Politicians: The Crooked Men (And Women) Who Went A Crooked Mile

By Shakur Pfist
Of Lehigh Valley What The Heck?!

First off, let me say that there is no way, no matter how charismatic, how dynamic a politician is, that he is not going to get a hearty, healthy heaping of What The Heck?! from this website. I don’t care if they’re Republican or Democrat, or any of the other minor food groups.

When is the public going to learn that all politicians are corrupt simply because the system itself is inherently corrupt? (Most systems of government are.) By its very nature a political system that provides too much monetary incentive exerts excessive temptation to wield power for personal gain.

And though many of you are shrieking, “Anarchist!” right about now, let me say for the record I am not an anarchist. I believe our basic system of government, as defined by the founding fathers, is the best around. It is the most stable, has the most checks and balances (at least in theory), and it provides a common “law of the land” for all people, transcending all other alliances, therefore uniting us under a system of values rather than of ethnicity, race, or religion. In fact, our values are our culture.

But, there are definite ways of making it better.

Sure, some politicians are corrupt to greater or lesser degrees. But if they all weren’t sullied by the greasy waters of the political pool (think of the slimy pond in front of the gates of Moria in LOTR), they would voluntarily do the following:

• Accept a salary that was less than the median income is in their state, or ideally no salary at all

• Reign in their expense account, or give it up in favor of provided services

• Limit terms so that the natural flow of ideas is not stagnated.

• Limit campaign contributions to $10 per person and none from businesses or better yet stop taking private money entirely

Is this really too much to ask?

Politicians should remember that being a representative is not a job—it’s public service. This is not a new idea, it goes straight back to the early days of our nation. Representatives only have to show up to vote, at least in the state of Pennsylvania. This is not and should not be considered a “career”.

If politicians make a median salary or better yet none at all, then there is no personal incentive other than the will to do good (we’d hope) for the people. A politician would then become someone with a vocation to make the world a better place, not some selfless creature, but one who knows that he will benefit personally from the overall betterment of the circumstances of each individual in society.

And don’t give me that “Socialist!” crap. I am all for individual rights, but a group of individuals constitutes a society, a group, no matter how you want to do the math.

Additionally, if politicians were unable to become entrenched career politicians, they would be more concerned with the business at hand and less concerned with figuring out how to get re-elected.

The costs associated with meals, transportation, and housing for politicians who must travel from their home bases are real, however why not put a cap on the amount they can spend per meal. Some ideas are:

• Allow the public to vote on how much their average meal at a middle class restaurant should cost

• Compensate the politician for travel time the same way most people are compensated: by making them submit mileage. They could also be granted some small amount for wear and tear on a vehicle. OR

• We can provide them with a middle class company vehicle like a low end Honda or Toyota, or if we have to stay domestic, a Ford Focus. They can drive themselves, just like anyone else would have to do. Better yet, let them take public transportation once in a while. I know there are several trains that go from Philly to Harrisburg regularly.

• For housing, we can take a look at universities for our cue, and I don’t mean the Ivy League ones. Let them live in dormitories, the standard being that of the best state schools. Surely this standard of lodging should be amenable to the average politician, given the luxurious allowance of a private bath for each room and maybe t.v. Of course, we would give them an internet connection for their laptops (laptops being their own purchase).

• Finally, the only way to remove special interests once and for all from politics is by limiting their ability to put politicians in their pockets. Why not have a basic campaign allowance, to be voted on by citizens, allotted for each politician. With those limitations, the challenge would be to come up with the most creative ways to get their message out there, without one having a greater advantage. They would have to start on equal footing. They also could not contribute their own finances to the campaign. This would allow access to the political arena for everyone, not just the rich and privileged.

Public Schools and Charter Schools: Letting The Cream Rise To The Top Doesn’t Make The Milk Go Bad (The Milk Might Be Bad Already!)

By Shakur Pfist
Of Lehigh Valley What The Heck?!

By now you’ve probably heard both sides of the debate over charter schools vs. public schools. The name of the battle, however, is inaccurate, since charter schools are a type of public school, offering what is sometimes the only alternative to the broader and magnificently failing public school system available to the non-rich in the state of Pennsylvania.

The (possible) Lehigh College Prep Charter School is one such school that aims to let the cream finally rise to the top—or at least give it the opportunity to do so without it getting whipped first. With a curriculum aimed at math, science, and technology, the proposed school hopes to provide students from all over the Lehigh Valley and from all walks of life with a more targeted education, priming them for university degrees and careers on the cutting edge.

As the coalition for this charter school moves forward seeking approval from the Allentown School Board, and as the Pennsylvania State Senate considers changes to facilitate the creation such charter schools, arguments and comments from both sides are drawing attention.

The argument put forth by one, Arlene Scott, of Upper Saucon Township, is that charter schools use public resources to aid a select group—and that they increase social, cultural, and academic segregation and undermine the basic foundation of the public school (whatever that is). She even goes on to use that by now clichéd expression harkening back to the dark days of racial segregation in the U.S., “separate but equal”, stating that charter schools by their very nature create this kind of environment.

I should hope not. Charter schools exist to provide a community with an alternative to the substandard curriculum, weak educators, and often dangerous public school environment that many children have to face. They provide a focused and specific educational directive, require greater accountability not only from teachers but from parents, and allow individualized attention for students in need.  Right off the bat you can tell this is not “separate but equal”—it is far superior.

Ms. Scott bemoans the fact that charter schools “control student admission, dismiss the truant and behaviorally challenged, and have much more power to customize many aspects of curriculum and instruction.” And this is a bad thing how?

Should we reward class cutting, acting out, and poor academic progress on the part of students with exemplary opportunities which most likely they will not value, or worse yet should we not provide any of these great opportunities just for the sake of having everyone educated equally poorly? Should we grant ever more monstrous sums of money to inept public school system educators and indifferent, entrenched administrators? Should we not tailor school curriculum to the demands of today’s intellectual or artistic requirements for success, or for whatever ultimate goal a child may have?

And let us recall, and remember for all posterity, that this is a public school—anyone from any background can attend. We are no longer living in the day where, say, being a minority meant you were poor or from an uneducated family. In fact, I’m pretty sure it never meant that to begin with. The “separation” you speak of, Ms. Scott, is simply the serious student and parent from the disinterested student and parent.

You also seem to intimate, Ms. Scott, that charter schools are almost a form of ethnic or cultural cleansing instituted by a privileged few. And the tenor of your argument seems to indicate you mean either rich people or white people. I don’t know about you, but in the case of Lehigh College Prep Charter School some of the prospective founders’ names don’t exactly strike me as “Wasp-ish” (if you’re going that “only white people=rich and privileged” route, which is ridiculous) or even from any one particular race or ethnicity. Several founders are from the medical and scientific community at large, which is not made up of only one ethnic group last time I looked.

But it all must transcend to the crux of the biscuit: Should we not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially if the wheat is really working its butt off? Should we just throw the baby out with the bath water, (love those clichés) for that matter, and chuck the best students into the pen with the animals (violent students, bad teachers, et.al.) that would rend and destroy them? We are not Communist China, not the old U.S.S.R. If you don’t offer the carrot, then no one will reach for it.

Ms. Scott, What The Heck are you thinking?!—that the public school system would actually meet a higher standard if not for the existence of charter schools? Public schools for years, engorged with huge sums, have been unable to meet acceptable national, let alone world standards.

Halting the development of charter schools won’t change that. But it might even things out just enough that mediocrity can continue to be the acceptable norm.