A Christmas Missed

Soon television will be flooded with some of your favorite Christmas classics, such as Miracle on 34^th St., A Wonderful Life, The Santa Clause, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, and A Christmas Story. The child in me always preferred the animated favorites: How the Grinch Stole Christmas, A Charlie Brown Christmas, A Muppet Christmas, and my favorite, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Each one of these movies are great in their own unique way, but the moral to all is the selflessness of the Christmas Spirit can trump any problem and bring warmth to any life.

 After witnessing some of the atrocities that occurred this Black Friday, one cannot help but wonder how amiss we are with the meaning of Christmas.

In a California Toys 'R' Us, two men fired their sidearms after their female companions entered a bloodied fight. The event culminated in the loss of both mens’ lives and also a sense of shopping safety. To quote bystander Joan Barrick, “All I was thinking was… I don’t want to die today.” Not wanting to compromise next year’s shopping, Toys 'R' Us dismissed the shooting as a “personal dispute” and therefore “inaccurate to associate [it] with Black Friday.”

Black Friday was worse for Jdimytai Damour, a part-time Wal-Mart employee who wiped the dust out of his eyes to report to his job early that morning. According to police reports and the New York Daily News, Damour was assigned crowd control at the store entrance – an arduous task overseeing an unruly collection of 2,000 people eagerly waiting for the 5:00 am opening. Shoppers to the rear of the crowd started chanting “Push the doors in!” and within moments, the doors barricaded off the hinges, followed by a mob that “bum rushed” a group of employees who tried to form a human chain to keep the shoppers at bay.

 Their yielding approach was in vain as several people were pummeled over, Damour included. Fellow Wal-Mart staff members scrambled and leaped “on top of vending machines” to avoid the mayhem of shoppers (who “yelled like savages”) until they could eventually reach Damour. The thirty-four-year-old died almost instantly of a heart attack.

 In turn, the raucous toppled four shoppers, including a pregnant woman who, after being stepped on, lost her 8-month-old fetus.

 All this for Guitar Hero World Tour for $59 or a 50” Samsung LCD TV for $798?

This might be a series of rhetorical questions, but what has happened to humanity during a season of giving? With behavior like this, is it difficult to imagine ourselves in A Wonderful Life where angels receive their wings? Is Black Friday nothing more than the search for this year’s fashionable “Red-Ryder BB Gun?” How would the Santa from Miracle on 34^th Street come back to judge us – as naughty or nice? Or better yet, what of the judgment the (oft-forgot) namesake of the holiday, Jesus Christ?

 We don’t need Jack Skellington or Tim Burton to identify with a Nightmare Before Christmas. It’s a Grinch that lies within, and for many of us, emerges on an appropriately named Black Friday.

Presidential Election Trivia

The Harrisburg Patriot-News Election Special

November 4, 2008

With the election only a few days away, every media source is going to be pounded by poignant opinions, haberdashery, endorsements, and threats. In a change of pace, let’s do a bit of presidential trivia. Can you name the: 

1. Last time a Republican ticket won an election without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket?
2. Year and candidates that brought out the highest percentage of Americans to the polls?
3. Number of consecutive elections had taken place with a sitting President or Vice President on the ballot (2008 excluded)?
4. Territory of land purchased by the first Republican administration (and was dubbed “Seward’s Folley”) but is now represented on the Republican ticket.
5. Only President elected to two non-consecutive terms was who?
6. President who was never elected as a president or vice president by the American people?
7. First President to lose in a bid for re-election?
8. Party who had more Presidents, Democrats or Republicans?
9. Last President elected that was neither a Republican nor a Democrat?
10. Future President collected the most electoral votes and most popular votes in 1824, yet still lost the election (in the Corrupt Bargain)?
11. How many of the 55 presidential elections did the winner NOT receive a majority of the national vote?
12. Answer: True or False – young Barack Obama was legally old enough to consume alcohol when John McCain was first elected to Congress?
13. Dominant religious domination of the 43 elected presidents?
14. University that has produced the most presidents?
15. Amount of children Sen. McCain has?
16. Preferred game of admitted gamblers Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama?
17. Number of Presidents from the 11 since the end of World War II that have been left-handed?
18. Answer: True or False – A majority of the Presidents were Freemasons?
19. Year that, adjusted for inflation, the President made more money – 1908 or 2008?
20. How many Presidents have a military background?

  

1a. 1928 – Pres. Herbert Hoover

2a. 1876, when Pres. Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden, but won the Electoral College. The turnout has stymied since.

3a. Thirteen straight elections, from 1956 until 2004.

4a. Alaska

5a. Pres. Grover Cleveland, in 1884 and 1892. He also won the popular vote (but lost the election) in 1888.

6a. Pres. Gerald Ford

7a. Pres. John Adams lost to his political rival, Pres. Thomas Jefferson

8a. The Republicans have elected 19 Presidents, while the Democrats have fielded 13.

9a. Pres. Zach Taylor, a Whig, was elected in 1848 but died just 16 months into office.

10a. Future Pres. Andrew Jackson lost to Pres. John Q. Adams.

11a. Sixteen.

12a. True – but Sen. Obama was a mere 11 years old when his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden was first elected to the Senate.

13a. Twelve Presidents have at one time or another identified themselves as Episcopalian (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, W. Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, Arthur, F. Roosevelt, Ford, G.H.W. Bush). If Sen. McCain is elected, he would become the thirteenth.

14a. Harvard had a hand in educating six presidents (both Adams, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, and Pres. G.W. Bush (MBA)). Sen. Obama would become the seventh.

15a. Sen. McCain has seven children (Sydney, Doug, Andy, Meghan, Jack, James, Bridget)

16a. Sen. Obama prefers five-card stud, while Sen. McCain enjoys craps.

17a. Five (Truman, Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton; both McCain and Obama are left-handed, making ½ of the most recent presidents left-handed even though only 1 in 10 Americans are a “southpaw”)

18a. False. Only fourteen (Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, both Roosevelts, Taft, Harding, Truman, and Ford) of the 43 were Freemasons.

19a. 1908. In 2008, Pres. Bush was paid $400,000. In 1908, Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, made $75,000, which would have been $1.7 million in today’s figures.

20a. Thirty-one presidents have had a military background. All of them, sans Pres. Buchanan, served as an officer. Sen. McCain would become the thirty-second.

 Sources: PresidentialElection.com, The Page at Time Magazine, Wikipedia, Funtrivia.com, Worldmaps.com, PeopleQuiz.com, Quizland.com

The Founders Flip-Flopped, Too

The Harrisburg Patriot-News

August 31, 2008

On March 14, 2004, presidential candidate and current Senator John Kerry claimed that he “voted for [a soldier funding proposal in Iraq] before I voted against it.” This boondoggle quickly painted Kerry into a corner, and framed him with the disparaging political term – the “flip-flopper.”

In the 2008 election, the term has become even more pervasive and commonplace. Sen. John McCain has been accused of changing his stance on a laundry list of measures: from his stance on immigration, supporting Pres. Bush’s tax cuts, or encouraging off-shore drilling. Sen. Barack Obama has also been accused of banking a few U-turns, sharing McCain’s off-shore drilling stance, while now supporting FISA and neglecting public financing.

The media’s fascination with tracking these changes of position led me to wonder – were the Founding Fathers flip-floppers?

Unquestionably.

Pres. George Washington was elected to office as a nonpartisan. He in fact promised to avoid partisanship. Yet it was Washington who became the adulation of the Federalist Party and a strong national government. He created a rift with Democratic-Republicans by expelling the French diplomat “Citizen Genet,” who roused Jeffersonian supporters to aid France in their war with Britain. Washington ironically should remain the only president elected without a party because of the partisanship of his own administration.

Thomas Jefferson also belongs to this list. The 18^th century libertarian and a one of the most vocal opponents of nationalized government didn’t hesitate to use his presidential influence to conduct the Louisiana Purchase. This $23 million transaction (approximately 1/3 of the GDP at the time) was a major government expenditure. Many argued that if Federalist John Adams had proposed this measure, Jefferson would have surely opposed it.

Pres. Adams himself turned on his own Federalist Party as they grew hungry for war with France. His administration, creators of the first FISA-like Alien & Sedition Acts, was bent on curbing foreign espionage. They later used this as a vehicle to level the Democratic-Republican Party; yet when Adams stepped in and overturned the Acts as well as the French “Quasi-War,” ironically the only things leveled were his own party and his chances of re-election.

The biggest flip-flopper of all was James Madison. He was the author of more than 1/3 of the Federalist Papers, a 1788 compendium with the sole intention of convincing America to support Federalist policies and to rally around a strong central government. Madison created the binding document that gave birth to such a government. But three years later, the “Father of The Constitution” switched parties and systemically fought for a Bill of Rights to give more power to the individual states and Americans themselves.

Though John Kerry wouldn’t know it, flip-flopping is as American as apple pie. In fact, voters should fear candidates who remain inflexible and rigid on some issues. As our nation grows and we unearth technological, military, and economic shifts in our culture and world, we shouldn’t be measuring the quality of a candidate by merely their first opinions and moral standards but also on their ability to do what’s best for America at any and all times. 

Economics 101 - For the High School Graduate

Published in the Allentown Morning Call and the Lehighton Times News, June 2008

One of the most peculiar things about teaching is when students ask, “What is something good I can do with my life?”

 For those students in need of a compass, I advise you to use simple economic principles as your guide:

 ·        Supply & Demand: The most basic principle of economics revolves around this term. Job markets that are in huge demand – health services, mathematics, accounting, engineering, scientific research, etc. – all pay well because there aren’t enough people to supply the markets.

 ·        Trades make every one better off: Too many high school students enroll in college because it seems like a good idea. However, some people should not be sitting in more classes – and accruing an average debt of $22,000 – when they could be learning a trade or pursuing a quick, hands-on degree such as dental hygienist.

 ·        Elasticity: People who are flexible tend to roll with the market well. If you decide to pursue a college degree, make yourself well-rounded. A friend of mine recently graduated with degrees in both special and elementary education. That doesn’t just double his chances of getting a job, it quadruples them.

 ·        Maximize resources: Prior to the 1990s, as butchers spilt up parts of the chicken they tossed the chicken wings. But with a little entrepreneurialism, that same chicken wing that was once garbage quickly became valuable. The world around us is in desperate need of people who can turn ordinary resources into extraordinary investments.

 ·        There is no such thing as a free lunch: If you think you’re in for an easy way to make money – many often point to law on this one – you couldn’t be more wrong. The LSAT is the most difficult standardized test in the world, and the three years you might spend in law school will be the most intense you will ever experience.

 ·        Risk & rewards: If you’re planning on making millions, you’re going to put yourself out there in the face of failure. Under Armour founder Kevin Plank maxed out every credit card he had to make his water-wicking material, but was rewarded big because he risked big. More young Americans need to make big – and intelligent – risks. Imagine if you’re the entrepreneur to replace oil.

 ·        All choices involve opportunity costs: If you invest $2,000 annually into a mutual loan with 10% returns for 20 years, you’ll be a millionaire by the time you retire. Think about that the next time you ask for the sticker price on a Mustang.

 ·        Pay attention to the bottom line: Sure, you need to find a career that will make you happy, but you don’t want to be living paycheck-to-paycheck. Look for jobs that pay well, and pursue at least one of them.

 Class of 2008, I wish you much success. May the torch of simple economics be your guide to unearthing it.

Dollars & Democracy: The 2008 Election Highlights American Excess

Like a credit card bill from hell, first quarter fundraising reports showed an excessive amount of dollars collected for the 2008 presidential candidates. Senator Hillary Clinton leads the soon-to-be spending spree, having raised $36 million through the first three months of her campaign, quadrupling the record amount collected by Al Gore in 1999. Even John Edwards – the third place finisher in the Democratic primary – has eclipsed Gore’s numbers, raising a cool $13 million for his campaign; America still awaits for Barack Obama’s and Republican figures to be disclosed.

It has become safe to assume the 2008 presidential election will be costlier than any election in the history of our world. Spending will, undoubtedly, eclipse the $1 billion mark in this decisive race. Seems like an excessive amount of zeroes for a job that pays $400,000 per year, but it becomes even more extreme when one realizes $1 billion is a higher dollar amount than the entire GDP of 28 nations.

But people like Jonah Goldberg would have you think that this price tag is by no means intolerable. According to his March 28^th article in the Washington Post, “More money means more communication, more debate, more education. In other words, more democracy.”

More money does not mean more communication. More money means more bought votes, more you scratch my back while I throw dollars at yours. Money is to political campaigns what PowerBait is to the first day of fishing – you just have to continuously apply until you get every fish to bite, because they are all hungry. Plus more money usually means more painful, slanderous and repetitive advertisements; not what the Framers would consider a two-way communicative conduit.

Neither does more money mean more debate; it eliminates it. Today we hardly elect the candidate with the best ideas. We elect the candidate who gets our attention, and that usually comes at a price and with many purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, we elect the candidate with the biggest checkbook 97% of the time. This causes many deserving candidates to drop out of the race early simply because they cannot keep up with the fundraising. More money means less candidates and less debate.

And to believe that more money equals more education? Considering that 5% of voters elected Bill Clinton in 1992 because he played the saxophone or that 6.25% of voters placed George Bush in office in 2000 because he was a guy they could “sit down and have a beer with,” if we really wanted to educate the voters, we could do it in a much more effective and efficient manner than making signs and barraging them with tasteless, purchased propaganda.

Instead, political races should have a level political playing field. This nation was founded upon equal opportunity, and the current price tag of elections virtually eliminates any hopes of average citizens with great ideas to play in the same arena as the millionaires and billionaires that run the system and the corporations that sponsor them. Watch Bullworth or Man of the Year if you want to laugh at that biting but honest audacity.

Money has not enhanced our democracy, it has squandered it. The only way to solve this is to slowly take it back from campaign donors and pork-barrel spending projects and for every voter to look at their politician like they would their teenager with our national credit card. Call it "American Excess," because that is what money has done to our political system. If we neglect to watch it, recover it, and reinvent it, the great democratic system that was fine-tuned in this country and replicated around the world will not be every where we want it to be.

Rendell Brings Shovel to a Snowball Fight

KeystonePolitics.com, February 12, 2008

As Pennsylvania was blanketed by snow on Tuesday, the thickest “white stuff” was recorded by Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

“You’ve got conservative whites [in Pennsylvania],” said Governor Ed Rendell, “who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” Rendell continues his charade, saying, while “looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was – well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking – but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.”

Wow. Did Pennsylvania really elect a man so insensitive, so egotistical, and so naïve?
I have three questions for you, Mr. Rendell:

Don’t you believe you won in the 2006 general election because you were the stronger candidate?

The 2006 Swann campaign was infantile: Swann had political party (our state is slightly Democrat) and fundraising disadvantages (Rendell out-raised Swann 2:1). He was also a non-native Pennsylvanian that had no political experience running against the incumbent governor, who walloped him in every debate because Swann had the policy-handling skills of Humpty Dumpty. Why he lost the election had nothing to do with his skin color. It had to do with Rendell’s ability to work a shovel and Swann’s lack of it.

Second, since you relied upon black and suburbanite voters, never conservative whites, what gives you the right to speak on their behalf?

When gun control and abortion became major wedge issues in the 2002 primary race, Rendell lost every middle county to current Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. In 2006 he lost these counties again, sans a handful. Rendell’s comments not only unearthed James Carville’s description of Pennsylvania (“Pittsburgh to the west, Philadelphia to the east, and Alabama in between”), it attempted to recast the areas (he never carried) as culturally backward, as if the Little Rock Nine, Brown v. Board, and Martin Luther King, Jr. did little to change the mindset of its residents. And as a resident of these areas, it’s offensive.

Lastly, since conservative whites are opposed to label candidates such as the “black” one, why would they support the “woman candidate” – especially one with the last name of Clinton? Or why should they support any candidate you endorse?

Based on profiling, most voters who will disregard Obama will also not vote for Clinton, just as they disregarded Rendell. By pitting the two candidates against each other – and reinforcing the “conservative whites’” distaste for him – our governor is reducing the slight Democratic lead for either winner, whether it’s Obama or Clinton. Instead, the scales tilt toward the moderate and toward the Republican. Advantage: McCain.

At this time next month, the presidential primary will move to Pennsylvania. And, just like cinders spoil a fresh, uncontaminated snowfall, insensitive comments issued by our own governor may have tarnished one of the greatest moments in our state’s electoral history. But then again, the next comment could be even more outrageous, too.

Teaching to the Test Extinguishes Fire of Learning

KeystonePolitics.com, January 22nd 2008

Allentown Morning Call, January 24th 2008

Lehighton Times News, January 26th 2008

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

While a student at Bloomsburg University, I remember stumbling across this banner, and being floored by its message. These words, which I later learned was a quote by Irish poet William Bulter Yeats, have served as the flag to my classroom.

I am a firm believer that students learn by doing, but more importantly by wanting to do. Give them a torch and a sense of guidance, and they will find their way. But give them a pail, and you’ll find how much they hat being compared to other students on assessments such as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA).

After learning about the PA Board of Education’s decision to make PSSAs standard as a graduation requirement, I gave them the torch of my classroom to discuss the proposals. Here’s what I learned:

A mere mention of the acronym PSSA automatically conjured an array of emotions. Some students were filled with revile. They hate the PSSA. But they detest our school’s 4SIGHT remedial test, its evil step-brother, even more. Just yesterday one of my “problematic” 9th grade students was pulled from my class during a test review – which he was fully participative and thoroughly enjoying – to fulfill his 4sight requirement. He pleaded to stay, but I explained the state supercedes me as boss. His response? “Mr. Miller, I’m going to finish in 5 minutes.” He was back in four.

There are many students like this young man who have learned to be apathetic about tests. After years of taking tests with no review of their answers, they do not know how to improve themselves and achieve the coveted “Advanced” or “Proficient” rankings. So they’ve learned to be unconcerned.

Others are entirely consumed by them. One student told me that when he was in 3rd grade he “used to get nauseous the day before the PSSA because he had been brainwashed to succeed.” Instead of finding success, some unearth stress. Approximately 49% of students suffer from test anxiety; giving them more tests shows how little their apprehension matters.

Special education students are also a concern. One of my students explained to the class, “if we have these standardized tests, a student like me might be forced to drop out.” Her face turned sour as explained, “I need teachers’ help on tests, and I feel lost when I take the PSSA.”

What about vocational-technical students? “I’m not going to college,” professed one of my very blatant students. “I just want to learn a trade. But with this proposal, I’ll be forced out of something I love to do into college prep courses. That is crap.”

“Imagine that your son or daughter has problems the year they are to take one of the two English PSSAs (language arts and reading/writing, which must both be passed),” said another student. “It doesn’t matter the problem – whether a bad teacher, a teacher on maternity leave, or the student has personal issues. They’ll be forced to take a test they need to pass but are doomed to fail.”

I love feeling floored by statements like that.

But if teachers are forced to teach to tests, conversations – like this one where students discuss and solve problems – will be replaced by the memorization of answers. In effect, we will force a continual extinguishing of the fire by examining the filling the pail that is standardized testing. It’s a light we cannot afford to lose.

"Thoughts from My 1st Masonic Degree"

Nervous, quiet, it seemed so long did I sit
The Tyler and I spent it waiting
Looking at, in front of me, a cabinet
Showcasing the American Masons
The list, it seemed, was so long
It belonged in a Billy Joel song:

Buzz Aldrin
Gene Autry
Mel Blanc
William Jennings Bryan
Henry Clay
Sought out life’s Right way

Samuel Colt
Davy Crocket
Bob Dole
W.E.B. DuBois
Duke Ellington
Henry Ford
On their free will & accord

Ben Franklin
John Glenn
Barry Goldwater
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
Pursued their Degrees

Sam Houston
Edgar Hoover
Jesse Jackson
John Paul Jones
John LeJeune
Marquis de Lafayette
Followed the Grand Architect

Douglass MacArthur
John Marshall
Charles Mayo
Frederick Maytag
Andrew Mellon
John Molson
Were not off, but from

Brad Paisley
Arnold Palmer
John J. Pershing
Paul Revere
All of Masonic austere

Sugar Ray Robinson
Will Rogers
Dave Thomas
Mark Twain
Used the trowel to spread our name

Booker T. Washington
John Wayne
Earl Warren
Brigham Young
Cy Young
Look to the East for the Sun

And 38 Justices of our Supreme Court
Looked to square and compass for support
Including seven of those who did possess
The position of Chief Justice

And brothers, let us not forget
Fourteen presidents were Masons made met
Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, James Monroe
Helped our fertile nation to grow
While both Roosevelts and Truman followed the Plumb
Of our Founder, George Washington

But to me, the Mason I consider most great
Will never appear in a showcase
In fact, when the Tyler lets me into where the Masons confer
After the Light, I’ll see the smiling grin
Of my Father as the ceremonies begin.

Note: December, 2007 marks my 1st Masonic birthday.

Gun Control Should be a Local Issue

December 7th, 2007, KeystonePolitics.com

Growing up in middle-state PA, I have a different interpretation of gun rights than some one from Philadelphia.

Like many others in central PA, I remember the first time I ever shot a gun. I was 15 years old, barely able to pull the trigger without wincing my face in fear of the violent kickback. Still, I eyed the target and fired sixteen times to pierce as many holes in the paper target dangling from its hanger.

Contrast this with a friend of mine from Philadelphia, a young man who grew up in a street gang. He remembers the first time he pulled a trigger: It was not to hunt game, and it wasn’t to fire at a piece of paper. His target was real. His target was a person on a drive-by homicide attempt.

We began talking about gun use, and – surprise! – both my friend and I had very different views on the topic. My friend believed that guns were evil – maybe even demonic – components of plastic and metal intended to do harm. I, on the other hand, noted gun sportsmanship and the self-defense that it provides.

This is the line that divided us; it has become the one that divides our legislature.

On the same day that the PA General Assembly Black Caucus vacated the House deliberation on gun control, a shooting spree erupted in Omaha killing 8 and injuring five. The two events, though autonomous, represent the problems and concerns associated with gun violence.

Any person – gun owner or not – should note that the government needs to take steps to ensure public safety everywhere in our Commonwealth. It is imperative that our elected officials protect our people from dangerous threats wielding a gun.

On the other hand, a huge portion of gun owning Americans – me included – have had no problems owning, maintaining, and bearing their firearms. They have obeyed the law and acted sensibly with the most powerful weapon the average American can own. This, in tandem with the basic rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, should continue to allow them the right to possess their fire arm, one that “should not be infringed.”

As the General Assembly debates state-wide gun control reform, ask your lawmaker to omit their vote. If and when a bill passes, it will be a diluted, powerless law that provides minimal protection to the public and becomes a hindrance to the common gun owner.

Gun control has not been a national issue, and it should not be a state-wide one. Gun control should be handled by the county and municipality one lives in. It shold be local, and local alone.

Only our local areas of residence, Philadelphia in my friend’s case and Carbon County for mine, understand how to best solve the problems associated with gun violence, if any. Giving the task to Harrisburg will not solve any problems. It will create more.

Clean Up Fundraising in State Judicial Campaigns

Morning Call, November 16, 2007
with help from Barry Kauffman

This is Fair Elections Action Week. This year also is the 100th anniversary of the Tillman Act, promoted by President Theodore Roosevelt, as an effort to protect common Americans' free speech rights from being drowned out by wealthy special interests.

Since then, states and municipalities moved to further protect their elections and governments from the corrupting influences of campaign dollars. In recent decades many have begun to implement systems of ''citizen-owned elections.''

Pennsylvania, however, remains one of only a dozen states mired in the backwaters of 19th century politics, failing to even restrict the amount of money that individuals and political committees can give to candidates. Five-figure political contributions are illegal in most places, but in Pennsylvania five- and even six-figure contributions are increasingly common. Special interests with business before our government are paying the campaign tabs of elected officials. Why? Because it works. At minimum, they provide preferred access to power.

On Nov. 6, we saw another dangerous manifestation of this problem. According to media and other reports, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor raised over $290,000 for his retention race. Today the bulk of judicial campaign funds come from lawyers, legal industry PACs, and people from large corporations that have issues before the courts. When Pennsylvanians appear in court they shouldn't have to worry whether the other party's attorney gave a larger contribution than their own attorney. Pennsylvania needs to eliminate this factor from its judicial system.

North Carolina recently confronted this problem and reined it in. Through the Judicial Campaign Reform Act, it created a voluntary system of public financing for judicial candidates. A poll by the North Carolina Center for Voter Education revealed that 78 percent believed campaign contributions influence judges' decisions ''a great deal'' or ''some.''

Nearly a decade ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court conducted a similar survey with even more resounding results: 85 percent of Pennsylvanians favored restricting campaign contributions to judges to $1,000; 80 percent favored limiting the amount that judicial candidates could spend; and 77 percent favored providing public financing to judicial candidates that refuse campaign contributions. But the Legislature refused to respond.

The influence of cash on judicial campaigns has garnered national attention. According to Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, the money raised by Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidates (now in excess of $5 million) has easily eclipsed Pennsylvania' previous judicial fundraising records. Federal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer declared that ''the rising demands on judges to raise money for their expensive campaigns … could lead to the impression that the courthouse door ''is open to some rather than the door is open to all.'' It's time to knock down that door completely and support publicly funded, Citizen-Owned Elections.

In 1985, the state House of Representatives passed House Bill 1379, which would have done this, but the Senate let it die. Since then, other states moved forward. Meanwhile, the integrity of Pennsylvania's elections spirals downward. Many reform organizations, including Common Cause/PA, support a merit-based judicial appointment system. But we must now recognize the critical need to have clean elections as long as we elect judges.

Pennsylvanians should follow North Carolina and pass a practical solution. Pennsylvania should enact a system wherein judges' loyalty is to the public -- not to the lawyers, politicians and corporate fat cats that fund their campaigns. Pennsylvanians should encourage their legislators to support Citizen-Owned Elections for our judges. To achieve clean citizen-owned judicial elections, Common Cause/PA proposes that candidates run under a system that limits campaign contributions, restricts candidate expenditures, and provides partial public financing of campaigns. Pennsylvanians who want courts unbiased by campaign contributions should back this effort. Pennsylvanians also should support the more general, but broader, HB-1720 introduced by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny, which would limit campaign contributions to all candidates in Pennsylvania.

Who will own our elections? Who will own our government? The choice is ours and the time for action is now.

Jake Miller of Nesquehoning is a teacher at Panther Valley High School and chair of the Common Cause/Pennsylvania Citizen-Owned Elections Project Team. Barry Kauffman is the Executive Director of CC/PA

Local Voting: Teach Your Kids the Importance

The Times News

October 31, 2007

This past month, students in my American government classes investigated which political party they and their parents belonged to. For some, it was model boredom; for others it was interesting, and still others were filled with hope and excitement, especially for the upcoming presidential race.

As the days progressed and as they grow increasingly aware of the imminent '08 election, one of my students asked, "Is that what the signs are for?"

I gave an unfettered, automatic response: "No."

"Well then," she retorted, "what exactly are they for?"

My mind jogged for a moment. How do you explain just how important the office of County Commissioner is to a 15-year-old? So I gave it a shot.

"The two gentlemen are Democrats," I said, "running for office against two Republicans for a total of three seats. The three commissioners combine to act like a three-headed president of Carbon County."

Her face looked back at me, confused, bedazzled, and her gaze a bit more jowled than normal.
"We'll talk about this later on as the class progresses," I said, and quickly dismissed the issue and moved on with class.

But isn't this what we always do with local elections? In our hearts we continually emphasize how important these local elections are but our words and our votes never follow.

It should be treated differently this year. Here's why:

Carbon County's Commissioners are going to play a pivotal role in the county's future. Long gone are the days of coal miners and factory workers, and as the county's vocation morphs into a service economy and an epicenter for lower-priced housing for commuters of the Lehigh Valley, it will be up to our Commissioners' leadership to plot a course that elevates our county onto the same scale as our neighbors to the south (Lehigh and Northampton) and Northeast (Monroe) rather than taking a step back into regression.

November 6th will be more than just a commissioners' vote. Every school district will see a dramatic shift in their respective school boards, and some have more importance than the "big race" next November.

For example, Palmerton's new school board will have some difficult concerns to face, such as hiring a new Superintendent as well as dealing with an expired teacher's contract. Panther Valley's school board will welcome a new school, but not many will envy their task of budgeting effectively to offset these new costs. And all school boards across the county will be responsible for the discussions over the planned, multi-million dollar renovation of the Carbon County Technical Institute.

In addition, there are always other races. Jim Thorpe's borough council will be a heated race, where some incumbents may be ousted in favor of new faces, seeking change for some of the tourist town's concerns. And of course there are always the unglamorous-yet-crucial positions such as controller (the County's chief financial officer), recorder of deeds (the person-in-charge of documents central), coroner, sheriff, and treasurer, not to mention the additions to our State Supreme and Superior Courts.

Which leads me back to asking, "How do you clarify this to a 15-year-old???"

You vote. You take them with you as you vote. And you explain to them how millions of Americans laid their souls down for this simple and undemanding task that many of us shrug off until it's time to elect our next president.

Dollars Over Democratic Justice

www.commoncause.org/PA
September 30, 2007

While most of America remembers Teddy Roosevelt for reining in the corrupt corporations, most are unaware that in 1907 the Republican worked across party lines to pass the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act was the first time where free speech – the type the common American owns – was promoted over the words of the wealthy.

Yet as America watched the Model-T Ford evolve into today’s modern automobile and the Wright Brothers’ plane transform into the jetliner, the American political system has changed from a democracy fed by 20th century dollars into a democracy fed by 21st century dollars.

Pennsylvania’s court system also sports an old fashioned fundraising system. The connection between fundraising and bad politicians has been obvious, but not much light has been shed on how money affects our “independent” Judiciary. Until now.

According to The Pennsylvania Legal Intelligencer, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association raised $632,000 for three State Supreme Court candidates, nearly half the money these Juatices needed to win office. While this is legal, the venerable G. Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College said this “is a poster child case for why there ought to be limits.”

One state in the nation already solved this problem. North Carolina adopted The Judicial Campaign Reform Act, creating a voluntary system of public financing for judicial candidates. Why? The driving factor behind the change was the people. A poll conducted by the N.C. Center for Voter Education revealed that:

- 78% believed campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions “a great deal” or “some.”
- 58% believed there is a system of justice for the rich/powerful and everyone else.
- 81% support electing judges while only 15% support appointment of judges.[i]

After the pay-raise scandal, budget delay, and an array of other issues the voters of this state have presented similar concerns in regards the Commonwealth’s direction. What PA voters need is a viable solution to all the corruption. They need a system where the judges’ loyalty is to the public, not special interests, before they are running, while they are running, and when they are elected. They need Voter-Owned Elections.

Those who believe it is impossible to introduce this measure should note Sen. Jeff Piccola (Chair, State Government Committee) and Rep. Bill DeWeese (Majority Leader) already co-sponsored a similar Voter-Owned Elections bill in 1985 (HB-1379). It is our hope they introduce an updated version of this bill.

While much has changed in Pennsylvania since 1985, the ownership of elections (by special interests) has not. Changing this is not only intelligent, it is imperative; otherwise a vital part of our government will be further wedged into the same 100 year-old regressive political state it had been.

While at the stump in 1907, Roosevelt decried that “No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.” The time has come to remove that distinction from our courts, and Pennsylvanians must seize the opportunity to take the money out of elections and place qualified judges back in.


Jake Miller is the Chair of the CC/PA Voter-Owned Elections Project Team and John Latini Jr. is a Staff Member of The Pennsylvania Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Bouncing Back From a Mistake

www.BloomUToday.com

September 20, 2007

“I do not measure a man’s success by how high he climbs, but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.” These words, spoken by General George Patton of the WWII Allied Command, have certainly taken new meaning for defining successful leadership.

First example: my high school alma mater. As a former-student-turned-new-teacher, I rejoined a group of old faces under a new role. It was an elating experience to work with all these men and women who I had grown to admire over the years, most especially my former high school principal who was now superintendent. He was a tall, commanding, well spoken fellow who could sell you salt water at the beach or find endlessly great qualities in students I believed were products of Satan.

And then he was pulled over for a DUI.

It was news; big news. And as the stories and allegations built like bricks on a wall, I watched this man I had revered crumble. His clout, his prestige, his optimism – they all waned as the days grew long. He had climbed mighty high at our district, but when it came to bouncing, the direness of the situation provided our school district’s leader the springiness of Play-Doh. So he resigned.

Second example: as you may know, a similar story now exists on the hills of Bloomsburg University. In 2006, students elected a well qualified, compassionate leader to represent the best interests of the 7,000+ students that call the school home. Thinking that they made a mistake is as ridiculous as asking our school district’s board if they wish they had gone with a different superintendent. In both cases, the electors selected who they found to be the best man for the job.

But to find no fault in these two cases is naïve. The mistake certainly lays in their actions. Sure, a sizable portion of Americans might drive under the influence, but that never makes it right. It is a danger to drive drunk to one’s own safety, and, more so, the safety of innocent others. This article is not intended to right that wrong nor apologize for any one’s actions.

The point to this article is to prove that wrongs, whatever they may be, can be righted. Our former superintendent is doing everything in his power to reclaim that sizable spot in the sun his presence once occupied. Don’t expect anything less than your Student President to do the same.

Remember, the only way to measure your leader’s success is how high he bounces once he hits bottom. I wish your leader the recoil of a bed spring, but in the case that he can’t bounce back, I wish him the resolve of Gen. George Patton in his future endeavors.


Jake Miller ‘05
Teacher, Panther Valley High School

Today's partisans forget Constitution's lessons

Allentown Morning Call

September 19, 2007

Two-hundred and twenty years ago, a motley collection of 55 newly anointed Americans dedicated themselves not to fixing our national government, but creating a new (and revolutionary) one. Seeking to replace the failing Articles of Confederation, our Founding Fathers longed to provide for a more perfect union. Surely one has heard the Constitution Convention's truthful fables -- a sweltering Philadelphia summer coupled with the windows and doors shut tight, debates lasting six hours at a time, delegates laboring for 14 hours a day, six days a week. Yet even though there were flaws in the new document (slavery of course the most prominent), its adoption through compromise is something that deserves adoration, especially when compared to our current world.

Today, compromise is no longer a means of survival; it is blasphemy. The political divide that separates us has become something we cannot bridge because the ''R'' or ''D'' on our voting ticket is more important than being an American.

Examine any issue -- abortion, illegal immigration, Social Security -- and one will find a political partition where there's no middle ground and no solution. Today's government has become more of an exclamation (''I'm more right than you are!'') than collaboration (''How can we work together on this?'').

Asking a Democrat to compromise with a Republican is almost an open invitation to a liberal lynching. For example, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., cooperated with President Bush to extend our terrorist wiretapping system, war-protester Cindy Sheehan announced she would run for Rep. Pelosi's seat because Pelosi obliged President Bush rather than impeached him.

Asking a Republican to compromise with a Democrat is the equivalent to heresy. When Sen. Arlen Specter prodded former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about his elusiveness in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, Republicans held Specter in contempt. Despite his attempts to uncover the truth for Americans, he was harangued by his own party. Ironically enough, Gonzales stepped down Monday on the anniversary of the U.S. Constitution.

Will Sept. 17 remain a day where we celebrate one of the world's greatest governmental compromises, or will it be a day where we one day mourn its death?

I often wonder what it would be like if George Washington's hand were able to comfort President Bush's shoulder during tough times, with the first president saying, ''It is okay to work in the middle, because it is in the middle that often benefits most Americans.''

Or if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- fierce political opponents and yet the closest of friends on their deathbeds -- could address current-day Congress, how would they stress the importance of compromise?

It is hard to imagine it doing anything but help.