EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATION DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICA

All children in America will never be afforded an equal chance of succeeding in this world so long as the quality of education is so overwhelmingly determined by the individual wealth of each community. The best teachers and administrators are naturally going to gravitate to the school systems offering the highest salaries. The difference in pay scales can be alarming. A mediocre, physical education instructor in a middle-class community on Long Island can make double to triple what a gifted language arts instructor might get in a poor New York City community.

Wealth also brings better school programs and better educational tools as well. High-speed computers and other technology are pervasive in middle-class schools and very scarce in poor ones. Tutoring and other after-school programs in general are vastly better in affluent neighborhoods.

Much of the foundation of a good education begins at home. Again the disparity between rich and poor is even more pronounced. A typical middle-class kid lives in a sate neighborhood in a nice home being raised by a reasonably stable family with educated parents who possess the wherewithal to monitor and guide their young ones. On the other hand, many poor children grow up in dangerous neighborhoods, terrible housing, in broken families, and parents or guardians with little or no education, some do not even speak English. Even if these parents or guardians appreciate the value of education, they do not have the tools at their disposal to help their children at home.

Access to computers, calculators and other technological tools in middle-class homes are as common as milk in the refrigerator, while they are virtually non-existent in poor homes.

As a “C” student growing up in a middle-class community I know the value of these household advantages. My verbal skills were constantly being drilled into my head at home and reinforced simply by being around other educated peers in the community. You could not help but learn to communicate well. A poor child, on the other hand, surrounded by a myriad of languages including Ebonics is already at a tremendous disadvantage.

So how do you fix this uneven playing field? Before answering that, let me first say that nothing will work if the American public does not accept and embrace the fact that poor children are disadvantaged and be truly committed to addressing the problem with the tenacity and sacrifice we apply to going to war.

We seem to allocate a disproportionately high amount of our national resources to addressing what lies outside our borders. Just think of all the time and money we invest in space exploration and the relentless pursuit of new and better military weapons to be used against foreign enemies - real or imagined, and what impact these same resources could have on the quality of education for all of us.

I have two ideas for addressing the problem of education, one where we can emulate professional sports and the other the defense community. Of course, many readers will say both are unrealistic and maybe they are right. My reason for posing them is not to say whether they can be adopted in America, it is only to demonstrate that there are ways to solve the disparity in education if we have the will to do so. Surely we have the resources.

Professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey have all adopted a salary cap on how much each team can spend in total on their players. The goal is to give each team a relatively equal chance of winning. This prevents teams with disproportionately high revenues and payrolls from dominating their respective sports. The quality of the players are the raw material or commodity that principally dictates success or failure, just like faculty and administrators in each school system largely determine the success or failure of their school population. The idea is that although some teams may have to sacrifice a little, it makes the entire league stronger which ultimately benefits all teams.

So why not apply such a salary cap to each community’s school system regardless of their individual wealth? Like professional sports, some communities would have to make modest concessions, but in the end the entire nation would be enriched.

This would have to be applied to private schools as well to prevent an abandonment of public schools in affluent communities and a rise in private schools to circumvent these caps. The federal government would have to oversee and enforce this policy. Of course, there would be an uproar from wealthy communities, unions, and the like; but the bottom-line is that no individual or school system would suffer much if any of a decline in wages or education respectively, while the poorer communities would see a incredible improvement. Even if an affluent school system had a slight decline in the quality of their teaching staff, surely it could be off-set by their well educated parents at home.

The other idea borrows from our nation’s military service academies like West Point and Annapolis. These federal institutions offer a free, high-quality education in which each graduate has to pay back this debt to the country by serving in the armed forces for a predetermined period of time. This insures a steady influx of talented individuals to make sure our military is always at near optimum readiness.

Why not create an education academy for future teachers and administrators where graduates pay back their debt by working a set number of years in poor school systems with their salaries subsidized by the federal government?

Whether you agree with these proposals or not, one thing is certain: If the country truly desired to help poor children succeed and escape the spiral of poverty we have the means and resources necessary to do it. We just don’t seem to have the heart. It’s about time the public and the politicians stopped placing the blame here and there, and considered that the victims of our unfair education system are helpless children. They have no say in the quality of their education which largely determines success or failure in life, and yet they have to live with its consequences for a lifetime and pass this legacy on to their own children.

FUTILITY OF AMERICAN METHODS OF WARFARE

After a stalemate in the Korean War and a humiliating defeat in Vietnam the U.S. has been very selective in who it invades concentrating exclusively on very weak countries who have few if any allies. This is clearly evident when you look at our military interventions since Vietnam: Dominican Republic, 1965; Lebanon,1982–84; Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-91; Somalia, 1992-94; Bosnia, 1995; Kosovo, 1999; Afghanistan, 2001 to present; and Iraq, 2003 to present. All these countries combined could not even pose a formidable threat to the U.S. Although overwhelmingly one-sided we are still careful not to commit massive amounts of ground troops on the battlefront. Instead, we unleash high-tech weaponry from a safe distance far beyond the enemy’s ability to strike back. The opposing side suffers massive casualties, many of which are civilians, while we suffer relatively few. The American public supports these conflicts so long as our casualties are kept to a minimum. There is little or no consideration of the death and destruction inflicted on the other side. We seem to measure human life on different scales. American lives are far more valuable than the ones we kill - even if they are civilians and not our enemies.

Many Americans are still under the naive impression that high-tech weaponry somehow distinguishes good people from bad, innocent civilians from combatants. The number of CIVILIAN casualties in Iraq clearly tells a different story. Estimates through 2005 vary considerably. President Bush’s own number which you have to believe is conservative at best is 30,000. Other estimates are well over 100,000! Settling on a universally accepted number is irrelevant. Even if you take Bush’s estimate, the figure is unacceptable. This is innocent human life we are talking about.

Ironically, this strategy of warfare rarely if ever culminates in complete victory. It stands to reason that we cannot expect to win the hearts and minds of a nation’s people if our actions disproportionately harm innocent civilians. Our methods are seen as barbaric, indiscriminate, and cowardly; and they are.

When you also consider that in the last 50 years we have never affected a major positive outcome in the Middle East from our meddling or incursions, why do we expect anything good to come from Iraq? Why did we ever? It’s already clear that the war is becoming very unpopular here at home and that we inevitably will leave Iraq in turmoil, while also managing to alienate much of the global community.

Our record in the Middle-East illustrates that we do not understand the region very well. Our policy and vision repeatedly fail. We support the Shah of Iran whose repressive regime gives rise to the Islamic Fundamentalist movement. Suddenly, America is held hostage. We tilt our support toward Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and Iraq later invades Kuwait. We back the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets and we get the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It’s clear that when we meddle in the affairs of Persian states we are unable to effectively predict the outcome.

To further our current interests in the Middle East, we now ally ourselves with a dictator of an Islamic country, Pakistan, who was instrumental in the Taliban’s rise to power and a country who was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998 in the face of international condemnation. Pakistan’s cooperation with us could further polarize their sharply divided country and conceivably put nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists. It’s just more of the same - deal with the devil for swift, political gratification while ignoring the likelihood of negative, long-term repercussions.

Years from now after leaving Iraq, the people there will still be suffering, yet their adversity won’t even be on our radar. The public’s focus will be on other topics orchestrated by what politicians and the media deem important to their own selfish interests; and few Americans will be any wiser.

STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR - IT'S LEGAL!

When you consider all the types of personal property you might own, real estate would have to be considered one of the most unlikely to be stolen from you. The truth is it is relatively easy to do and the law condones it. The legal statute, called adverse possession, is an ancient English common law established for an agrarian society to help insure farmland was used to its fullest capacity, thereby benefiting the overall community. In simplistic terms, if one landowner was not utilizing a portion of their land, a neighbor could occupy it, put it to productive use, and ultimately claim it if certain conditions were met.

In today’s modern, non-agrarian economy the statute serves no purpose except to allow unscrupulous individuals to legally “steal” from innocent, unsuspecting land owners. Incredibly, the statute remains on the books of most states today.

The law in New York State essentially says that any individual can claim the land of another provided they have exclusively, continuously and openly occupied and maintained the property for ten years. This turned everything I thought I knew about American justice upside down - the victim is punished and the thief rewarded.

Our nightmare began in 2001 seven years after we moved into a two-bedroom bungalow in Pound Ridge, New York. While considering a small addition on our house, we became aware that our neighbor's fence did not follow the true boundary line. The encroachment was significant depriving us of 30 feet or more of our pond frontage. Surprisingly, our 1994 land survey required by the bank when mortgaging the house did not recognize it! For years we just assumed the fence was in its proper place.

We promptly informed our neighbors, Ron and Patricia Lee, by certified letter and in a neighborly gesture gave them permission to leave the fence where it was, at least for the time being, but made it clear that we did not relinquish our right to that land. This is considered an inexpensive, yet effective way in some states of terminating the statutory period necessary for adverse possession. Some jurisdictions recommend using a process server, rather than mailing it.

Their response came two years later in a terse letter stating they would "fully assert their right" to our land through adverse possession. They noted that our 2001 correspondence was inconsequential since their fence was allegedly erected in 1988 and the ten-year statutory period had already been met.


ANTI UP IF YOU WANT JUSTICE

We soon found that seeking justice is a frustrating game and that if you are not willing to ante up lots of money you cannot even play. Wealthy individuals like the Lee's leverage this to their advantage. For people like us without great wealth, the daunting prospect of a long court battle and associated legal fees can be intimidating and demoralizing. The wheels of justice turn slowly while your attorney fees rise. Fighting for what is right is not always a wise choice, particularly when you still could lose in the courts.

After failing to get any support from our title company, Continental Abstract Corporation, and the Town of Pound Ridge we reluctantly secured a lawyer. Her first call to the Lee's attorney was met with a veiled threat of years of litigation facing us and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if we challenged his client's claim to our land. One look at our humble abode would indicate we did not have the financial means to fight this for long. Though incensed by the threat, we begrudgingly proposed a property line agreement that would allow them to keep the fence in place so long as they both owned their home. If they died or sold the house, the fence would be returned to the proper line. This was curtly refused. They arrogantly wanted nothing short of outright ownership.

We wondered what could motivate people who had so much to want even more at the expense of their neighbors. Particularly, when you consider that their upscale home was just one of their weekend getaways.

Finally after writing several letters to the Lee's demanding the fence be removed, we were served with a court summons and a restraining order preventing us from touching the fence or from using this portion of our land.

Now that the dispute was in the courts, our title insurance company, Ticor Title Insurance, was obligated to represent us. Although we had already spent thousands of dollars for our personal attorney, we now had a powerful national organization behind us and hopefully no more legal fees. We soon found that the attorneys for the insurance company were not the super heroes we envisioned. Their principal interest was to minimize their labor and expenses. Ticor felt the Lee's could win and faced with years of potential litigation, they wanted to make a settlement.


PERRY MASON IS DEAD

We expressed to Ticor that we had reason to believe that the previous owner of our home, Lenore Schattner, now deceased, was best friends with the neighbors suing us. If this were true and could be proven, the Lee's could not claim hostility for the full statutory ten-year period. Sure there was hostile intent toward us for seven years, but they needed to prove they also had malice toward Schattner for three years. How could this be possible if they were good friends?

Ticor's large staff of attorneys and legal assistants could surely dig up some substantiating evidence. But, to our astonishment, they did not consider this to be their responsibility. They insisted it was our job. I grew up idolizing Perry Mason and others TV counselors who tenaciously turned over every stone until justice prevailed. Now we found ourselves being represented by what appeared to be a legal team of corporate slugs. We had two choices: Try to get evidence on our own, or pay for a high-priced attorney like Johnnie Cochran or F. Lee Bailey. We resigned ourselves to the former.


THE WEB TO THE RESCUE

After four years of going nowhere, the Internet offered the first glimmer of hope. A Google search for "Lenore Schattner" quickly began to bear fruit. I soon uncovered where and when she died through the Cornell University alumni web site where she attended school seven decades ago. This led to the New York Times web site where I found Ms. Schattner's obituary. What I discovered exceeded anything I could have fabricated in my mind. It said Schattner was survived by "her surrogate children" - the same two people suing us! How could the Lee's claim of adverse possession be deemed hostile?

The obituary also listed Englewood, N.J. as her place of birth so we gambled and paid for a researcher to visit the Bergen County Surrogates Court to see if her Will was on file. Sure enough it was and guess who was listed as the Executor? That's right - one of the Plaintiffs, Ronald Lee. His wife is referred to as Schattner's "dear friend." Furthermore, the Lee's five children were listed as beneficiaries.


THE ELUSIVENESS OF JUSTICE

Now even the insurance company thought we could win. We filed our opposing court papers and although we could not get it thrown out of court, the judge was duly impressed with the evidence and we would go to trial. But money and its intimidating power is what rules our justice system, and the Plaintiffs have plenty of it. Although the Lee's realize they stand little chance of winning, they are arrogantly threatening to continue with a long, drawn out, expensive court proceeding unless the insurance company gives them $10,000. To our chagrin, it appears Ticor will cut its loses and pay the "extortion" money. We may get our property line restored to its proper place, but has justice prevailed when the bad people profit? Sadly, I think not. Justice is often dispensed according to wealth. The winner is usually the one who is willing to throw the most cash on the table. It's a cruel poker game and you can't play if you don't have money.

BABY BOOMERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES

I would think there has never been a generation quite like the baby boomers who preached such high ideals and fell so short of fulfilling them.

Our generation promised peace, love and understanding. Instead we delivered bombs - even "smart" ones and plenty of them. In our self-righteousness we attacked Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Panama, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice; not to mention all the other places where we meddle clandestinely. Civilian casualties, including children, are considered tolerable "collateral damage." Our military/industrial complex continues to provide the vast majority of the weapons in the world, many of which are used against our own citizens or allies.

Our generation demonized our parents for not even questioning the Vietnam War and allowing it to escalate. Now that we hold power in government, media, business, and the military, we do exactly the same thing with Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't even escalate, we unleash unimaginable firepower from the onset. We condone the present Administration's self-declared right to preemptive attack against perceived threats from other nations or alleged terrorists.

When the baby boomers were the ones doing the fighting we vehemently opposed the Vietnam War. Now that we are too old to fight we patriotically support our naive children who go off to war as our surrogate warriors and like our parents we watch it all on TV from the coziness of our living rooms.

The 1971 Coca-Cola commercial said that we would "like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" and yet we have managed to alienate just about everyone in the global community.

As young people we passionately expounded the importance of cleaning up the environment. Now we allow much of the legislation we were instrumental in creating to be repealed or its restrictions reduced. We even oppose the global community's efforts to address global warming by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.

Our generation has produced some of the biggest corporate scandals in American history; tortured, humiliated and murdered prisoners of war; and incarcerated people indefinitely without due process or the right to an attorney. Our politicians misappropriate money and obstruct justice, and our clergy molest children while church leaders stand idly by. The gap between rich and poor is far greater than when we grew up and continues to widen. The divorce rate is soaring. We have had an unprecedented rise in our incarceration rate which is six times higher than it was in 1972 and the highest of any industrialized nation in the world.

Media executives of our generation develop "reality shows" and other forms of crude, mindless entertainment that create an atmosphere of fear, violence, intolerance, and disrespect for one another.

Our generation has produced few if any role models for our young people - unless you consider greed to be an attribute. The only political leader of our lot who lived up to part of our youthful philosophy was Bill Clinton who actively condoned "free love" while in office.

We can only hope the children of the baby boomers do not try to emulate us.

INTERFERENCE IN PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS

It is arrogant and hypocritical for the United States, Israel and the European Union to try to dictate who can and who cannot run in a Palestinian election. Democracy is a system that allows the governed people, not other nations, to choose whom they wish to govern them. When outsiders attempt to interfere with that process, democracy is corrupted. These countries and organizations are not championing pure democracy; rather they are using the word "democracy" to veil their desire to control who is in power.

Those who argue that Hamas is a militant organization should consider that our first U.S. president was an insurgent himself and leader of a military force that inflicted death and destruction on the British. Furthermore, two other future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, signed the Declaration of Independence, which was the impetus for armed insurrection against England. What would have happened to America if other countries strong-armed this new nation into excluding these esteemed men from the electoral process?

US MANIPULATION OF IRAQI PRESS

When I read about the accusation that the Pentagon may be manipulating the Iraqi press, my first thought was the cycle continues: government lies, deceives and cheats; the public, primarily through the press, eventually uncovers it; no one in real power is inevitably punished; and the public naively feels the system works. Whether it’s the Bay of Pigs, cooked numbers in Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the torture of terrorist suspects, the story is always the same. Aside from a couple of low-level fall guys, none of the real masterminds are punished so there is no deterrent for history to keep repeating itself. When it comes to truth, justice and the American way we have no credibility in the global community. How can we expect to sell our brand of democracy and high-ideals to other nations if it is being marketed by a government of liars? Democracy will never be effectively exported from our shores until we begin to hold those individuals who perpetrate such crimes or low morality accountable for their actions and punish them regardless of rank in government, business or the military. The other option of course is to suppress the American press so these stories never see the light of day.