the essence of it on a cosmic plane.  People who took such a trip underwent permanent personality changes which made them happier, kinder, and more peaceful.  Now, if I could find a dealer … 

Dad told me once that imagination is not the ability to see things that aren't there. It's the ability to see things as they actually are.  It's a rare gift, but maybe we can begin to develop it.

Swickard: Good teaching is rare in our schools

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. The most important question in education: what is good teaching? Perhaps defining good teaching is impossible, but we know good teaching when we see it. On the other hand many celebrated teachers may not know how to teach but are great at educational politics.
     Example: what many “Good” teachers are good at is playing political games in their school. They know how to play the games and therefore their students get good scores on tests regardless of how the students get their scores or even if the scores reflect their student’s abilities.
      These “Good” teachers are high achievers who make their schools look good. They are given awards while other teachers go about the teaching with no hoopla at all. One of my former students went through the cumulative folders for her incoming class and found they were on grade level.
     But when the kids came into her class they had forgotten everything. She struggled all year. In March of that year the mystery was solved. She told me, “When I gave them the end of year tests they said, ‘Miss, aren't you going to give us the answers like the teacher did last year?’”
     The best way to get at great teaching is to say what it is not. First, it is not mean. There is a notion that rigor is good so the harder the teachers are on the students, the more the students will thank them in their prayers. Not so. It seems to me that some of the mean teachers are mentally unbalanced and prey upon students.
     A former student wrote that one of her kids came to school very sad. Her grandfather had died suddenly the day before. The class was scheduled for an accountability test that day. My former student contacted the office and said that this student could not take the test.
     The principal came fluttering into the classroom at the notion of a student not taking the test and said, “We need you to take this test.” The girl, with tears running down her face said, “My grandpa died yesterday.” The principal looked mad and said, “You have to take this test” and stomped off.
     My former student’s coworkers said she must sit the student with a test. Instead my former student took her student to the library and let her sit with the librarian and hold a stuffed toy. She did get in trouble.
     At the end of the year this former student quit education, saying she would not hurt children regardless of politics and pressures. It is best she left public education since there is no room in the field for someone who realizes a child who lost a loved one the day before is not in proper condition to do accountability tests.
      Other descriptions of good teaching: good teaching is centered on curiosity development and therefore is client centered. Students are not the least bit interested in tests. Often they are not interested in what the school district says they need to be interested in at that very minute. Good teachers listen and look at their students rather than ignore them because it is politically inconvenient to do anything but what the bosses say.
     The five measures of good teaching: first it is curiosity based. Then it works on giving students the tools to satisfy their curiosity. Next good teaching realizes that students must enjoy the passage of time. It does not have to be a carnival all the time but if students dislike every moment then no learning will occur. Again, the rigor approach where each student is battered into the next hour upon hour does not work.
     Finishing the five: the teaching must be age appropriate and finally students must retain their dignity at all times. Teachers in today’s schools do none of these.
     The administrators are horrible because they do not see student as the most important part of education. They are also making teachers horrible. The priorities are never kindness for students. Therefore students do not thrive. The administrators and teachers still get paid and get their retirement while the students live lesser lives.
     How much better students would do if we valued good teaching.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Only administrators left in public education

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “Every good teacher is just one bad administrator away from quitting teaching forever.” Jim Smith
     In 2002 the Las Cruces School Board members looked surprised when New Mexico Teacher of the Year Jim Smith made the above statement. It never occurred to them that the central problem in public education was administrators. In the years since Smith’s statement administrators have gotten worse, not better.
     I do know some good administrators who fight to let teachers teach but it seems the system works to throw those administrators out and replace them with administrators who “Play the game” the way their superiors demand. Today, it is never ever about the students, it is always about adults.

     This year the New Mexico teacher evaluations make no sense and are not uniformly applied. More so, it is obvious no one in a position of leadership in the schools has the faintest idea or interest in good teaching. They think great teachers excel at filling out accountability forms and administering tests. 

     Many teachers this last year said they were no longer teachers; instead, all they did was administrator tests. All administration, no teachers. They spent the entire year on something to which the students have absolutely no interest whatsoever: taking tests. The good teachers are beaten down for suggesting that students do something other than prepare for tests, take tests, review tests and prepare for more tests.
     Having taught in the New Mexico State University College of Education I have many former students who are now teaching in New Mexico and a couple other states. I keep in touch and it is heartbreaking the way our society has turned education over to the top-down approach of complete control by administrators.
      A quarter century ago I was hired by a large school district to plan for computers in the classrooms. At that time the ratio of teachers to non-teachers was heavily on the side of teachers. Make no mistake, teachers ran the schools and administrators made sure there was toilet paper in the bathrooms. That has changed to where administrators command all teaching practices including the current constant testing of students.
     Over the years more and more administrators have been hired so that we now have the assistant to the assistant to the assistant supernumerary administrator. And each administrator has to command something so as each comes onboard there are more rules and regulations on the teachers. Some teachers have tried to ignore as much as possible all of the administrator interference but it is getting impossible.
     When I taught at Albuquerque High (Gerald Ford was president) the administrator stupidity was “Quarter-hour lesson plans.” For every hour taught (six hours for me) there needed to be four in-depth lesson plans completed and handed in. That was 120 pieces of paper each week. My hand still hurts from filling all of them out before the era of computers. So I took a better paying job at the University.
     What former students are really uncomfortable with, according to the email and conversations this last year is the cheating that has taken over the public schools. While there is hue and cry for test integrity, there is a demand by administrators that teachers make sure their students do well by hook or crook since the administrator jobs are on the line and therefore so are the teacher jobs.
     This is second-hand information, I have not seen it myself, but in some school districts teachers are given the tests to practice and then they walk around the test indicating to students they have gotten things wrong. Students do what it takes to get to recess.
     One message talked about how teachers in this former student’s district start the year with say thirty percent proficiency students and in a couple of weeks these students are now at a hundred percent proficiency. Obviously, that is impossible in the real world but it is demanded by administrators.
     And no one is going to go look since everyone in the command structure wants success. Administrators think the best teachers are the ones bright enough to cheat on the tests so their schools look good. Meanwhile students more and more hate every moment in school.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Maximum unemployment with the minimum wage

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Nobel Prize winner in Economics Milton Friedman not only opposed raising the minimum wage, he opposed the very concept of a minimum wage. There was not any government program of mandated wages that he embraced. The reason he gave for his opposition was that the notion of a government mandated wage violated economic principles and would harm the very people said to need it.
      In his 1980 television series, Free to Choose, Friedman says, “The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills… The law says here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for 2014), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour.”

     Friedman continues, “So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.”
      There are a couple of studies in 1992 which are noted by people pushing minimum wage that found no change in fast food restaurants when the minimum wage went up. These studies have not been replicated and most of the rest of the hundreds of studies about minimum wage are clear that increasing the cost of production without increasing the ability to produce is a barrier to companies staying in business.
     When the minimum wage was first proposed the effect on the least skilled workers was understood by those politicians. Only recently have the media been able to obscure these outcomes. The political opportunities were such that politicians and labor unions could prosper while the least productive members of our society paid a dreadful price.
     The forces pushing a minimum wage never look at it like economists. What happens in minimum wage situations is the maximum unemployment of the least skilled member of our society. Why? Employment is dynamic and businesses cannot support paying for something not received.
Businesses could pay out money without a fair return for a while, but all businesses will end up bankrupt if they pay too much for labor without a resultant increase in productivity. Many businesses run on a skinny profit and changing the labor costs without changing the productivity of workers will cause businesses to fail.
     The minimum wage debate is almost entirely from the side of the person without adequate productive skills. That person must exist on very little money. I worry about someone else. What about those least skilled citizens who do not have a job and cannot get one? They are now less likely to be employed.
     This is especially so for young people who have never had a job. Getting that first job is a problem because they have no job history and unless they come from a technical high school or college, they do not have the productive skills such that the employer can make a fair trade.
     So most of these young people sit at home, mostly in their parent’s home and they do not gain skills while the politicians and unions talk about raising the minimum wage even higher. Alas, the unemployed cheer for a higher minimum wage without realizing a higher minimum wage puts jobs even further out of their reach.
     The government likes a minimum wage increase for three reasons: it pushes all wages higher thereby increasing employment taxes for the government. It likewise increases Social Security and Medicare taxes and it increases the need for government to help those poor young people without a job.
     The label on all of this is fairness but it is one-sided. It only looks at those people receiving, not those people paying. It does not look at those people who must be laid off or are never hired. Finally, it does not look at the businesses that will close because their razor thin profit margins become a loss.
     The unemployed have a much harder road to live than anyone employed.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Burning up with road-rage

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Road-rage has been all the rage to talk about these last few weeks. Someone did a survey of what causes road-rage. The top cause was people who drive too slowly. For cranky people susceptible to road-rage driving too slowly are all those people going slower than them. 

     The best way to understand these cranky people is to see them change a light bulb. They hold the bulb steady and let the world revolve around them.
     In the 1950s humorist Brother Dave Gardner told about a guy behind a truck he could not pass. There was a sign on the back of the truck: I may be slow but I am ahead of you. The guy flips out and wrecks. It is a funny story, to a point.
     Two hundred years ago humans could only go as fast as a horse could run. Those early 19th century humans could only go the speed of Romans two thousand years earlier. Perhaps there was road-rage then for slow horses. Then technology increased speed. We now can go hundreds of miles in a day in air-conditioned comfort listening to music coming from space.
     But some people act like being slowed for a few moments makes the whole journey like riding in a German cattle-car in the early 1940s. Impatient people feel everything on the road purposely tries to make them mad. Ultimately, they pay the price for their maladaptive coping mechanism, though innocent people also pay.
     Out in the country where I am from we generally smile and wave. We drive friendly even with strangers. There is a reason for our civility. In small towns everyone knows everyone else so bad behavior is remembered more than sin and is often punished by the offender being shunned by town folks.
     Contrast that with big cities where people are mostly anonymous. Many unnecessarily aggressive drivers count on being able to disappear into a cloud of strangers after their intentionally bad moments. But there is a change brought to us by technology: car video systems.
     With car video systems recording the offense, it is there for all to see. It might be the police or just everyone in your community who sees the posted video and says, “Why that is my neighbor Jim, the rat.”
     More instructive to road-rage issues are the thousands of videos taken by Russian drivers with onboard cameras and posted on YouTube. It is not for the faint of heart to see what these people did willingly to themselves and others.
     These accidents should cause pause for thought to those who do have the ability to think. Example: a Russian car is slow so the car behind rushes around it only to flatten itself on the front of a large truck, bursts into flames and then is thrown down a mountainside. They were late in more ways than one.
     While this might be the Darwin Awards in action, I think this shows lack of community. The more we record road-rage by our neighbors; perhaps the less likely they will be to do it.
     One time I was traveling between towns and saw someone I was seriously on the outs with at that time stranded on the side of the road with an obviously dead car. I slowed down and my companion looked at me like I had taken leave of my senses.
     The man got into the back seat as I asked, “Next town?”
     He said, “Yes, my brother lives there.”
     That was the whole conversation except when we got to that town he directed me to turn at the second road and almost inaudibly said, “Thanks.”
     My companion was incensed. “Why did you pick up that awful man?” I smiled and said that no matter how out of sorts we get in the West, we do not leave people on the side of the road. Plus, I opined, it hurt him quite a lot to say thanks.
      So the next person who comes at you with road-rage, just get out of their way. It is far better to let that person be seen on YouTube smashed into by a large truck, on fire and going down a mountainside. Better safe than dead.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Accessing truth is the problem

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. The first victim of the Information Age is truth. Specifically, it is having access to the truth because there is so much false clutter that no one can be sure the media or Internet is really true.
     Often truth has been hijacked for political or anarchist reasons. There are hundreds of false reports each day that make it into the media. These false reports are either called out or assimilated into the culture of our society. Often they live as slogans, “Bush lied and people died.” Or, “America did not land on the Moon.”

     It is now possible to “prove” or “disprove” any fact or theory. There is probably a blog chronicling that Elvis is alive and playing golf with Michael Jackson who is also alive. If not, wait a minute, it will be up shortly.
     The best and worst of the Internet is the speed by which information is available. I get tons of data such as: Mr. Rogers was a decorated Marine in WWII. Nope, that is a hoax someone made up and laughs every time it circles the Internet.
     Over the years I have stuffed that hoax and hundreds others. Every day there they are again and another group of people on FaceBook or somewhere else are taken in by the attack on truth.
My first connection to a wider world was in 1988 when I was a tester for Prodigy while living in California. At first it was opinions and advisories and in the 1990s it changed to data repositories.
      In 1992 I was using email at NMSU such that I was on a project with a women in Jamaica and a man in New Zealand. We never met face to face but worked a year together. The data we sent back and forth stayed true on the worksheets and it was great.
     Certainly I was aware in 1998 of the Y2K scare which came from the Internet to the media and back. Now it seems mildly humorous that so many people believed that life on this planet was going to end due to a programming problem when the clock strikes the year 2000.
      Scam after scam tied to the Y2K problem had people petrified that the planet was in for a hard time because almost all business had a computer connection. Billions of dollars were needlessly spent because we could not get to the truth.
      Well, not everyone was freaked out and worried including myself, but the media played the concern to the hilt. People started stocking up on food, water and generators. However, I did not stock up or hoard above my normal two weeks or so of stuff.
     In 1999 I wrote a column asking: how were these hoarders going to deal with their neighbors when they have the only warm house in the neighborhood? It was going to get ugly, especially when the lights came back on. Neighbors will have long memories of you shoving a gun in the faces and telling them to scram.
      In the last twenty years the instant communication has also driven some political events using the political commodity, FUD. Now FUD stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. In 2014 there is an avalanche of untrue and partially true stories both in the media, social media and in our email with access to truth missing.
     Some people opine what is needed is more government control of us to assure the truth. I cannot imagine how bad it would get if government was in charge of the truth.
     Consider with this government we have conspiracies to explore or if you are on the other political side to keep people from exploring such as what happened in Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives, Fast and Furious and the demolition of the civility impulse in society. Enquiring minds want to know.
       Then comes the worst FUD, the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about climate. The truth is if we survey all scientists we will find that there is not 97 percent of scientists affirming Global anything.
How odd it is that we have Global Drought in New Mexico while Global Wetness hits the East Coast. We have lost our access to the truth.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com

Swickard: Who is really in charge?

© 2014 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. It is possible for someone in New Mexico to get hurt or even killed. Why? There is an ambiguity among our local, county, state and national agencies as to who has the final police authority in New Mexico. No one knows and each thinks they do. Let me illustrate: it is legal for New Mexicans who comply with regulations to have medical marijuana. There is no ambiguity in New Mexico’s laws.

     However, the federal government considers medical marijuana an illegal substance subjecting the person to the full fury of the federal government. The State of New Mexico says it is legal while the Federal Government says it is not.

     There should never be a time in a nation of laws for something to be legal and illegal concurrently. But that is not as big a problem as the question: who ultimately is in charge in police matters?

     The second example came recently when Otero County Commissioners asked Otero Sheriff Benny House to open a gate in Otero County that was shut by a federal authority. The feds insists on a closed gate, Otero County wants an open gate. They told the Sheriff to open it. Neither side intends to give an inch.
     Imagine if I legally possessed medical marijuana. And imagine if Governor Martinez was in my truck as we were stopped by the Border Patrol. They would detect marijuana and attempt to confiscate it even though I showed my paperwork.

     Whether I was with Governor Martinez or my own County Sheriff we would have a difficulty. How would it play out? We do not know because it is not clear who is the final authority in New Mexico. Our New Mexico Constitution says it is the Sheriff of that county. Would the feds listen?

     So let’s say I asked Governor Martinez to protect my legal property. Perhaps she would tell her State Police bodyguards to protect us from the feds. Well, friends, it could get dangerous. Who would back off? The federal government has become a military of their own with tanks, planes and guns galore.

     Last year New Mexico Congressman Steve Pearce was in the middle of this exact question. The residents of the village of Cloudcroft wanted to thin some trees near the town so if lightning started a blaze there would not be enough fuel-load to burn down the town. The Forest Service said no.

     An Otero County Commissioner decided to get a chain saw and just cut down the offending trees since it was in Otero County and represented a danger to the residents of Otero County. The Forest Service prepared to take anyone with a chain saw into custody and law them to a frazzle. The commissioner prepared to be arrested.

     Then Congressman Pearce showed up, picked up a chain saw and cut down the first tree that needed to be thinned. The Forest Service lost their nerve and blinked when Congressman Pearce would not. They decided that taking a member of Congress into custody for his act of protecting citizens might cast the Forest Service into a bad light. No fooling, they can tell light from dark, up from down, heat from cold and stupid from smart.

     It may turn out that Congressman Pearce will have to get some bolt cutters and lead the Sheriff to the gate because the Forest Service might not resist shooting a Sheriff, but they would not want to shoot any Congressmen this close to a federal election.

     So what I want is to know who is in charge? Is it the feds or the state? If a federal agent is abusing me can the Sheriff in my county tell them to stop or can the feds bring in millions of federal fighters with billions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition and just kill everyone who does not bow to them. Who is in charge?

     Starting with the New Mexico Attorney General, members of the New Mexico Legislature along with the Congressional delegation and of course our county sheriffs, we need to figure out who is in charge. Are our state and county leaders going to protect us or is this entirely federal land and the feds run everything?

Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com