Page 18 THE VILLADOM TIMES III • October 31, 2012 to the Third Reich that was not only insulting but evidentially irresponsible. Good-bye advertising. “New Times” became “No Times.” Factions continue to exist even though “Time” is the lone survivor of the slick-paper opinion molders, but nobody can really tell us how to think about the present election, because nobody on either side has anything real to offer us. The other night, I tuned in to Bill Moyers on PBS and listened to Moyers talking with Chrystia Freeland, author of “The Plutocrats,” and Matt Taibbi of “Rolling Stone.” Both of these writers are about as far to the left a sane person can go in 2012, but they raised a very good point: The Democrats are not much more likely than the Republicans to cut off the flow of special-interest money into political campaigns. Freeland, a Ukrainian-Canadian with a degree from Harvard and a Rhodes Scholar, noted that “The Plutocrats” -- the people with a net worth in the multiple millions through investments -- need have no fear of President Barack Obama. “Obama in many ways is one of them,” Freeland said. “He could become an excellent corporate lawyer...He thinks the way they do.” “He’s not an FDR fighting for the down-trodden. I don’t think he feels a genuine class-based rage,” Taibbi added. Freeland and Taibbi agreed that neither Bush nor Obama had done anything to repeal the greatest tax break for the very rich: the “carried-interest tax break.” This staple of hedge funds is said to contribute 31 percent of Mitt Romney’s income, but Taibbi and Freeland noted that even when Obama had both houses of Congress, nothing was done to curtail the cash flow from carried interest. Nor did they expect that Congressional Democrats would do anything about carried interest, while any action by Congressional Republicans was utterly out of the question. “The main issue is so central to their daily lives that it’s just too overwhelming to get them to face the issue,” Taibbi said. It does not matter much to the 47 percent or the 99 percent which talking heads we send to the White House, Senate, or House of Representatives. None of the talking heads care as much about saving the middle class or helping the working poor as they do about getting elected or re-elected with the help of the major financial donors. The Democrats may do a little more for minorities, women, and the environment, but the Republicans will not drastically attack either group. The Republicans may do a little more for “family values,” but anybody who knows Washington, D.C. knows that heterosexual monogamy is a point of departure on both sides of the aisle. While writing this column, I received two wakeup calls. George McGovern died, and Russell Means, a long-time friend of the family, died. I remembered another autumn, 40 years ago, when Means and his American Indian Movement partisans tried to play George McGovern off against Richard Nixon during the last week before an election where the principal issue was the war in Vietnam. I remember that the Indians, who knew McGovern from South Dakota, did not trust him, but they hoped Nixon would fear McGovern enough to grant them an honest investigation of how much taxpayer money intended for Indians was filtered out by white bureaucrats: “The Trail of Broken Treaties.” I remember that the Indians were stiffed not only by Senator McGovern but also by Cesar Chavez, who refused his support. Bill Moyers was also conspicuous by his absence. The only outside supporters who showed up were The Reverend Carl McIntyre, a conservative Vietnam War supporter who liked Indians, and Dr. Benjamin Spock, a liberal’s liberal who loved children and hated to see them starved or killed in wars. Both of these men urged the people not to hurt the Indians, but to listen to them instead. In the end, Nixon threw the random Indian leaders a $60,000 bribe to leave Washington. The worst of the AIM leaders took the money and ran. Means took only $1,000, but was able to commandeer a truck and steal several file cabinets that documented a huge amount of federal corruption. Columnist Jack Anderson published some of them. Most people were not interested. After Means took over a couple of towns out West and his supporters, mostly teenaged girls, burned the public buildings in one of them, and after he staged an armed confrontation with dead or wounded people on both sides, the federal government suddenly got interested and some actual reform took place. Means bounced around prisons for awhile, got shot a couple of times, and later led a Lakota contingent to fight against Daniel Ortega’s anti-Indian leftists in Nicaragua, and finally became a movie actor. The legislative process did not work without violence, which is why we had so many riots in those days. Elections serve one real purpose: They convince many honest people that ordinary Americans still control the government. We do not. The best we can hope for is that the government does not come to control us. Once every November, and especially in presidential years like this one, we assure ourselves that we are still a democracy -- never mind the U.S. Constitution, which made us a republic -- by voting for whichever talking head best fulfills our image of ourselves. After this year, we may have to do so with less newsstand or mailbox advice than before, since “Newsweek” is going out of print, though it will still be available online. “Newsweek” is a prime example of how “democracy” works. The news magazine battle of the 20th century was between “Time” and “Newsweek,” which competed by trying to steal each other’s cover topics, but diverged in the perception of their readers. The “Time” reader was considered someone who believed in strong, forceful solutions, was not impressed by what we might call multi-culturalism, and believed that, while atomic bombing of Switzerland might be extreme, most of the world’s problems could be solved with an expanded version of a punch in the nose. The “Newsweek” reader was assessed as somewhat more tolerant, more interested in the arts, and more open to new ideas. I got some personal insight into the difference when “Time” pilloried the late Dr. Ian Stevenson, MD, PA, and the late Dr. Joseph Banks Rhine, Ph.D., for conducting studies about the possible evidence for life after death and for mind-to-mind communication among the living. Dr. Stevenson, who had written psychiatric textbooks, was juxtaposed against a stage magician and an atheist with no medical credentials who questioned Stevenson’s veracity and perhaps his sanity. Dr. Rhine’s work was cast into would-be disrepute because one of his assistants, near the end of Rhine’s 50-year study, was caught fudging some results. It was Dr. Rhine who caught and dismissed the devious assistant. “Time” did not want evidence for an afterlife or even discussion outside the purview of sectarian religion, because the perceived bias of the “Time” readership was seen as strongly institutional: People should support houses of worship as they support their football teams or (Republican) political candidates. Crudely put, the “Time” person was a literate Republican. “Newsweek” treated the subject and the two experts with a degree of respect, but declined to rule on whether any of their evidence was, or ever might be, conclusive. The “Newsweek” person was a literate urban or suburban Democrat, willing to keep an open mind, unwilling to make any hard conclusions or attempt to evaluate evidence with a firm yes or no answer. “U.S. News and World Report,” which tanked a couple of years ago, represented a worldview more conservative than “Time” for readers not quite ready for Buckley or Buchanan. Various short-lived publications represented the view to the left of “Newsweek.” Most of them folded about the time college kids quit protesting the draft and got interested in women and minorities in traditionally white male jobs. “New Times” attacked racism and political jobbery in the United States to some enthusiasm on the New Left. Then “New Times” drew a hyperbolic comparison of Israel Elections still serve a purpose Letters to the Editor Dear Editor: As a former elected official, I have taken interest in what has developed as a spirited election for members of the HoHo-Kus Board of Education. It’s spirited not just because residents want the best for their children, but also because the memory of the recent financial collapse is still very much on the minds of residents. While some government bodies may think all that danger and concern have passed, hardworking taxpayers do not. They know that virtually all governments are nowhere near out of the financial woods, especially if more financial distress lies ahead. That said, this board, more than ever, needs experienced, courageous, and financially savvy members who are able to ask smart financial questions and address them, and take common sense approaches to matters of non-financial policy. For example, in light of the Ridgewood Board of Education’s prolonged resolution of their teachers’ contract, has the Ho-Ho-Kus Board of Education really worked hard enough on their negotiations with respect to medical premiums that are, and will be, paid by their teachers going forward? Ridgewood’s teachers will contribute up to 35 percent of their premium costs in accordance with its recent pact, and those increases will result in a quadrupling of employee paid medical costs by school year 2014-15, totaling about $2,000,000. That is solid progress in today’s economy and should serve as a starting point and model for Ho-Ho-Kus as that board plans for its next round of union negotiations. In the matter of whether our current superintendent should have her contract renewed: Will a thorough and diligent process be invoked to compare her, her cost and contributions to alternative applicants who could also very well present as less expensive ones? Doing so will be most appropriate in an economic era where superintendents’ salaries are finally being capped. Because my children are long gone from the Ho-Ho-Kus Public School, it’s a little easier to be objective about chal- Langevin offers fresh approach lenges and choices facing the board. I think I can say that some of the policy matters they have presided over recently (the school uniform issue as an example) seem unnecessarily intrusive, much ado about nothing, and presenting to some of the public as near busywork when there have to be many more important matters at hand. Another not so important issue that appears to be receiving some consideration includes the installation of a turf surface on the school’s athletic field. Unless all the necessary investigation is done about such controversial playing surfaces, and it is completely privately funded, this could wind up being even more misguided than depriving the kids of their right to free wardrobe expression. In my conversations with Amy Langevin, I’ve learned that she is a full-time financial professional overseeing a real and large business budget, both of her children attend the Ho-Ho-Kus Public School, and she possesses the courage of her convictions. I’m convinced she will practice doing the right thing even when it may be unpopular with the keepers of the status quo. It’s time for fresh change and fresh thought. A vote for Amy Langevin will deliver both. Lee B. Fleming Ho-Ho-Kus Dear Editor: We are writing to endorse Waldwick Council candidates Chuck Farricker, Greg Bjork, and Anthony Celeste Jr. Chuck has served on the council since 2006. He has dedicated himself in representing the interests of the community, whether it was as chair of the Health and Recreation Committee or in his current position on the Public Works Committee. Greg is completing his first year on the council, but has been active in the community for years as a volunteer with the Lions Club and other organizations. He chairs the (continued on page 19) Supporting Farricker, Bjork & Celeste