Now that the primaries are over...

I have read editorials, op-ed pieces and columns written to agree and support or disagree and gripe about the primary process of our two major political parties here in the US. People seem to agree/disagree based on what their personal agenda is, i.e. why my candidate should have won.

The first part of this supposed problem lies with understanding why there are DNC and GOP primaries in the first place. And, please get the facts straight, the two parties do things differently--that means they don't do their primaries the same nationwide. On top of that, each state can and does do the primary the way their state party wants it done.

Why have a primary? Over the years, decades, scores of years, the parties have asked for input from the electorate as to whom they would like to see on the the top of the party's ticket. Remember your American history--it hasn't been that many years since the candidates were selected in smoked-filled rooms. FOR SHAME! How dare they!

And as this shocking and appalling process made headlines, people rose up and demanded better of their political parties. Everyone wants a voter's vote to mean something--count every vote. Is that really necessary? Should the non-political voter be allowed to have his wishes supersede those of political savvy party elite? In other words, selecting a party's presidential candidate needs to be made with knowledge (not wishes), finesse and expertise. Is that possible with a primary system?

There are lots of reasons to give the voters who will be voting in November an opportunity to let the party machine know who and why they support one candidate over another. But should that be binding on the convention delegates?

Evidently the Republicans say yes. Note: McCain has "enough delegate votes" to clinch the nomination. How could the GOP go into their convention and NOT put McCain on the top of the ticket this year?

However, it appears to me the DNC doesn't like the idea of the voters telling them what to do. In addition to delegates selected by the voters, they have super delegates--that is people that get to vote on the issue above and beyond what their membership wants. The super delegates are the politically experienced people who should be allowed to "correct the mistakes" made by their voters. "But can that person get elected?" "We will lose states A, B and C if we go with that candidate."

And we are only just getting started.............

Each state has its own Dem party and Repub party. Are they independent of their national organization? Well, the national group can penalize the state groups if they don't "follow the party line." We certainly experienced that here in Florida this year. The DNC and GOP both told the state parties not to change their primary date to earlier in the year. So where is the problem? Easy, in Florida the parties don't control the date of the primaries--the state legislature makes those decisions. So, is the Florida legislature bound to the dictates of the national political machines? Absolutely not. And don't you know that pissed them off big time! "How dare Florida do what it wants to!"

Let me take a moment here and enlighten those who just don't have enough of the facts. Yes, the Florida legislature upped the date of its primaries because they wanted Florida's voters to have a stronger say to the rest of the country who we believe should be on the tickets. And we want more campaigning in our state by those seeking the nominations. And we want more of the money for the ads to be spent here in our state for our votes. Right now Iowa and Vermont--two lower-population-numbers states--carry a heavy weight in directing the political needle for the other state primaries. Also, those two states garner more visits and ads and monies from the get-go. Why have the two political national committees blessed these two states' voters with that honor? We don't care; we'll position ourselves without their help.

Is this a good enough reason for the Florida legislature (and the state of Michigan) to stand up to the national committees and say, "We'll do what we want to for our state and voters"? Each Florida voter will have to answer that question for himself when the legislature is up for re-election.

Now, the primary system has still another wrinkle in it--caucuses. What really is a caucus and how does it get delegates for candidates? Caucuses are "town meetings" where everyone present speaks up for whom and for why a candidate should get the blessings of their group. Delegates are then selected to attend the national conventions and vote the voice of his group. I don't know of any caucuses within the GOP for primary decisions. There may be--I just don't know about them. BUT I do know some Dem state organizations choose to use caucuses with and without direct vote primaries.

How about another rumple in the process--precinct by precinct delegates or winner takes all delegates? Shades of the electoral college. Those who know me know I strongly support continued use of the electoral college process for electing our president. That is another article all together. (Did you know we do have some [2 or 3] states that ratio their electoral college delegates?)

Again, each state political party organization decides how they want their delegates to be selected/rationed. As I understand it, the republican state groups tend to go with the winner takes all for the entire state. And the Dems seem to prefer "one person, one vote" type decisions--get to the smallest possible form--thus precinct by precinct.

If you stand back and compare the two systems, the GOP primaries are simpler, the DNC more complex. Shades of overall philosophy by the parties, too--that is, IMHO.

You know, accountants will tell you, if you want to embezzle money from a company, all you have to do is go in and double or triple the number of accounts in the bookkeeping system so numbers/money can be hidden. Sorry, but I see this happening with the DNC system. If you want to control the decisions of the voters, just make the process more accessible to "number pushing" by the top execs.

Reading and loving it

As an avid reader and lover of the written word, I have found it dismaying that so many school children today don't want to read. Realizing that too many students out there don't have all the skills for good reading, I've tried to help by teaching them what they have left behind. That old adage--you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink--comes to life.

What can be done by parents, teachers and society to get these young people to want to read? And, when did they lose the desire to read? Why should we even care if they can/do read?

Without an answer to the last question here, the other two questions don't matter. I remember in my history and democracy classes being told that our form of government can't exist and work for the masses if the masses aren't educated so they can make knowledgeable decisions in the voting booth. That would certainly be an up front reason to want our progeny to be able to read.

Yes, a lot can be said for common sense. But common sense will only get you so far. If you don't know and understand the system, you are at a loss to make much of a difference in changing the world, if only in our won back yard, for the better. Isn't that what we want--a better life for everyone? So, here in the US we have free (mandatory) education for everyone.

Another reason I want my fellow Americans to be able to read is that most of them will become drivers on our highways. I want to be sure they can read the signs out there! To get a driver's license you have to take a written as well as driving test. Can't read--How do you answer the questions accurately?

The IRS needs every worker to be able to read so they can file their annual tax forms. Yes, you can take all the papers to a service and let them file for you, but are you sure what they do for you is accurate? Please file and pay your fair share just as I do. We've got to pay for this government one way or another.

These are just several reasons I want my fellow Americans to be able to read.

The next question in the list going backwards is, when do students stop learning to read? The education system has been working hard to get its hands around this issue and correct it.

Have you ever watched little (pre-school) children with books? They love to be read to. They love to look at the pictures. When they get to chapter books, they love the stories being told in the books. Whole new worlds open up to them on the pages of the books. So what happened to stifle this adoration of the written word? When do children stop checking books out of the library?

I honestly believe this occurs in elementary school when children are required to read as a learning tool--i.e. third grade. Suddenly textbooks are on their desks. They have to read to learn about science, math, civics, music, etc. Teachers tell students what they are reading, so students don't want to take the time to do the reading. Short cut--just tell me.

Science has lots of new words to learn. Math has (LORD HELP US!) written problems to figure out. Civics, including geography and history, tells us lots of stories along with introducing new information about the world we live in. And with music we suddenly have to READ the words of the song rather than memorizing them. What a shock for the pupils.

How can we--parents, teachers and society--change this situation? There are many things we can and are doing. (My hat goes off to the teachers for trying day in and day out to promote a love of learning.) First and foremost, everyone must stress the need and importance of reading. Browbeating won't accomplish this. What about using expectations?

Placing high expectations on students has worked in the past. It needs to be tempered with positive support and praise. Drop the criticism and introduce evaluation: "This is what you are doing right, this is a problem for you and this is how you can change that." Put-downs without examples of how to do it right just turn people, in general, off to whatever you say.

A good next step is to mirror the reading you expect from the children. Just read in front of them. Let them see you reading the newspaper and magazines and books. Let them hear you discuss what you have read with other people. If you don't share what you have read, why should they think it is important? It goes without saying that reading to them is also paramount. No one is too old to be read to. We need to let children see that we love to read so they know it is okay for them to love reading too.

My children had the wonderful opportunity to have a third grade teacher, Mrs. Marx, that brought the love of reading into the classroom. She would read to them about the Greek and Roman gods. The students were in awe of the stories! It wasn't anything they had to remember for a test. It was just fun.

My children also had the example of their parents that were avid readers--newspapers, magazines, books (fiction and nonfiction & textbooks), signs along the road, writing on TV screens, tee-shirts. If it was written, we read it. This can reinforce a sense of naturalness in reading.

However, I grew up in a house where my father seldom read anything. My mother read every word ever written on the newspaper every day! My father read books to me when I was little. And he took me to the library to get my first library card and start checking out books. He supported my reading. When Mom would complain that I was reading instead of doing household chores, he would nudge me to put the book down--not chastise me for it. Saturday mornings I walked to the library to return books and pick up new ones. Sometimes Dad drove me downtown to the library. He always supported and encouraged us children to read.

I think we also fall short with the pupils in elementary school when we don't reinforce many reading skills directly--we sort of take it for granted they are "doing" what they need to for understanding what they are reading. Example: Comprehension. You read the words and you know what they say so you can answer the questions on the written test. Vocabulary. Don't know what a word means, then go to the dictionary. What about defining the meaning from context? Fluency. Reading out loud is not required of all students. And the ones that don't want to read out loud are the ones that really need to practice it! Knowing and understanding the use of punctuation helps with the comprehension and fluency.

Reading is a cornerstone to knowledge. We need to do everything within our power to see our next generation can read and, best of all, love to read.