Click here to get a menu

Dan Kimber

* Notice:
Dan Kimber will be posting his blogs here until he gets his own site up and running. Welcome back to the blog world, Dan. You can read his blogs at:

SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 - TERRIBLE NEWS: Dan Kimber has been let go of his writing position with the Glendale News-Press because of an article he wrote on September 9th about the greedy corporations and the tea party of today. See article below for all of the details. What a loss to the community of Glendale.

Dan was accused of plagiarism by his editor, who claims that it was his decision to let Dan go. I believe he was pressured into it by either the Tea Party advocates or other power structures that control everything. My belief, not Dan's. The information and articles are after the following article from March 2010. or CLICK HERE.

I asked Dan Kimber's permission to post this article he wrote on March 26, 2010

Dan Kimber

Rewriting History for Convenience
By Dan Kimber

The state of Texas, ever on the forefront of progressive education, will be requiring teachers to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.

The Texas State Board of Education’s far-right faction has further voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from their social studies standard that deals with political philosophers. It seems that our third president was not Christian enough in his religious beliefs (he was a Deist) to suit this group.

John Calvin, on the other hand, whose orthodoxy belongs in the 17th century, has been inserted into state standards, replacing Jefferson — no doubt to the delight of all the Southern Baptists and Evangelists in Texas who stand with God in their righteous fury over the “secular humanism” that has crept into America’s schools.

Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects down in Texas this past week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics.

Here are some of the changes being proposed for insertion into their state textbooks.

The civil rights movement, they would teach, led to “unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes.” That no doubt would come as a bit of a shock to the millions of Americans who have struggled for a century and a half to achieve that equality and a government that has also struggled to make good on this country’s most loudly and proudly professed ideal that “all men are created equal.”

According to the board, Martin Luther King Jr. deserves a place in history, but they argue that he shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As one spokesperson proclaimed, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” Translation: Any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites.

This same group aims to dust off and redeem that all-American Communist hunter, Joseph McCarthy, maintaining that he was on the right track after all in destroying the lives of countless “communists” back in the ’50s.

I wonder if in that redemption the new account will include evidence that was never offered by the senator at the time. I have always taught that McCarthy provides an important object lesson for our country, as well as offering an irresistible comparison to another dark chapter in our history, the Salem witch trials, where good people were seized by their fears and did bad things.

But who knows, perhaps future Texas textbooks will reconsider the guilt of the 19 who were hanged for witchcraft in 1692.

Another proposal is to de-emphasize the New Deal in texts and timelines on the basis that the entire program smacks of socialism. Did the brilliant minds that came to that point of thinking even consider the preceding decade of unrestrained (dare I say, unregulated?) laissez faire capitalism as contributing heavily to a 10-year hangover (the Great Depression) that followed a 10-year binge (the ’20s)?
I’m guessing that Texas texts won’t even list that on the “Causes of the Great Depression” page in U.S. History books, but I would ask, does any of this “smack of” more current lessons for our children to learn/relearn?

Another goal of this enlightened committee is to unearth early American documents that blend government and religion, and then paint them as building blocks of our Constitution. They are busy at that task despite the fact that the Constitution has erected a concrete wall of separation between church and state; despite the fact that the word “God” is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution; despite the fact that the one and only mention of religion in the Constitution is in the 1st Amendment — and that is a caution to the government our founders fashioned and all that would follow: Keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

We who teach that and believe that are not “godless,” we’re just leery of any religion, regardless of its majority status, wanting to convert faith into law.

But the agenda of this board does not stop there. These good folks want to scrub U.S. history of all its inconvenient blemishes. Textbooks will paint slavery, for instance, as a relic of British colonialism that we here in America struggled to cast off from day one. That, I would submit, takes this whole exercise out of the realm of historical revision and into a concerted policy of ugly distortion.

Until recently, Texas’ influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the two comprising the largest textbook markets. But our state economy is in such shambles that we’ve put off buying new books until at least 2014. That will give Texas unparalleled power in the coming years to shape the textbooks that children around the country will read.

And if I may select just one more among the many changes suggested by this think tank, it would be their effort to delete from textbooks any reference to the fact that Earth is more than 4 billion years old, because this timeline conflicts with biblical accounts of creation.

John Calvin, who believed that the earth was less than 30,000 years old, would be proud.

Get in touch DAN KIMBER is a teacher in the Glendale Unified School District, where he has taught for more than 30 years. He may be reached at


Parsecsam's comment: Many of the things in this article I have been saying for many years. I was proud and impressed with Dan Kimber for writing it, and proud that the Glendale News-Press printed it. It looks like we still have a voice.

A NEW DEVELOPEMENT - On September 9, 2011, Dan Kimber wrote an article about the greed of the large corprations and how they were reducing long time workers salaries to increase their own profit; also he wrote about the failings of the new tea party.

I Thought it was well written, but also felt that Dan was really sticking his neck out, writing such a true stories about those corporations and in comparing the so-called tea party of today with the Tea Party of 1775. It was a great article. Forunately I saved it. You can read it below the following notice in the Glendale News-Press.

The following little notice was in the September 16, 2011 paper under the mailbag section.

"On Friday, Sept. 9, the News-Press published an Opinion column by Dan Kimber that largely duplicated a syndicated column by Sam Pizzigati written for OtherWords, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

After publication, Kimber acknowledged borrowing heavily from Pizzigati’s column about “Joe the Machinist.”

News-Press guidelines state that when we rely on the work of others, we credit them, and when wire service reports are used, the source should be clearly attributed. Kimber's column will no longer appear in the News-Press."

***Recent article by the editor, Dan Evans, of the Glendale News-Press: Editor's Note
Additional plagiarism discovered.
On Sept. 16, the Glendale News-Press printed a note stating that DDan Kimber'ss Sept.9 column largely duplicated the workk of SAm Pizzigzti's Aug. 29 Other Worlds Column titled "Joe the Machinest."

Kimber acknowledged the palgiarism and the News-Press announced his column would no longer appear in its pages.

A review of Kimber's column from Jan. 2 to Sept. 9, 2011, revealed that about one fifth contained plagiarized material. The amount taken in each instance varied, from a few sentences to nearly the entire column.

New-Press guidelines are expicit about properly identifying and citing our sources. Trust is the backbone of this paper's reputation.

Editing safegaurds have been put in place to help prevent this from happening again. Within the online archives, each of Kimber's columnss will contain a note stating that multiple instances of plagerism have been found.

In those columns where plagiarism has been discovered, a "For The Record" note specifying the details will be appended to the piece.
This last article by the editor sounds like the powers want Dan Kimber banned from writing any more truths.

I printed Dan's Column along side of Sam Pizzigati's column for . comparison. You will see that Dan really enhanced Pizzigati's column, and added further information and some comments comparing the tea party of today with the Tea Party of 1775. I personally believe that, because of this, he was fired. Some mighty powerful heat must have come down from the ruling powers in order to get rid of that intellegent, dangerous writer.

What a lame excuse to fire someone. He admittedly, used portions of Pizzigati's column, but it fit in with his story. Any dictator gets rid of the intelligent ones as quickly as possible.


Dan Kimber:
Suffering from a plague of greed

You work hard. You do good work. You loyally stick with your employer through good times and bad. Do you have a right to a paycheck that rises over time?
            If you put that question to Booz & Co., one of the nation’s most prestigious corporate consulting firms, their answer would likely be colored by their connection to the corporate bosses who have hired them to increase their bottom line profits.
            Rather than to take aim at the bloated salaries of the corporate heads, this company looks to diminish the value of  veteran employees who,  contrary to the mega-millionaire chief executives, deserve their hard-earned wages.
            Analysts for this company advised earlier this year that businesses need to start attacking the “exorbitant” paychecks now going to their most prized, “steady and reliable” workers. They even personified this worker by calling him “Joe, the machinist.” He has many years of experience, but is now making a lot more than he used to make, especially compared with co-workers who have doing the same job for just two years.
            Joe has been “insulated from the harsh economic realities by receiving above market wages,” according to a Booz representative. Translated into cost cutting efficiency, that means that it is time to retool salary structures. This retooling, the Booz  analyst gush, would net U.S. corporations “labor savings of 15 to 20%.”
            Corporate America, in fact, has been depressing wages to fatten profit margins for decades, and the pace has only accelerated since the Great Recession. Their profits from mid-2009 through the first quarter of 2011 have increased 39.6%. Over that same span, typical full-time U.S. workers have watched their paychecks steadily drop.
            The Booz analysts want America’s Joe, the machinist, to swallow ever-lower paychecks to help their U.S. corporate employers “keep up with intense competition” from elsewhere in the world. Yet they demand no similar sacrifice from U.S. corporate executives.
            CEOs at companies with more than $10 billion in annual revenue, the Wall Street Journal reported back in 2008, make twice as much in the United States as they do in Europe - and nine times more in the United States than they do in Japan. The richest 1% of Americans have tripled their share of this country’s income over the past 30 years.
            OK, class is in session. It’s Economics I, and I have some questions for my readers. Can anyone help me understand the blatant inequities above? If 1% are the “job creators” whose prosperity will “trickle down” to the other 99%, why is unemployment so high, and why is the so-called recovery a jobless one? That’s a flat-out contradiction.

Workers’ unions are presently under attack in this country for their perceived undue influence in political affairs and for inflating members’ salaries beyond sustainable levels. I would agree that unions and politics are ideally kept separate, but until this country’s business sector refrains from exerting its influence on laws that are made and the people who make them, unions are necessary counterpart to the corrosive influence of money on the body politic.

The rise of third parties in our country’s history has always interested me as a teacher of U.S. history, and I have watched with great interest the rise of the tea party movement that has captivated a large swath of our voting public.

Unlike the grangers and the Populists and Progressives of earlier eras who directed their wrath at big railroads and robber barons. This present conglomeration is noticeably silent in the face of soaring corporate profits and obscene bonuses for 1% while the rest of their fellow Americans are falling behind.
The real Tea Partyers back 1775 protested the monopoly of the British East India Company, the largest transnational corporation then in existence. The company threatened to decimate small colonial businesses (think Walmart), and this small rag-tag group of patriots, by choosing principle over profit, threw down a gauntlet to a business that had grown too big.

The real Tea Partyers would have seen the inequity in the growing chasm between the very wealthy and the rest of Americans. They would have protested against an exposed scoundrel like Rupert Murdoch, who voted himself and his honchos millions in bonuses while companies like Booz worked to create those bonuses by sticking it to the workers on the line.

Where have you gone, Grangers and Populist and Progressives? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to a spirit gone but not forgotten; a spirit that is part of our history and embedded in our sense of fair play.

While we are, once again, suffering from a plague of greed in this country, it is a spirit that presently cries out for a revival. ************************************************


Sam PizzigatiL
You work hard. You do good work. You loyally stick with your employer through good times and bad. Do you have a right to a paycheck that rises over time?

On any Labor Day over the last 50 years, the answer — from labor and management alike — would be obvious: Of course!

But that answer doesn't seem to hold any more. Earlier this year, a trio of top business consultants openly challenged the notion that good employees doing valuable work deserve to see their paychecks steadily increase. This past July, the Harvard Business School circulated their challenge throughout corporate America's upper echelons.

This remarkably brazen assault on core American workplace values originated at Booz & Co., one of the nation's most prestigious corporate consulting firms. America's corporations, Booz analysts advised earlier this year, need to start attacking the "exorbitant" paychecks now going to their most prized, "steady and reliable" veteran workers.

The Booz analysts offer an example of the "significantly overpaid" worker they have in mind. They call him Joe the Machinist, "a stellar employee who knows the ins and outs of the organization, the result of his many years on the job."

Joe's "wealth of institutional knowledge" has become a valued corporate asset. But Joe, after over two decades on the job, is making a lot more than he used to make, especially "compared with co-workers who have been doing the same job for just two years."

Corporate America, the Booz & Co. advice continues, now needs to "address these kinds of wage disparities." Companies need to start "retooling labor costs" to narrow "the gap between high wages and market value."

This retooling, the Booz analysts gush, could net U.S. corporations "labor savings of 15 to 20 percent." Of course, the analysts acknowledge, Joe the Machinist "might have to take pay cuts" along the way.

But what a payoff these pay cuts would produce! Firms that seriously retool, the Booz consultants promise, "will end up with larger and more sustainable improvements in their [profit] margins."

Some business leaders are already cheering the Booz analysis.

"We infantilize workers like Joe," a former Bank of America executive charges at a Harvard Business School online discussion site, "by insulating them from the harsh economic realities by paying above market wages."

Corporate America, in fact, has been doing precious little "insulating" over recent years. Corporations have been depressing wages to fatten profit margins for decades now, and the pace of that depressing has only accelerated since the Great Recession hit, as new research from Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies details.

Corporate profits from mid-2009 through 2011's first quarter, this research notes, increased 39.6 percent. Over that same span, typical full-time U.S. workers have watched their paychecks drop 1 percent.

The Booz analysts want America's Joe the machinists to swallow ever lower paychecks to help their U.S. corporate employers "keep up with intense competition" from elsewhere in the world. Yet they demand no similar sacrifice from U.S. corporate executives.

That makes no sense, particularly for analysts who are arguing we must "narrow the gap" between exorbitant pay and actual "market value." U.S. CEOs currently take home far more than the global "market" rate for executive talent.

CEOs at companies with over $10 billion in annual revenue, The Wall Street Journal reported back in 2008, make twice as much in the United States as they do in Europe — and nine times more in the United States than they do in Japan.

Corporate America, in other words, needs some serious "labor cost retooling" at the top — before gutting pay for its most experienced and skilled workers at the bottom.

Parsecsam's comment:
If the media had been around in 1775, the Tea Party would have been labeled "an act of terrorism" and we would still be under British rule.