Lecture Notes 2013

“Every Yale man, or certainly every Episcopalian among them, knew that Reverend was an adjective, not a noun. It was like Honorable before the name of a legislator or a judge. You might refer to “the Honorable William Rehnquist,” but you wouldn’t call him ‘Honorable Rehnquist.” --- except in this house and in this part of New York, where you called him whatever he wanted to be called and you forgot about Yale.” ---- Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe

New Ruskin College
Lecture Notes   10-19-13
To:
President Obama
The White House
Washington, D. C.20006

The   U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C.2o510

Supreme Court1 First Street
Washington, D.C.20543

                                                                             Plinio Designori                                                                                     Castilano

Re.: “The old Duke said to the young Duke, ‘You will know it by many colors it will march under many banners but you shall always know it by only one name: Plunder!’”
---Doctor Professor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
quoting from a novel by Disraeli, (The First Earl of
Beaconsfield, KG,PC,FRS), on the floor of the Senate.

Counselor: So what, you thought he was talking to you?

Well yes to me and as he used to say “to anyone who will listen to me.” I wrote a letter giving examples of abuse of government power and ending each sentence with Plunder! Plunder! Plunder! For example I wrote: “Radio stations are given away based on race, PLUNDER! (A reference to an Affirmative Action program to give a radio station to a Black owner, who a few months after acquiring the station sold it to a “White” radio station network. (Yes, for a profit. For Plunder!))

Two months after Senator Moynihan read the quote from Disraeli and I told the counselor, we entered the KQED radio studio for the program West Coast Weekend and as we did so the band struck up a blustering march. As we took our seats the band leader said, “that was the Duke’s Entrance.”

I glance at Yvonne in the eye.   What was that, a slight waver in her look? Did she look away just a fraction of a second too soon? This mystery is impermeable.

“I remember that Hubert Humphrey got up [on the Senate floor] and said, ‘I’ll eat this Bill if it is ever interpreted as discriminating against any White person.’ ”   - - - William F. Buckley, Jr. with Goldwater    (FIRinG Line - Library and Archives - Stanford University hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/displayTranscript.php?programID=1231)‎

Well, start eating Senator Humphrey!

In the end Liberals like Mr. Humphrey were not trusted by the Radicals to fairly administer the law.   The Radicals insisted that rigid quotas be imposed so the desired results would be achieved. The Liberals acquiesced; after all what did it cost them?

And today not much has changed. The University of California has an Affirmative Action program where in they provide a summer “camp” for science and math in the local high schools that produce fewer science and math graduates. First it should be noted that the University of California has no history of discriminating against Blacks or Asians. This is California not Mississippi. But what I want to draw your attention to, so you can see what moral midgets the University Administrators are, is that the University allowed only Black students to attend these camps.

I am asking the reader to make a subtle distinction. Selecting a high school because it has a large number of Black students is Affirmative Action. But going the next step and imposing a rigid quota, 100% Blacks only, goes too far. And it creates racial resentments. Note we would not feel the same way about a women only science and math camp as long as an additional camp was set up for the males. Gender distinctions are acceptable in a way that racial distinctions are not.

Counselor: So you seem a little down today?

It could be because Krauthammer was criticizing me. I think maybe.

Counselor: Oh, Krauthammer he and George Will are your heroes. That must be very hard on you; what did he say?

Just that he wouldn’t use the word Negro.

Counselor: Well why would you use that word?

I was emphasizing that the Liberals who first started Affirmative Action did so for people they referred to as Negroes. If the word is now tainted with paternalism with a “patronizing and demeaning tone” it is because of the Liberals and their attitudes. When I was referring to Negroes in my own voice I used the word Black. As for African-American I do not hold with hyphenated Americans. Irish-American, Italian-American all of it, were eliminated from the Republican Book of Rhetoric by Theodore Roosevelt.

(Democrats feel no shame in appealing to base ethnicity, race, gender in gathering votes. Splintering America over mere hyphenated groups is the least of their sins. I recall Lincoln, upon the occasion of signing the Emancipation Proclamation, noting that he had given the South to the Democrats for three generations. No wait a minute . . . that wasn’t Lincoln, he wouldn’t be so small, that was Lyndon Johnson on the occasion of signing the 1964 Civil Rights Bill saying he had given the South to the Republicans. How typical of that small minded politician who without a strategy fought a war merely to avoid having it said of him that he lost Vietnam. 35,000 dead for the sake of his reputation.)

In addition I have an especial dislike for the term African-American because Jesse Jackson that poverty pimp that race hustler and shakedown artist that “reverend” was among the first to introduce the phrase into our language. A political contrivance. (Todays Liberals know that "reverend" is not a title but they humor the likes of Jesse Jackson, they patronize him as they used to do with all Negros.)

Anyway I cannot agree with Krauthammer. When speaking of Caucasians one can refer to Negros, when to Whites, Blacks, and when to African-Americans then to European-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islander-Americans, and who wants to do that? Too many subdivisions. Simply establish that you are talking about the United States and then dispense with the hyphenations: African, Asian, European, etc.

Counselor: So this is an open break with Charles Krauthammer?

Yes, and he is a Conservative Republican.    But that has come to mean less and less these last few weeks. 144 Re-pub-li-cans in the House of Representatives voted to continue closed Government, and default on our Treasury Bonds. They considered it a “free vote”. With such people what does it mean to be a Republican? I didn’t vote for the second to last Presidential candidate because of the Vice Presidential candidate. The last one didn’t respond to me. I’m crossways with Krauthammer and 144 House Republicans. And I do not plan to change.

02-22-13 Lecture Notes

Subject:
“We'll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. . . And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don't violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn't make promises we cannot keep – but we must keep the promises we've already made.” State of the Union 2013

“As every good school master knows: repetition, repetition, repetition.” Doctor Professor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Dear Mr. President;

If the top 20% of Social Security recipients cannot secure their retirement on their own, without Social Security payments, then who can?

The top 20% control 50% of the financial assets of the country. Like all Social Security recipients they too started earning their incomes forty years ago, or fifty, even sixty years ago.

Mr. President what do we know about income distribution in our society that long ago? Who do you think earned more: women or males? Do you need to look that up? How about White or Black incomes, were they comparable? Do you need to check out these facts? Perhaps a statistician from the Department of Labor needs to be consulted?

The payout schedule of Social Security is based on these income histories of the recipients. If women and Blacks were discriminated against in their jobs, income, then this racism or sexism will be reflected in the payout schedule of Social Security. Didn’t the top 20% benefit from favorable treatment? And didn’t the bottom earners earn less?

Sir, I put it to you directly: if the payout schedule of the Social Security system is not institutional racism what is?

Do you propose that we ignore this institutional racism? Do you not recognize an affirmative duty to take action to correct this institutionalized racism and sexism?

For 40 years the Democrats have discriminated against young White males using quotas in employment and admissions to academic institutions. (The old White males who already had secured their employment or education were unsympathetic and like Evan Thomas dismissed the young White Males as “angry White men.” Women continue to receive preferential treatment, (math scores), even though they now out number men on many campuses.)

Your Administration (35 years after Bakke), has continued to impose rigid quotas on, for example, an Ohio fire department, (Dayton), whose test your Justice Department judged to be discriminatory because Whites passed at a higher rate than Blacks.

Democrats rely on quotas because they do not trust The Establishment to fairly develop and administer tests and personnel office administration. Indeed the words Affirmative Action came to mean only quotas as the sole method of creating a just society. Special programs of out reach, preparation, and   support were not pursued because The Establishment was not trusted to fairly carry out such programs.

I recall a Doctor Professor of Kent State commenting that the faculty of Harvard thought that it was ok to use quotas to select the faculty of Kent State but of course Harvard would never consider using quotas in the selection of the Harvard faculty.

Now look Sir, do you not know who these top 30% or 20% of Social Security recipients are? Do you still not recognize them? They are, or were, The Establishment. Remember The Establishment? The Man. Well the Man has retired and he is now collecting Social Security; they live off their invested capital, (again the top 20% own 50% of all financial assets in the nation);   in addition they collect the highest payments from Social Security because they held all the commanding positions in society in their day; so they are now paid from taxes levied on today’s workers and their employers who face an economy that has been in steady decline for the last 40 years.

I really do not see how you abide this injustice.

For decades your party imposed strict quotas for which one group of people, young White males, were disadvantaged, and this for the wrongs done by The Establishment and now with the passage of time you have the opportunity to take away the subsidy which is taken from young workers of today, (who are in the most difficult situation), and yet you refuse to take any action against the very Establishment condemned for their racism and sexism.

It was in the name of affirmative action that your party ruined the lives of the young White males for the better of 60 years and now when you have the power to carry out a real action against the very Establishment that you did not trust to fairly administer the law in the first place you claim you are powerless because you insist that we cannot break our promise to The Establishment. Promise? They extracted their income from us.

The only reason the top 20% or 30% receive Social Security is because it was felt that we had to bribe them to secure the indexing of the payouts of Social Security.

I wrote to Doctor Professor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan about this inequity in Social Security, the institutionalized racism and sexism of the payout schedule, that gives more to the rich, (who do not need it), and less to the poor who were oppressed all their working lives and are now paid the smallest payments of the system. I then mocked the good Senator and his party for their refusal to take affirmative action to correct the system by saying “who are we to change what greater hands have made.”

Senator Moynihan appeared on the Senate floor shortly later and said the creators of Social Security were farsighted about their creation for they recognized that periodically it would be necessary to make adjustments in the system and so they created a board to make those adjustments as needed.

Well Sir, I put it to you that the time for one of those adjustments has arrived on your watch. Drop the top 20% or 30% of the wealthiest recipients and balance the budget.

( I should like to point out to you that balancing the budget does not take money out of the economy as you are told by some economists. The IRS collects dimes and quarters and puts it into one window of The Treasury Department and then the Treasury buys back its paper pushing out the accumulated wealth in the form of fresh capital. This injection of capital back into the economy will make it possible for entrepreneurs who today cannot get capital financing to suddenly have access to capital.)

PS And I think Iran’s nuclear program should be destroyed and the regime must be over thrown.

1-26-13 Lecture notes

Subject:   Anti Abortion & Affirmative Action Policy at New Ruskin College

I know a Zen Priest who has a standing offer to any mother, to raise any child brought to him as his own and will return the child to the mother if she should ever change her mind and want the child back again. (The congregation or community served by this Priest is all liberal and pro choice. They are aware that the Priest’s offer is in some sense anti abortion, (or pro life), but they can not find anything to argue with in his simple offer.)

Helmet Kohl, the former leader of West Germany upon the occasion of President Reagan’s visit to Germany took the President on a tour of a kindergarten. Unlike American schools the German school took children at an earlier age and its hours of operation were extended, the building itself was modern with all the comforts one would expect including a large well paid staff.

As they walked through the facility Helmet Kohl leaned over to the President and said “This is our anti abortion policy.” Some American feathers were ruffled by the comment which seem to come too close to being a criticism. (One is reminded of the time George H. W. Bush called for a kinder more gentle America. This too was taken to be a criticism of Reagan and his faction; none of whom stopped to consider how such a simple call for decency could be a criticism and what did that imply about their guilty consciences?)

If you can be criticized so easily, (the Priest’s simple offer or Kohl’s passing comment, or George Bush’s call for a kinder more gentle America), then what does that say about you? If we give up the abusive treatment of women wanting abortions, what else could we do to reduce the demand for abortions? The number of things is limited only by your ability to think, and in some of your cases this is a severe limitation.

For example, if the Child Tax Credit were to have maintained its value that it had in Eisenhower’s America, $500, today this amount would be $10,000 (about 2.5 times the current rate). This failure, the failure to index child support is not only a wrong. How can you advocate abuse of women when we have such an obvious failure to protect children?   Indeed this failure, this wrong, could give rise to an affirmative duty to take action to correct this wrong.

For most of you, members of the New Class, who think affirmative action is only where you hire a bunch of Negros this idea that we have an affirmative duty to take affirmative action in a wide area of public policy will be a surprise.

For example, there are 1,746 schools at the bottom of the American pyramid. These schools account for 75% of the Black dropouts, 65% of Hispanic drop outs. “At least 25 percent of all students, and nearly 40 percent of all minority students, fail to graduate with their class” -- John Hopkins Magazine 2-28-11.   To recognize an affirmative duty to take action would not be a program of hiring less qualified Negro teachers, it requires that we rethink the very notion of school.

I have proposed 24 hour schools. We should have a standing offer to any child that they can choose to stay at school instead of going home. The Normal Schools should operate on a 12 hour basis. The schools would have to redesign  their daily structure. They should open at 7am and close at 7pm. These schools should offer rest areas where students can nap. Quarantined rooms where sick children can stay. Music, sports, art, a variety of classes in addition to the normal academic classes would fill the student’s day.

Most of this could be done with little added cost by changing the ratio of teachers to students and the use of computers. First instruction could be computer assisted, but also in addition the computer could keep track of students, and expand the span of control by the school management. Reducing the cost of management would result in a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, do we need 15,000 school districts? How many different kinds of schools are needed? 100? 1,000? All of the salaries paid to superintendents and the county and state bureaucrats could be saved and invested in the schools.

Some families would want their children to stay at school all day, other parents would want to work out individualized programs. Given this level of support how many women would choose abortion? It is ironic that the people that will object to this federal takeover of the bottom dropout factories are the same people who favor the most abusive treatments of women. In addition the teachers unions will object to having teachers work on these required flex hours.

But notice in my discussion of the reform of the bottom schools, of our duty to take affirmative action I did not once mention hiring less qualified Negros. The use of jobs for Negros as an alternative to recognizing an affirmative duty to take action was a way of social control over Blacks. Show me the Benjamins. This wasn’t the first instance of Negros being induced to settle for a few Benjamins rather than redesigning our schools for example. Various Black back to Africa, Black Nationalism, corrupt Representatives, Senators, Mayors have risen with much popular appeal to the Black “community.” Show me the Benjamins. Then the indictments. Republicans have been asking how does one talk to the Black Community.   Be real. Do you think they are unaware of the repeated betrayals   by Black politicians and ministers?

Of course it helps if you have a way of showing them that you are trying to bring services to them, such as 12 hour and 24 hour schools. In all the talk about wanting to control the cost of government all proposals   for change are rejected even proposals like mine which both cut expenses and increase out put. Is this Voodoo administration? No not at all. In business it is called efficiency. Doing more with less.

Everyone says Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed but both parties have walked around the issue. Remember Al Gore’s “lock box.” His words were meant for the hicks. I have previously recommended that the top 20% of welfare recipients be dropped from the rolls. The top 20% as a class control 50% of the financial assets of the country. If they cannot afford to make it on their own then there is no hope for our society. The politicians who originally created Social Security thought they could bribe the rich to support the program because the rich would fail to keep the payments up with the rising prices if they were not included.

I posed this thought when the comedian of the Senate still had his talk show. On Friday after my post he said we should not have to bribe the rich to support Social Security. But on the following Monday he said we should not reduce anyone’s Social Security. His political advisers had warned him over the weekend that he could not get elected in Minnesota if he tried to drop the rich from the welfare rolls. He had learned over the weekend that he must be a liar to fit in with Washington.

I pointed out before that the payout schedule of the Social Security system is based on wages earned forty, fifty, even sixty years ago. And what do we know about employment that long ago? It was heavily influenced by race, gender, ethnicity. The payouts of Social Security are heavily skewed by wrongs. It is not enough to say well to day we are issuing checks without regard for the persons race because it is the schedule itself that is racist. You have an affirmative duty to take action now to correct the wrongs of so long ago.

So drop the rich 20% and use some of the savings to open private accounts for the young workers to set aside for their old age. The rest of the money saved can be used to pay down the debt. Every time I post here about Social Security and Medicare as being welfare programs Rush Limbaugh starts shouting that they are not. “You paid for it. It is your money,” he bellows.   There is no lock box. All the money contributed is gone. It is a pay as you go system. And we can no longer afford the rich parasites who use their Social Security   checks to pay for their cruises, greens fees, while the bottom 80% works to maintain them in their rich lifestyle. If you tell the truth to the “minorities” they will quickly gauge you and see what is happening.

David Stockman appearing on Bill Moyers show said we would have to default on the top 30% of welfare recipients. 20% or 30% it is really not important for neither party will speak up and tell the truth to the people. They are all like that little shit of a comedian --- liars. (He is a Harvard graduate. Is that what they are teaching at Harvard? How to be a liar?)

PS And I think Iran’s nuclear program should be destroyed and the regime must be overthrown.

Lecture Notes : 01-04-2013

Counselor: Were you in the military, in Vietnam?

No I was out of that.

Counselor: But you must have thought about it, being drafted?

No I had a college deferment and then when that was dropped I got a high number in the lottery.

Counselor: So you could have been drafted?

No I had a high number, and the war was winding down, I thought I was safe . . . but later someone told me that they didn’t call you in for your Pre Induction Medical unless they were about to induct you.

Counselor: So you were called in for your Pre Induction Medical.

But I didn't know at the time that I was close to being drafted.

Counselor: But you must have had some thoughts about the War.

Well I remember being shocked about one news report.

Counselor: (Leaning forward expecting some grisly war footage.) Oh?

It was shot at some training camp here in the US. It showed recruits going to the bathroom in the morning. They were all lined up and there were just three commodes.

Counselor : (Looking disappointed.) Yes.

Well there was no privacy. You had to go right in front of the Sergeant and everyone else. Maybe if I passed the test for officer training I would have had the officers latrine. But still . . . I didn’t realize how close I was to being drafted.

Counselor: So there were privacy issues.

Oh, yeah privacy issues big time. There were no partitions or anything.   I was lucky they stopped the war just in time. For me. That is why I was a VISTA Volunteer for two years, . . . because I lucked out in the draft. It was a way to serve and . .

Counselor: And still have a private bathroom.

Yeah, exactly. After the two years I wrote a long letter to Senator S. I. Hayakawa in 1979. The VISTA program was politicized and under control of Liberal Democrats.   Shortly after the VISTA program was defunded.

Counselor: You think there is a connection?

Well yes, it is similar to the time I wrote to Senator Bradley pointing out that the bureaucrat in the Department of Education he had contacted regarding the use of laser disks in self paced computer assisted education; the bureaucrat had claimed that he did not need to respond because I was not one of Senator Bradley’s constituents. In other words Senator Bradley could only inquire on behalf of New Jersey residents.

Counselor: So what happened?

The Senate instructed the bureaucracy that they are required to respond regardless of whether the correspondent is a constituent of the Senator making the inquiry or not.

Counselor: So you have been contacting the Senate for a long time.

I had a little success. They also serve who stand and wait.

PS And I think the Iranian nuclear program should be destroyed and the regime must be overthrown.

New Ruskin College Style Manual: Many careful writers insist that the words data and media are Latin plurals and must, therefore, be used as plural words. The singular Latin forms of these words, however, are seldom used: datum as a single bit of information or medium as a single means of communication. Many authorities nowadays approve sentences like My data is lost. and The media is out to get the President. Even textbooks in computer science are beginning to use "data" as a singular. (For additional discussion contact http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm)