Posts Tagged ‘Newark Circus’

Michael Mangus, Mark Fraizer, And C-TEC

July 7, 2017

A quick synopsis for readers unfamiliar with the current Newark kerfuffle: “During Wednesday’s council meeting, Michael Mangus, D-4th Ward, chastised Mark Fraizer, R-at large, for comments he made about circuses during council’s finance committee meeting June 26.” (Newark City Council members spar over circus comments, Maria DeVito, Newark Advocate, 7-6-17). Mr. Fraizer threatened to bring the big top down (and did). His reason was that animals were being abused, that he owns 7, and couldn’t imagine they’d learn tricks other than through abusive techniques (a true animal aficionado would have said “cohabits with 7”). Many associated this with the influence of PETA, and their ongoing campaigns on behalf of animal rights. Mr. Mangus chose to chastise via the current, conventional charge against media, “doing the research” and all the fake facts, alternate facts, real facts, science, etc. A little political grandstanding was thrown in for good measure by siding with the locals, and local service organization (and all the good they do). C-TEC? Concurrent with DeVito’s report, the Advocate headlined “C-TEC manufacturing camp looks to fill hole in job market”, also by DeVito, same day. Analysis finds coverage of the brouhaha (ha ha!) to glaringly reveal the character of contemporary culture through the dynamics of this discourse. In attempts to make the world a better place, Mr. Fraizer focuses on righting the wrong. In attempts to make the world a better place, Mr. Mangus focuses on “do right” service (the service organizations contribution through the services of the circus and the disservice of Mr. Fraizer’s comments). He opts, or rather co-opts the currently fashionable trend of bashing the media (gratis our apprentice president) while questioning the character of Mr. Fraizer and his ability to do research and differentiate facts (fake, alternative, “real” facts, “real” alternative facts, etc.). Analysis finds this to be a microcosm of what is occurring on a larger, national scale. The real issue is totally elided, obfuscated by the need to right a wrong (think the GOP and Obamacare) or that knowledge and learning are a matter of discriminating consumerism (think if you just got your news from the right source, you’d get the right answers, correct outlook, whatever – the apprentice president’s approach to correct learning, let alone knowledge). The human animals performing in the circus didn’t learn their tricks through abusive techniques. There are more of them than the non-human kind. The internet is full of documented accounts of human interactions with animals, both wild and domesticated. There are accounts of wild birds eating out of folks hands, pet fish cuddling on the palm of a hand so as to be petted, and crocodiles getting a smooch from their keeper. How do you abuse a croc to get it to be so? No, people and animals do learn tricks through patience, perseverance and continuous repetition. Which brings us to Mangus and his consumer oriented disposition to learning and its offspring – knowledge. There is no “once and for all” absolute, ultimate, final fount of knowledge (no matter how smart your mobile device is). As any good educator would say, learning is continuous. It would be naïve to believe that there is no abuse in the world, or that we can eliminate it totally through some sweeping legislation (like “pee in the cup” legislation for public assistance recipients, “to eliminate the abusers”). Which brings us to C-TEC and the article concerning one of its programs to foster and cultivate learning and skills through patience, perseverance, and repetition. Brand marketing has its consuming faithful convinced that something is a natural, born that way, in the DNA, fated (like Athena sprung whole from the forehead of Zeus). That quality is reflected in the price and inherent. Any flaws indicate lesser value. Etc. Learning and knowledge formation require working with what is unknown and at risk of being off or wrong. Crafting good legislation, whether for health care or circuses, requires a bit of doing, a lot of patience, perseverance and repetition, and even more learning and knowledge. This is something Mr. Fraizer and Mr. Mangus ought to be held accounted for, along with our other elected officials.

Send In The Clowns

June 28, 2017

The news out of Newark this week includes the campaign by Republican council person at large (and rising GOP star), Mark Fraizer, to rid Newark of circus (Please refrain from uttering the snide comment that “Newark is….”). Much of the online commentary swivels on his need to represent the dollars and cents interests of his constituency (which “at large” would include just about anyone and everyone). There is an under current of disappointment that someone who listed working in a bank on his candidacy resume would choose not to concern himself with fiscal issues but rather ones embraced by “interest” groups like PETA. In More Hannah Arendt (previous post, 6-22-17), Analysis pointed to the difference between politics situated amongst interest groups and that within a totalitarian environment, where the politics swirls around either being for or against the dominant party (the need to win at all costs, anything whatsoever). Analysis paraphrased a quote Arendt pulled from the official handbook for the Hitler Youth, The Nazi Primer (New York, 1938). The original quoted line reads “We shape the life of our people and our legislation according to the verdicts of genetics.” Analysis substituted “economics” for “genetics.” How do they differ?  The dictionary gives “the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.” for genetics. For economics there are two given interpretations: “the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.” and “the condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity.” Either interpretation, they are united by concern for material prosperity taken as production, consumption and transfer of wealth. Both genetics and economics have one glaring thing in common – neither are a science (as indicated in the definition). Neither can make a plane fly, change hydrogen and oxygen atoms into water, or prevent tooth decay. If it were so, we certainly wouldn’t have experienced the financial meltdown of 2007-8 and the great recession that followed, nor would there be such outrage over the “scientific” genetic experiments perpetrated by various government sanctioned individuals, here and abroad (think Dr. Mengele, American slave breeders, or Soviet aptitude selection). 100 years ago genetics was one of the operative forms of “knowledge” used to justify segregation, colonial administration, relocating Native American children to church run boarding schools, etc. Genetics essentially gave the alibi for why some people were complete human beings and others were just human wannabe’s, in need of development, etc. Bear in mind, dear reader, that it was not a science but was a “branch of knowledge” very prevalent within the world at that time (we’re not talking DNA here but the shape of a person’s skull, nose or color of skin).  Economics has supplanted genetics in today’s world order. What isn’t justified by, or doesn’t have economics as its alibi? (Think jumping ahead in line for a higher fee at the historic jail haunted hoochie, or health care if you’re not familiar with Halloween in Newark) Which brings us back to Mark Fraizer, his Grand Old Party, and interest based self-governance (where groups representing specific interests interact to form cohesive civil government through a democratic process). This blog doesn’t need to reference the continuous debate over whether some or any government decision or policy makes money, costs money and the “economics” involved (jobs created, wealth distribution, tax breaks, etc.). A funny thing happens on the way to government in the US today. If it is something ”interest” based, it immediately is cast into the margins by the call to be with us (for the economics involved) or against us (trying to subvert the market, consumers or wealth distribution). With his desire to bring the big top down in Newark, Mark ventures into this nether region of an appeal to interest, a public interest that is not economics. Analysis shows that eventually this will put him at odds with the GOP’s dominance, which prefers to actively shape the life of our people and our legislation according to the verdicts of economics. Will Mark submit and toe the party line? Or will he require Newark’s finest to respond to clown sightings at the American Clown Academy or the Kiwanis BIG Show?