The Fear of Fear Itself

The following open letter (minus my remarks) to President Obama was penned by Lou Pritchett , a former vice president of Procter & Gamble. After almost two years the letter is still making the rounds on the internet and has found its way into many e-mail inboxes. With the help of Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp and other internet sources I would like to make an attempt at addressing Mr. Pritchett's fears. In so doing, I will comment after each fear, placing my remarks in bold italics, as this is.

   
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

  
Dear President Obama:

 You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

Obama began to tell the story of who he is and what his values are in his first biographical ad of the general election and told much of his personal history in two popular books, Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope, published during the campaign, although many Americans may not actually know him in spite of this. "Most white people who worry that he doesn't share their values don't know that he grew up in a family much like theirs, with a white mother and blue collar white grandparents. Most people don't know that he cares so much about the absence of black fathers from the lives of their children not only because he understands the destructiveness, particularly to boys, but that he understands it firsthand, and was only saved from its more destructive impact by the presence of a loving (if sometimes overly fun-loving) maternal grandfather."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-voters-say-they-dont_b_117238.html


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans, in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later. (In the Obamas' case, it was largely the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.)
Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. The couple experienced a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million:

The Obamas' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year [as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals] was $316,962 plus another $45,000 from TreeHouse Foods [for whom she served a member of the board of directors].

The copies of the Obamas' federal tax returns made available on the Obama campaign web site show that the couple had an adjusted gross income of $207,647 in 2004, $1,655,106 in 2005, and $983,826 in 2006. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. 

According to Wikipedia, a timeline of President Obama's early life through Law school places him in America and in American schools except for 1^st through forth grades when he was in Indonesia. I would also like to point out that many Americans spend a good deal to offer their children the opportunity to live and study abroad in order to extend their cultural values and appreciation.

Kindergarten 1966–1967 Noelani Elementary School
Honolulu, Hawaii 1st-3rd grade 1967–1970 St. Francis Assisi Catholic Jakarta, Indonesia Fourth grade 1970–1971 State Elementary School Menteng 01 Jakarta, Indonesia 5th-12th grade 1971–1979 Punahou School Honolulu, Hawaii Freshman year 1979–1980 Occidental College
Los Angeles, California Sophomore year 1980–1981 Occidental College Los Angeles, California Transferred to Columbia University Junior year 1981–1982 Columbia University
New York City
Political science major with international relations focus Senior year 1982–1983 Columbia University New York City B.A.
Political science major with international relations focus 1988–1991 Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts
J.D.
magna cum laude President, Harvard Law Review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama


You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. 
Perhaps not, but he still saw to it that the payroll to all federal employees, including the military, was met in spite of attempts by Republicans to shut it down.


You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.


 
President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of a bourgeoning

Military-Industrial complex. The Iron Triangle threatened America before that and does so still. So, Barack Obama does not understand the military at its core? Thank God!


 
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. 
Commenting on the inauguration of President Obama for TIME Magazine, Alex Brandon, an AP reporter, wrote:

"Humility, gratitude and sacrifice. From his first words, Barack Obama let us know that even on a day so bright, he was not blinded. Not by the cloud of witnesses in front of him. Not by the lights of cameras sending his words across the planet. That he was willing to sound so somber on his day of celebration tells us many things at once. At a time of scarcity, do not waste opportunities. When the world is watching and willing to follow, tell them where you want to take them. And above all, tell the truth."

Further in that same TIME piece, to bring shivers of humility to anyone, Brandon says:

"At his national-security briefing in the morning, Obama was instructed in the use of the nuclear codes, should he ever have to launch a strike. Once he was sworn in, once the 21 guns had saluted, the military aide in charge of the nuclear football quietly crossed the platform to stand beside his new Commander in Chief."
A lack of humility and class? Mr. Pritchett, do you know the meaning of those words?

   
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself

with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

According to Wikipedia, the terms extremism or extremist are almost always applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself. Seymour Martin Lipset argued that besides the extremism of the left and right there is also an extremism of the center and that it actually formed the base of fascism.^[3]
"Extremism" is not a stand-alone characteristic. The attitude or behavior of an "extremist" may be represented as part of a spectrum which ranges from mild interest through "obsession" to "fanaticism" and "extremism". The alleged similarity between the "extreme left" and "extreme right", or perhaps between different religious "zealots", may mean only that all these are "unacceptable" from the standpoint of a supposed mainstream or majority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

As you can see, the meaning of extremism or extremist lies not only in the details, but in the minds of those using the word. For example, let me share that famous quote from Barry Goldwater, a definite conservative, General in the U.S Air Force and 1964 U.S. Presidential candidate: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"


You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the "blame America crowd" and deliver this message abroad.

Harry Truman once said to the Congress: "The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details." And it was Alexis de Tocqueville who said: "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." Being able to thoughtfully and carefully diagnose the ills of our nation while working together for great objectives, even while differing about details, are defining marks of America. Some might shrink from this very responsible undertaking claiming patriotism and a disdain for the so-called "blame America crowd" while sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Our current President is not one of them.


 
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

Your fear seems to hinge on a confusion of Capitalism versus Socialism wherein Socialism denotes the government ownership of the means of production; as well as a misinterpretation of "free markets".

"Today, corporatism, the resistance to economically productive change and preservation of dis-economic activities is more a threat to capitalism than socialism. The economist, Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950, Austria/Hungary), in his book, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy," discussed capitalism's greatest strength as creative destruction - old ways of doing things are destroyed and replaced by new ways through entrepreneurship. For Schumpeter, socialism was no match for capitalism. However, he predicted that corporatism would threaten and would finally undermine capitalism. Where today some see government bringing socialism, Schumpeter would see government fighting corporatism, providing the necessary energy to reform and replace market structures that are dis-economic and destructive of wealth."

With regard to free markets; it must be pointed out that "free markets require structure (rules of the game) to function efficiently. Regulations help to define this structure as fair and equitable for all parties who wish to transact business in this market. Unregulated markets tend to develop unfair practices that are driven by avarice. This leads to the inefficient allocation of capital by markets that are not adequately regulated. Over time, if capital is not efficiently allocated to activities that are productive and that produce a real economic return on invested capital, the market tends towards collapse. Thus, the primary purpose of regulations is to prevent the collapse of markets due to the inefficient allocation of capital within those markets. By definition, collapsing markets have not been properly regulated. Markets that are not prone to collapse are sustainable. It takes sustainable markets to produce sustainable economic recovery and sustainable economic growth. All markets are dynamical systems. These systems are either tending toward collapse or towards sustainability. Sound regulations enable markets to move toward sustainability." http://www.scribd.com/doc/12548397/Private-Sector-Versus-Government-Which-is-Better

If bringing corporatism in check means a move toward a European style—whatever that is--bring it on. It should be feared only by corporatists.


You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

 If it were possible to obtain good and equal treatment for all our citizens without the threat of bankrupting them--or worse-- by any other means, I as well as the President would love to hear about it. The entire argument, pro and con, of a single payer system brings to mind a paragraph from The Prince:

"We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience. Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.''

–Niccolò Machiavelli, (1469-1527) in The Prince (1513), Chapter 6

Nothing is as constant in our world as is change. With that in mind we do well to carefully guide ourselves through the rocks and shoals of a rapidly changing social landscape.

   
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

 I'll let the President speak for himself here:

"Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. …
To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my Administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it's safe and responsible. I don't think anyone's forgotten that we're not even a year removed from the largest oil spill in our history.

In terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options.

The first is natural gas.

As I mentioned earlier, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves –perhaps a century's worth – in the shale under our feet. … Now, we have to make sure we're doing it safely, without polluting our water supply. And that's why I'm asking my Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process.

Now, in light of ongoing events in Japan, I want to say another word about nuclear power. America gets one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy. It has important potential for increasing our electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But I'm determined to ensure that it's safe. That's why I've requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe. We'll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of plants". …
Enough said.


You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

There is no doubt that we in America enjoy a high standard of living. But, as for "killing the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg…" I would direct you back to comments made in response to your fear of changing America to a European style country.


You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against

certain banks and corporations.

If you are referring to "extortion" as expressed by Rush Limbaugh when he referred to the 20 billion Obama asked BP to set aside to settle claims against them for the Gulf oil spill and then went on to question where this money would go, please talk to the thousands of fishermen and others who have yet to be recompensed for damages BP caused. Under the law, as Limbaugh stated, BP could have limited their contribution to 75 million. However, BP knew that to hedge on their responsibility would prove to be disastrous business-wise and PR-wise: So they ponied up and the money is very slowly being paid out to claimants.

As for the "certain banks and corporations": I suppose you are referring particularly to Chrysler Motors, AIG, and others caught up in the recent, great financial crash. The U.S. government, as I recall, saved these companies from certain bankruptcy and annihilation, much to the dismay of conservatives (except those directly involved). To call the actions of the U.S. government in these cases "extortion" flies in the face of the facts. If I have missed your point, please try being more specific.


You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

Possibly because they are neither wild nor irresponsible. There is little doubt that budgetary changes need to be made, some drastic. Nothing is off the table so long as our Congress proceeds in a responsible and calm manner and by that I include the need to increase revenues in addition to cutting spending. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would be a start in the direction of true earnestness.


You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

How many times must President Obama invite all thoughts and ideas on the myriad problems facing our democracy? Here a just a couple of references:

Dec. 2, 2008 WASHINGTON (Market Watch) -- President-elect Barack Obama called on state governors on Tuesday to help design a recovery plan to "jumpstart" the economy. Speaking to the National Governors Association, Obama repeated a call for a plan that will save or retain two and a half million jobs and give tax cuts to the middle class. "Any true solution will not come from Washington alone," Obama told governors, according to prepared remarks. "It will come from all of you."

UPI.COM Published: Dec. 6, 2008 at 12:05 PM -- Obama issued a statement Friday saying he wants "the American people to have a direct say" in health reform efforts. He suggested they start with private discussions in their homes from Dec. 15 to Dec. 31, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

Need more, simply do as I did: Google "Obama seeks input".


"You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

An omnipotent and omniscient deity does not seek nor does she/he need input help in making decisions.


You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

Really? Have you tuned into Fox News lately?


You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

Although the mentioned persons are media talking heads, I consider them to be more entertainers than thoughtful conservatives offering opposing points of view. For that task I would look to the likes of William F. Buckley, George Will, David Brookes, Patrick J. Buchanan
and others.


You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

I suspect you mean something else, but I have often seen the two terms used interchangeably. From Wikipedia—"While the legislatures of British self-governing colonies — for the most part — control their internal affairs, the British government retains control of foreign affairs, defense and various international trade matters. The British government is represented in self-governing colonies by a Governor, who exercises some degree of control over affairs of state."

If you are referring to a preference for single minded manipulation over seeking consensus then I totally disagree with your assumptions. President Obama, to a fault in my opinion, has been one of the most intense consensus seekers to hold that office in a very long time.


Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. 
Arithmetic, my dear boy, arithmetic. Even if Obama wins a second term, as of today he will not be in office eight years from now. What are you then afraid of?


According to Snopes.com:

Origins:   is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above:

I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits.

Last updated:   31 May 2009

Shares

Reading through blog feeds on Google Reader this morning I was brought up short by Tom Degan's blog the Rant. He used two quotes that I feel free to pass on:

Donna Cusano posted on her facebook page the following:

"The homeless go without eating. The elderly go without medicine. The mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without benefits that were promised to them. Yet we give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans -- those who need it least. ..."

In his New York Times column Charles Blow summed things up thus:

"Under the guise of deficit reduction, the Republicans are proposing to not only make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, but to reduce their taxes even more — cutting the top individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent to "promote growth and job creation." And they plan to pay for this by taking a buzz saw to programs that benefit the poor, elderly and otherwise vulnerable."

Mr. Degan goes on to seriously question what the Republican Party, in their current tea stained incarnation, can possibly be thinking. Have they succumbed to the allure of wealth and plutocracy, as I believe they have, or have they simply lost their minds?

On this latter question I am reminded of a recurring response that my students gave during a study of the Jewish Holocaust. When confronted with the question of how any sane person could inflict such barbarism, they would simply answer that the perpetrators were, of course, not sane.

I do not doubt the sanity of Adolf Hitler or his henchmen; or of Mussolini, or Stalin, or of ... I could go on and on. What I believe is that their vision of humanity and their place in it was and is fundamentally different from my own, different to the point of being labeled evil today.

Do I consider the actions and viewpoints of the current far right evil? I do. What they are spouting and what they are planning and doing flies in the face of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic heritage that has supposedly shaped modern America and its mores. To go fourth into the battle and triumph is laudable, whether that battle be in defense of your homeland or on the floor of the world's stock exchanges. But as King David reminded his soldiers, "As the share is of him who goes down to the battle, so is the share of him who stays with the baggage." (I Samuel 30:24 The Jerusalem Bible)

State of Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster, as if to echo the words of David's soldiers 3000 years ago, proclaims, ""The Democrats want to tax the working class and distribute it to those who don't work."

Although this would be true only if thousands of hard working employed Maine people could be classified as "those who don't work" and only those in the upper echelons of income could be considered "the working class", I can, never-the-less, hear David's response.

It is true that government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy is plutocracy and as such must be avoided by those who believe in freedom, liberty and justice for all. That being the case, why are sane persons, in the name of American virtue, so ardently advocating it?

The Emperor’s (penguin) New Clothes

Think the mystery surrounding mass bird and fish deaths is no more? Guess again. This just in from CNN.

 

 

'Naked' penguins have scientists perplexed

A worker puts a wetsuit on a featherless penguin to keep it warm earlier this week at the Jurong Bird Park in Singapore.

April 8th, 2011

03:40 PM ET

ailment is causing penguins to lose their feathers, according to researchers at the Wildlife Conservation Society.

The condition, called feather-loss disorder, has been seen in penguin chicks in both sides of the Atlantic Ocean the past few years and is featured in a recent edition of the journal "Waterbirds," the release said.

While scientists don't know what could cause a penguin to go "naked," possible culprits include genetics, nutrient imbalances, thyroid disorders or pathogens.

"We need to conduct further study to determine the cause of the disorder and if this is in fact spreading to other penguin species," Dee Boersma, who has studied Magellanic penguins, said in the release.

Feather loss in pet birds has long been a common ailment seen by pet stores and private owners, but researchers studying the penguins in the Atlantic said this is something different.

"The recent emergence of feather-loss disorder in wild bird populations suggests that the disorder is something new," Mariana Varese, acting director of the society's Latin America and Caribbean program, is quoted as saying in the release. "More study of this malady can help identify the root cause, which in turn will help illuminate possible solutions," she said.

While the illness does not appear to be fatal, the sick birds, unlike their feathered counterparts, linger in the sun instead of seeking refuge from the midday heat.  That behavior has led to several deaths, according to the release.

Disease is not the only recent peril that Atlantic penguins have faced.

A few weeks ago, volunteers from Nightingale Island, a British territory that is part of the Tristan da Cunha archipelago, mobilized to save tens of thousands of Northern Rockhopper penguins threatened by an oil spill.

It has been a surreal year in animal deaths. In January, tens of thousands of birds and fish were found dead in countries around the world.

Recently dolphins, some with oil inside them, have turned up dead in the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists don't know why.

Sensitivity surrounding marine life in the area is particularly high after the BP oil disaster that sent millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico nearly a year ago.

"Even though they have oil on them, it may not be the cause of death," Blair Mase, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's marine mammal investigations coordinator, told CNN. "We want to look at the gamut of all the possibilities."

Leaders and Laggards

Of the states mentioned in this report I am posting the results for only one: Maine. I welcome your comments and concerns on this subject.

A State-by-State Report Card on

Educational Innovation

 

Two years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Center for American Progress, and Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute came together to grade the states on school performance.

 

In this follow-up report, we turn our attention to the future, looking not at how states are performing today, but at what they are doing to prepare themselves for the challenges that lie ahead.

 

 

Maine

School Management D

Finance C

Staffing: Hiring & Evaluation B

Staffing: Removing Ineffective Teachers C

Data D

Pipeline to Postsecondary B

Technology D

State Reform Environment ?

Gold Stars

School Management. Maine does a poor job managing its schools in a way that encourages thoughtful innovation. Ninety-three percent of teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their teaching, and the state does not have a charter school law.

Finance. Overall, Maine earns a mediocre grade in this category. While the state gets a good mark for the simplicity of its state funding mechanism, it receives a below-average score for the online accessibility of its financial data. Maine also does not have a performance pay program for teachers.

Staffing: Hiring & Evaluation. Maine receives an above-average mark for its teacher hiring and evaluation system. Sixteen percent of teachers enter the profession through an alternative certification program, compared with the national average of 13%. In addition, Maine requires incoming teachers to pass basic skills and subject-knowledge tests.

Staffing: Removing Ineffective Teachers. Maine receives an average score on the ability to remove poor-performing teachers from the classroom. Seventy-four percent of principals say that teacher unions or associations are a barrier to the removal of ineffective teachers, 13 percentage points above the national average of 61%. However, only 23% of principals report that tight deadlines for completing documentation are a barrier to removing poor-performing teachers, which is 12 percentage points below the national average of 35%.

Data. Maine gets a below-average mark for its state data system. The state does not have a teacher-identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students, and it does not have a P-20 longitudinal data system.

Pipeline to Postsecondary. Maine receives a solid mark for its efforts to improve college and career readiness. Sixty percent of its schools report offering dual-enrollment programs, which allow students to earn high school and college credits simultaneously. That is 5 percentage points below the national average of 65%. However, the state has high school exams that gauge college and career readiness, and Maine offers a standard high school diploma with a career specialization.

Technology. Maine receives a low grade in this category. The state does not offer a computer-based assessment and does not require technology testing for teachers. Maine also needs to significantly improve how it evaluates its return on investments in technology.

State Reform Environment. There are few reliable state-by-state data on local education advocacy and research efforts—a reflection of the lack of overall commitment to this issue. As a result, we are unable to issue a meaningful grade. However, the Maine Heritage Foundation is a member of the forward-thinking Policy Innovators in Education Network, and the state supports common academic standards.

A True Maine Field of Dreams

In Maine's efforts to rebuild their state into a "field of dreams" for business we must not forget a very important precept of construction: Build upon a firm foundation.

That foundation has repeatedly been shown to be education; build upon it and "they will come". http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ruralamerica/ra154/ra154d.pdf

Does Maine have work to do in this area? You bet it does.

David Robinson in the Morning Sentinel on April 5^th points out that companies already in Maine are searching for workers, but not enough Mainers are getting the education and training needed to do the work. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/job-seekers-skills-not-meeting--employers-needs-say-officials_2011-04-04.html

John Dorrer, a program director for Jobs for the Future, a not-for-profit organization in Boston that develops labor and education strategies and who also recently served as director of the Center for Workforce Research and Information for the labor department in Maine stated, "Maine is losing young people and has an aging workforce that lacks the skills to fill many of the jobs in the emerging fields."

A Georgetown University study concludes that by 2018, 59 percent of Maine jobs will require a post-secondary education.

On April 6^th, Jay Field, reporting for MPBN quoted Rob Brown of Opportunity Maine as saying, "High-wage, high-skilled businesses rarely locate or grow in a state like Maine. … Maine has the lowest education levels and the lowest incomes in New England. … And nationally, we have the oldest workforce, the highest percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who are neither working nor pursuing education, the third highest student debt loads in the country, one of the lowest percentages of adults pursuing any form of post-secondary education." http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/15910/Default.aspx

"Only 37 percent of our citizens hold a college degree," says Community College President John Fitzsimmons, "compared to 46 percent for the rest of New England. And that's the primary reason Maine has the lowest per capita income in New England." http://www.wlbz2.com/news/article/153797/3/Maine-education-leaders-address-legislature

Startling: Maine was 27th in a recent national education ranking by the publication Education Week; is 39th nationally in average teacher salary, according to a legislative study; and its salary comfort score by online service TeacherPortal is 47th.

Paraphrasing former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley, J. Duke Albanese, former Maine Education Commissioner, recently stated, "Education is a national priority, a state responsibility and a local function," and added, "We have to understand all those levels in our system." (BDN--Andrew Neff, BDN Staff)

To address the educational needs at hand, Maine's new Administration is trying, but often taking steps forward and then back.

Governor LePage takes a step forward by endorsing a fifth year of high school to better prepare students for college. Understanding him to mean offering more and better educational possibilities to students in high school, notably the national baccalaureate program (only two high schools in Maine are currently minimally involved) I applaud him. But at the same time to launch an all out attack on public sector employees including teachers, sets him two steps back.

Our Governor says, "Go and try to find a plumber. These jobs aren't going away. Roofing jobs aren't going to China."

But the apprentice programs, vocational school and junior college offerings in our state are not up to the challenge. What classes exist are full to overflowing. The push toward more online learning is consistent with efforts to make education more accessible, however it also raises concerns about compromised educational quality. Expansion and upgrading of vocational and other forms of post secondary education will take political will and money, will and money that come simultaneously as Governor LePage and some members of the legislature are proposing to reduce class time, allow students to work (eliminate or revise Child labor laws), do away with tenure (experienced teachers), reduce teacher pay/benefits and reduce or eliminate funding to schools.

Step back.

Lowering funding to education and creating antagonism toward educators does not provide the investment in education that is needed in order to improve student achievement and lay the necessary foundation for economic growth. We must invest more in education, not less, in order to create a system that produces Maine students who are competitive.

Is Maine up to the challenge of building a true "field of dreams"?

Many questions need be addressed in order to answer that question. Maine is running out of time.