An “Indelicate” proposal of “Just Say NO.”

President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are trotting about the country touting a federal government policy that the goal of all public schools is to prepare students to be college and career ready. Toward this aim, substantial funds are directed to support beleaguered public schools if they buy into the Administration policies. Further, penalties and threats to deny or take away funding are brandished if schools do not embrace this policy.

To be clear, as a holder of undergraduate and advanced degrees, I am not in any way opposed to the pursuit of college and higher education. As a former school district board member and advisor, I am also well aware of the aspiration to provide students with the educational services best designed to help student maximize their intellectual development and curiosity. At the same time, my experience tells me that not every student is suited for or prepared for the demands of higher education at the time of graduation from high school. Keep in mind that the notion of immediate entry into university from high school has not always been the norm. So while I agree that public schools should strive to provide a foundation for each student who wishes to build an academic career, I am not in agreement with a federal policy that drives a system to force students into modes and paths for which they are indisposed, ill suited and ill prepared. But that is not the gravamen of this essay.

Recent reports suggest that the average undergraduate education in the United States now has a price tag of around $80,000. Some of that cost is covered in grants and scholarships but a substantial part is covered by loans and indebtedness. The average college graduate has at least $24,000 in remaining debt, and many have six figure obligations. In perspective, graduation from college mortgages the future of our youth more heavily than would purchase of a home. A mortgage on a home can be discharged in bankruptcy while a student loan cannot be discharged for the student or the parent who co-signs.

In an economy where a very large portion of graduates do not have jobs to go to that will enable them to pay these mountainous debts, the exhortation and federal pressure that pushes college education as the "norm" is a cruel hoax. Absent federal government allocation of funding and reform of predatory lending programs and practices, the Administration should rethink and rescind its policy. I am not suggesting abandonment of efforts to improve the quality of public school instruction. It is not the goal, but rather the methodology that is unsound. There is an old challenge from the streets: “put your money where your mouth is.” And the challenge applies to the federal government and its policy of college readiness.

Young people should not be forced into college at the expense of their future economic health simply to advance a slogan. Unless the college opportunity and experience is made economically viable, the policy lacks balance and coherence.

Of course this simply exposes the class division in the country. The wealthy have always been able to purchase college educations for their children. Unless demonstrably talented enough to merit large grants and scholarships, by white middle and upper class standards, poor and minority students have been denied equality of opportunity. The middle class has been under increasing pressure and attack, and these are the ones who suffer the ironic deception of graduating from college with a pile of debt in one hand and a useless resume in the other.

So the indelicate suggestion to the federal government should be to take the policy of “college readiness” for all students and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Until the same federal government is prepared to enact measures that provide reasonable financial support that makes a college education economically viable, it is guilty of the same type of irresponsible predatory tactics that induced home buyers and owners to take out unaffordable mortgages that led to the housing bubble and subsequent economic tragedy from which the country is still suffering. Pressuring youth with the message that a college education is essential when seeking such a degree can lead to financial indentured servitude or ruin is simply wrong.

One more point might be added. The “trickle down” theory does not work. One would imagine that wealthy business owners who depend upon a well educated workforce would act in their own self interest by providing endowments for colleges and universities with the tax breaks that are served up by Congress and the Administration. If the theory worked, talented students should have financial support available so that going to college would not result in a huge loan obligation. But the reality is not so. Employers could also offer to pay the equivalent of up to one year’s salary toward a new hire’s student loans for each position filled which requires at least an undergraduate degree, with a substantial tax deduction for doing so. Such a targeted proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy than extending tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% in the nation. It would also be a coherent strategy that would help make the policy of universal college readiness rational. But no such proposal is on the table or even being considered. So when the federal government comes knocking with demands to change public education programs to require college readiness for every student…..Just Say NO.

Wikileaks and the Big Bad Wolf

A good doctor seeks to determine and reduce or eliminate the cause, not just treat the symptoms.

Why is it that no on seems to consider the strategy that the US government should stop lying to its citizens and engaging in a policy that creates more terrorists and terrorism?

We are supposed to take as a "given" that the terrorist fear and hysteria is a "way of life." But it clearly has not always been so, even under the Reagan Administration, and he was the darling of the Right Wing. Bill Clinton warned of GWB's foreign policy ineptitude by saying that: "you cannot kill enemies as fast as you can make them, so it is better to try to make friends." Bush never listened and declared a "Crusade" against Islam and the Arab culture. To consolidate his domestic power, Bush sought the Patriot Act to take away civil liberties and create a climate of fear and hysteria. Obama has done little to change this climate, despite mild push back from the public in the form of objections to airport "security" measures.

I do not condone all that Wikileaks has done, but this is something [like the Pentagon Papers] that the government has brought upon itself. Everyone knows that diplomats make candid and derogatory comments about their counterparts. The list of critical sites could probably be developed by any college student with a computer and Google Earth, just like information about military installations of any country, so I think the reaction is deliberately overblown. For example, we know exactly where and at what pace North Korea and Iran are building facilities that may or may not contain work on nuclear projects. Is it reasonable to think that other countries do not know about US installations? seriously? But the volume of disclosure runs the risk of being indiscriminate and releasing a couple of things that could actually be damaging.

The government insists on a culture of deception and concealment of information the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. If national security were actually used as a claim or complaint when national security was really at issue, people would be more respectful of government claims. But knowing what books people check out at the local library is a long stretch from any legitimate claim of national security. So no one believes or respects the government complaints anymore. They have lied and cried wolf too many times in order to maintain a climate of fear about "terrorism." They can threaten to prosecute Wikileaks, but that will not alter the deep distrust that exists about government integrity and transparency. A wise man once said that trust cannot be obtained at the end of a barrel of a gun, it must be earned. Does the US government want to be just feared, or respected?

True journalism [whose duty is as a watchdog to keep the government honest] has died or been sold to corporate greed. The youth of today have abandoned "mainstream media" as a source of credible information. Sadly, no one respects the media [Fox, MSNBC, etc] as a source of credible information any longer. Weather reports, to the extent that one could ever rely on them, are about the only thing people take seriously at all anymore.

That opens the door to a form of citizen action or vigilante justice [depending upon your viewpoint] that is Wikileaks. Prosecuting Assange may give the appearance of control, from the storm trooper perspective, but it is just symptomatic treatment. It will only deepen the distrust and disrespect toward a government that lies to its people, and crushes anyone who threatens to expose the deceit.

Long Live Sanity!

The Rally to Restore Sanity was a much needed break from the negative, ad hominem and vitriolic discourse that has come to characterize US elections and politics. Held in Washington, DC and sponsored by Comedy central stars Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert, the rally was estimated to have drawn over 215,000. I am, of course chary of placing much credence on crowd estimates, but even with a huge margin of error it is fair to say that the crowd outnumbered the right wing pep fest hosted by Beck and Palin that drew about 85,000. Though the margin is still less than I would like, a representation that there is at least a 2:1 ratio of people who favor sanity and compassion to intolerance, suppression of civil or human rights and divisiveness is somewhat encouraging.

One need not search for the deeply profound in the humor inspired rally, other than the affirmation that there are still a lot of people in the US who have not totally lost their sense of humor. But we may consider some very apt quotes taken from the crowd that seem to express the sentiment that inspired the rally and that may represent a substantial feeling among average US citizens.

"It's the first time a message like this has resonated with me," said Jonathan Dugan, 37, a product engineer who flew from San Francisco to stand on the mall on a sunny fall afternoon. "We need to get people to talk to each other in a meaningful way."

With politicians seeking to attack their opponents on a personal level and claiming to state what “the people” want, without ever taking the time to consult the populace, it is a desire profoundly to be wished.

"I'm really concerned that we're not agreeing on anything," said Jean Mathisen, 63, who runs a seniors fraud-prevention program in Seattle. Reminded that the country was bitterly divided over Vietnam and civil rights during her youth, she said, "I felt that back then, at least a lot of people wanted to work together."

The GOP in the Senate voted unanimously to block virtually every initiative of the Obama Administration, and now chastises the administration for "failing to deliver” the promised change. Such is the hypocrisy that now colors the highest legislative body of the nation. And the Senate majority leader stated openly that he “wished that they could have obstructed more," as if that were possible. So it is no wonder that there are people in the country who are frustrated with the lack of action.

But what remains to be seen is whether they will be rational enough to recognize the reasons and the mechanics of the inertia and vote accordingly. One might speculate that the Democrats could have capitulated further in order to gain GOP support, but we must remember the statement from the GOP leadership that no proposal from the White House would gain GOP support. So such speculation would be futile.

“People,” as suggested by characters as diverse as Thomas Jefferson to P.T. Barnum to Elmer Gantry can be fooled almost all the time. So the media hype, backed by billions of dollars spent by anonymous entities on ad campaign attacks, will undoubtedly influence some beyond those who have stopped thinking and seek only to convince themselves of their preconceived convictions. They are unlikely to be persuaded, and will only get confused if you try to throw facts or intelligent arguments at them.

Yet the best thing that could happen to the country might be the awakening of the sleeping, and sometimes apathetic, middle group of people represented by the attendees of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Not consulted by any of the horse race and dog fight pollsters, this huge group has the power to speak with a loud voice to politicians and perhaps send a message that artful dodging and mindless intransigence are not acceptable. The message might be that the electorate demands better from its government. That would be the makings of a seismic political shift not seen since the War for Independence from Britain.

But maybe it is just wishful thinking…

Lessons from Arkansas

We are all, for better or for worse, teachers in what we do and fail to do. The impact of our pedagogy may be limited to our friends and immediate family; and it may possibly reach to other people, communities and to the world. And so Mr. Clint McCance, a commercial carpet cleaner from Midland, Arkansas has stepped to the lectern, perhaps unwittingly, to provide us all a lesson. Our task is to draw what we can of value from his teachings and see how they may help us make sense of an ever perplexing world. Mr. McCance also happened to hold elective office as the Vice President of the local school board, and so the concept of education should not be altogether foreign to him. This coincidence may seem ironic as we examine the wisdom which he apparently seems to be imparting.

McCance, an immigrant to the technology of the day like many of us, participates in social networking over the internet. Last week, he posted a message responding to a general call for people to wear the color purple in support of families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they were or were perceived to be gay and had been bullied. Several such cases have been made public in the recent past, and suicide prevention organizations tell us that only a fraction of all such cases reach public notice. Mr. McCance opined that all gay people, including children, should commit suicide and that would be the only event that would induce him to don purple. His vitriolic rant included numerous scurrilous references and offensive terms that need not be repeated here. McCance cloaked his commentary in a proclamation of his Christian faith and beliefs, suggesting that his views are examples of Christian values. But the tone was steeped in the vilest hatred one might see posted in any public sphere.

This screed was picked up by a former student of the school district and came to the attention of a wider public when communicated to a support group that serves gays and youth. The story quickly became viral as the words of McCance were transmitted across the internet at blazing speed that the medium permits. The school district promptly posted a disclaimer and condemned the statements of McCance and the hateful and bullying attitudes it expressed. Later, the State of Arkansas Education Commission posted an announcement stating that the comments were unacceptable and that they should not be associated with education or the State of Arkansas. It said that it had no direct authority to take action as McCance is an elected official. Apprised of the offensive rant, US Secretary of Education Duncan declared that an individual expressing such views has no business in a position supervising the education of children.

We turn now to what lessons McCance has to teach or that we might glean from events that his actions have sparked. First, and most obvious, must be the demonstration of the low level of public dialogue and the moral bankruptcy of debate that we seemed to have reached. Whether the commentary by McCance is the nadir can be hoped, but cannot be assured. His seemingly unprovoked outburst suggests that what we might want to consider as commonly accepted voluntary social filters on exercise of free speech in public debate may either be non-existent or seriously dysfunctional.

The ease and speed of internet communication provides wide access to a vehicle of public expression of ideas and opinions. At the same time, the ability to engage in such dialogue from the “cover” of one’s office or room does away with the face to face element that previously typified public debate. No longer does one feel compelled or constrained to consider the impact of one’s words on others who are exposed to the communication. Such consideration tended, in the past, to impose some social constraints and a measure of civility. That McCance is a publicly elected official is salient as well, in that the aforementioned filters in the past would cause such officials to consider the consequences of their action on the constituents that elected them, in addition to the social and political consequences for themselves personally.

The decline in civility is not confined to McCance. Politicians seeking national office suggesting that the answer to the problem of insuring those with pre-existing illness would be solved if those persons simply died quickly, and other politicians suggesting that if their views do not prevail that the alternative response should be the “Second Amendment” solution, a thinly veiled reference to taking up firearms in lieu of the electoral process. Another candidate seeking office requiring support and defense of the US Constitution apparently does not know what the founding document says, and another wants to do away with fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment. And so the comments by McCance, which he now acknowledges were “over the top” and “ignorant,” are not altogether aberrant in the context of current public dialogue. And so one lesson that we might take from the McCance lecture is that the costs of free speech in a democracy may be at time greater than we would like to consider or than we are comfortable with in what we might consider a “civilized” society.

The screed by McCance was not without repercussions. He reports receiving thousands of phone calls and emails mostly protesting and condemning his actions. He suggested that he felt compelled to send his family out of the State, based upon some unspecified threats. A social networking page was set up to denounce McCance and demand his resignation, a site generating support of over 60,000 in less than 72 hours. His business was identified so that the public could express its disapproval by submitting negative feedback to discourage potential customers. He was contacted by the head of an Arkansas suicide prevention organization to discuss and explain to McCance the terrible import of the suicide tragedies that he was promoting. Finally, he appeared on network television to publicly apologize and announce that he plans to resign his post as school board officer and member. While any threats to McCance and his family would be deplorable, such responses do suggest that the public can and will rise up to respond when the level of dialogue descends to a level that is too low. In other words, there still seems to remain “some” standard of civility below which the public generally will not accept without pushing back.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the hopeful lesson that may be gleaned from this episode is that a society still exists that seeks to maintain some minimal standards of common values and civility. There are still a substantial number of people who believe that, although a citizen has the right to express opinions in the exercise of free speech, but also believe that such personal views may disqualify the citizen for holding public office, particularly when the office is to specifically oversee the formation of children’s character in public education. It can be hoped that the viability of such a popular view, weak or hidden though it may be, can gain strength and that its voice can come forward.

Regardless of differing views along the political and social spectrum, perhaps we can regain some sense of decorum and civility in public dialogue. What calls for suppression is only the idea that one need not think before speaking, and that one need not consider the impact of one’s comments before a public rant. Not to ask for too much, perhaps we can hope that candidates for and holders of public office will treat the positions of public trust that they hold with greater respect. If they cannot respect the office and cannot make the effort to educate themselves regarding the responsibilities entailed by the position, they should withdraw or resign in favor of others willing to shoulder the burdens that go along with the prestige.

These are some lessons that we might derive from the thoughtless, hateful and intemperate outburst by an official charged with the duty to oversee the public education of impressionable children. Though he lives in a small town in Arkansas, and will no doubt soon fade from public notice, in this regard McCance has indeed provided a public service as educator.

Fare Well Senator Byrd

Senator Robert Byrd passed away this weekend and the passage merits acknowledgment. At the age of 92, Byrd was the longest serving senator in Congress. As such he has both seen and experienced the changes in US society and values that have transpired during his long years of service.

It is not without irony that Senator Byrd has been one of the strongest defenders of civil rights in the last decade. Yet it is Senator Byrd who teamed with Senator Strom Thurmond in 1964 to insert an amendment to cover discrimination against females into the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they believed that the amendment would kill the Civil Rights legislation completely. Now more than 35 years later, Senator Byrd would argue that some aspects of the legislation have not been forceful enough to remove vestiges of slavery based discrimination in US society, culture and business.

Racist tinged GOP strategies cloaked in pseudo-patriotic jargon, with the support and proxy help of extremist Tea Party zealots would roll the clock back and reduce or eliminate egalitarian and remedial measures that the government tries to impose to create a more participatory democracy and to encourage the growth of social justice. Sadly, as was recognized when the Civil rights Acts were passed, the protections provided by such legislation goes beyond race gender and religion to protect fundamental freedoms purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution. These freedoms have been seriously eroded in recent decades by a craven and fearful mentality that makes every neighbor a potential threat and every person who is not "alike" a potential enemy. Intolerance among cultures and ethnicities is rising to levels not seen since the days when the civil rights Acts were first passed. Psychological and political warfare between social classes is increasing and threatens to erupt into physical warfare if not checked.

The growth and evolution of Senator Byrd from a champion of racist and exclusionary policies into a true statesman who championed a pluralistic and participatory society in which every American citizen had at least the opportunity to participate according to his or her talents and willingness to work and sacrifice is a lesson to us all. People can change, and in the process of that change they can influence change toward a better society and a better tomorrow. In contrast to the current conventional wisdom that even the most honorable of men will fall to corruption and venal servitude to their own egos and powerful corporate lobbyists, Senator Byrd's example suggests that a man may indeed grow in character and respect for the true duties of his position while in the service of country in the US senate.

In addition, Senator Byrd's long years of service made him a procedural expert and strategist. Thus, he was able to give wise counsel not only on what should be done, but on how to steer legislation through Congress even against determined obstructionist

Yet for every transformation toward social justice, there arise multiple objectors and obstructionists who would revert to a discriminatory and exclusionary alternative in the name of "Conservatism." These defenders of privilege, including privileges that they themselves may not enjoy [yes, they are employed as proxies and stooges], in order to maintain an imbalance between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. They would defend the right of capitalist enterprises to destroy the environment in pursuit of profit without regard to the consequences for "we the people."

We can only hope, with bated breath, that some few members of Congress will recognize the true loss that the people and the country have sustained in the death of Senator Byrd. And with that realization, that a few will put aside their pettiness and egos in favor of a bona fide effort to be the public servants that the country and the people deserve.

How Stupid …. Part ???

Like the “Rocky” franchise, this saga of US government insanity seems to have innumerable sequels. The term “stupid” is used intentionally and advisedly. Ignorance is the lack of information or understanding. Stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant or choosing to ignore basic common sense and understanding and electing the irrational option. So the following example falls in the category of stupidity on the part of the US government by acting with knowledge and information in a manner that is both illogical and against the interests of the citizens of the USA. The alternative characterization is almost too cynical to consider, as discussed below.

Witness the recently released report regarding Pakistan funding and support of the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The report issued by the London School of Economics is based upon sources in Pakistan and present and former Taliban officials in Afghanistan. [See -http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e8f6f5c-76b4-11df-ba79-00144feabdc0.html] The report also confirms previous reports within the US military command that indicated belief of complicity by the Pakistan government with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Thus, it is fair to say that the US government had reason to believe Pakistani involvement and has further confirmation of that charge.

Her lies the stupidity. The US government spends billions of dollars in aid to prop up the Pakistani government. At least some of these funds are being used to supply intelligence, munitions and supplies to the Taliban to wage its insurgency in Afghanistan. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent by the US government to wage a fight against Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. These funds and the soldiers they support are being “expended” in a deadly war to prevent Taliban insurgency from taking control of Afghanistan. In simple terms, the US is funding a government effort by Pakistan to undermine and defeat the US mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban – waging a war against itself. Consider the role of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in firing top security officials in his government because they were too aggressive in their pursuit of Taliban leadership. The only beneficiaries of this lethal game of duplicity are the government officials in Islamabad and Kabul who are building multi-million dollar palaces with US government funding siphoned off through corruption and venality.

Pakistan has nuclear capability and is banking [literally] on the US unwillingness to withdraw financial support due to fear that the country might switch alliances. In reality, this is an empty threat because the alternative alliances could not and would not fund the corruption that currently exists. Karzai is playing a duplicitous role by taking US funding to defeat the Taliban while handicapping his subordinates who truly attempt to eliminate the Taliban capacity to threaten the government. Karzai relies upon support in Taliban controlled areas to stay in office. The Taliban see a sweet irony in taking US funding to wage a campaign to defeat a US backed effort to oust them from control of areas in Afghanistan and from seeking to take control of the Afghan government.

My grandfather used to tell me about a saying on the “street” regarding treatment of foolish attempts to get involved in a game that one does not understand and is not savvy enough to play. “Catch a sucker, bump his head!” The meaning is fairly clear in this case. Any street hustler would spot the game immediately, and Obama’s experience in Chicago community organizing should make him wise enough to spot it as well. The government “leadership” of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban in the supposed “conflict” are capitalizing on the ideological blindness and naivety of the US and bilking US taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars while also exploiting the people of Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of this military gamesmanship. The advantage that these hustlers have is that the game will never end as long as there is so-called “strategic” territory to fight over and people living in the area.

The Losers are the US taxpayers who are funding this scam with dollars that could be better spent alleviating the suffering caused by the Bush recession and reviving the struggling US economy. In addition, continued involvement in this game feeds Anti-US propaganda being used in the Islamic world to recruit extremists who in turn support non-religious criminal terrorism activities. There is virtually no way that continuation can be rationalized as in the long term interest of the US citizenry. The cynical view referenced above relates to the other potential beneficiary in this scam, weapons manufacturers. No matter what the political landscape may be, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex urge continuance because that means greater sales of more weapons to wage lethal conflict. Since the US government funding is actually supporting the purchase of weapons for the Taliban as well as the Afghan military, the weapons makers profit as long as the conflict continues. Isn’t that too cynical to be true?

The Feedback Loop

In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.

That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.

http://www.truthout.org/obamas-missing-moral-narrative59968

Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.

The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.

When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.

Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.

To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.

The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.

Politicians: Listen up! CAREFULLY

While the incoherent rants of the extremist Wing Nuts seem to capture the limited and warped attention span of the mainstream media, the voices of the populace seem to get little more attention than a cry in the wilderness. The proper role of the media is to inform the people and reflect the pulse and sentiment of the general public. Yet an increasingly corporate controlled and market driven media has all but eliminated the traditional line between the “newsroom” and the Board room. The responsibility of the former used to be objectivity and credibility, while the latter was motivated by profit. Just as a judge cannot function as a just and neutral arbiter of the law when there is an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, the news media cannot function in its proper role when the information it presents is developed and edited through the filter of corporate agendas with a primary goal of “infotainment” and is supported exclusively by unnamed and unidentified “anonymous” sources. This transition is of no small moment in a society where collusion, corruption and abuse of the official functions of government and commerce threaten permanent destruction of the ecosystem and the global economy. Democracy can only survive in the context of a reasonably informed and educated electorate. But when the nightmare of Orwell’s 1984 type of media is becoming more of a reality than fiction, the ability of the public to function independently and intelligently is undermined. Democracy is neither conquered by an “evil empire” nor threatened by “terrorists,” rather it simply rots from within.

Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]

The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.

In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?

Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:

Why? Because the government doesn't run things here; corporations do, and it wouldn't do to upset the capitalistic apple cart now, would it?! Just a bit of history; there has been thirty years of administrations, beginning with Reagan, that have downsized, defunded, and detoothed our regulatory departments whose job it is to watchdog industry on behalf of the citizens of this country. Next time they call for LESS government remember that that's what they intend to do. What they mean is: we will have money and you will have NO representation. Taxes come down, only for the wealthy, the military-industrial complex, and the corporations. Collection of wealth goes to the top 1% and wages for the lower and middle classes are stagnant.... oh and we get to pay the lion's share of taxes. We reap what apathy has sown.

BP will end up exonerated just like the financial Banksters, Our government is run by politicians who were raised by and with corporate interests. They will never see the harm to this country because they are too busy mining [sic] their own interests

.

"Why hasn't the government launched a criminal investigation into BP?"
Because our neoliberal President, who always favors, and kisses the ass of, Big Business, and promotes Corporate-Based Law Making -- measuring all things in market terms with neoliberal market lingo -- is in their pockets. He's one of them.

BP must be investigated, following whistleblower testimony that BP upper management gave the order for a highly risky series of events, despite advice to the contrary, that culminated in the explosion. If the government does not investigate BP for criminal negligence/recklessness, it is abrogating its responsibility to those who pay their salaries, the taxpayer, and we must get them out of office as fast as possible.

This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.

The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.

Education Has Clearly Failed Us

The push is on from US Congress and the Obama Administration to develop and implement “national standards” for academic competency and performance as a way to raise the quality of public education in the country. This initiative would presumably seek to establish a floor or minimum standard for what is deemed a "well educated person" in the country. Sometimes, however, well meaning policy initiatives expose embarrassing facts when run through the sausage mill of the legislative process. The education initiative is no exception.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has joined with leaders seeking $23 Billion in emergency funding from Congress. The funding is needed to avoid as many as 300,000 teacher layoffs as a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic recession. One might think that these distinguished members of Congress would recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of the educational system (i.e., teachers) if there is any hope of reaching the goal of implementing national performance standards. That conclusion is not exactly (pardon the expression) rocket science. Yet members of Congress appear to be balking in their support of the funding request. The reasons given are a need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the expenditure, and that such funding would be a “bailout” of education.

(Pause a moment for the laughter to subside.)

Now let us address reality for just a moment. The same Congress has authorized over $700 Billion in taxpayer funds to bail out financial institutions, and it looks like the public will never see even a small fraction of those dollars in tangible benefit. We are told that the expense was worth it because of the damage that might have occurred if the money had not been given away to huge banks and investment firms. The same Congress has authorized the expenditure of more than 50 times the amount requested for education to be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The experts may have been right in their speculation that failure to bail out the financial institutions might have worsened the economic collapse. The cost of such speculation was enormous, and the failure of those institutions to expand lending and increase flexibility in mortgage foreclosure as a result of the bailout – the payback the public was supposed to get from the decision to risk their tax dollars on the bank bailout- renders the wisdom of the bailout questionable at best. Yet it is a near certainty that failure to provide emergency funding relief to education: a) will damage the quality of instruction to the nation’s children, b) will have immediate negative impact on the functioning of the educational system by increasing class sizes significantly and c) will set the goal of raising performance toward national standards back several years. And the cost of a “risky” bailout of education amounts to the mere fraction of the interest that would be earned on the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. A person who cannot reason through such an alternative and conclude that the choice to support education in the short and long term interests of the country is a “no-brainer” may well be, in fact, a person lacking a functioning brain. Simple logic and the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of public service would demand immediate aid to education.

It is apparent that these Congressional representatives could not pass any proposed national education standards in math, economics, reading, history or social studies. This is even greater reason why Congress should hasten to support the request for emergency support to education. If our current system produces leadership of such caliber, there is cause for despair unless urgent measures are undertaken to improve the quality of instruction in the country. Imagine a new crop of leaders who are less educated than the current crop....

No More..No Less

Politicians, pundits and pusillanimous pontificators have all been pondering the next step in campaign finance in the USA electoral process. They puzzle the impact of the Roberts Court decision to allow corporation the same [or more] rights as natural persons in the arena of citizenship relating to the electoral process. Congress, the Supreme Court decreed, had placed unconstitutional constraints and burdens on the free speech rights of corporate citizens. Such restraints, the Court reasoned, are unfair and unjust when such limitations could not constitutionally be imposed upon natural persons.

Considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the electoral process, at least in any shape of form intended by the Founders, has obscured practical thinking. Suggestions have been made that a constitutional amendment is necessary to overturn the ruling. But that ignores the sad reality that the current Congress is so deadlocked that it could not even readily pass a simple measure to extend jobless benefits, making a so controversial a measure as a constitutional amendment little more than a pipe dream. Others suggest that Congress pass requirements that force greater disclosure of the origin and funding source of corporate poetical speech. That suggestion is far from a level playing field because corporations are so adept at the shell game. For example, the media is focusing attention on BP petroleum because of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while the BP executives accurately respond that neither the rig, the operation of the equipment that exploded nor the installation that was probably faulty was done by BP. All these tasks were done by various different contractors and sub-contractors. So much for tracking responsibility or transparency!

A humble suggestion is to focus not on limiting the corporations, but rather upon empowering the individual “natural” citizen. Corporations can and will undoubtedly spend billions of dollars on lobbying and political speech to influence elections; their contributions are deducted from their profits in the form of business expenses. This creates an actual “inequality” that effectively gives corporations greater rights than the natural citizen in the expression of political speech and participation in the electoral process. The more appropriate response is to pass legislation that equalizes this situation by giving individual taxpayers a deduction for every dollar that they expend on political speech or to make their views known in the political process. If I use my phone to discuss the election or candidate views, then part of my phone bill should be deductible. If I use my computer and the internet to comment or express my political view in favor or against a candidate or to address an issue subject to referendum, then part of those expenses must be made deductible as well. It goes, without saying, that every cent that I contribute to any candidate or political cause must be deductible from my taxable income.

Instead of worrying about giving corporations equal free speech rights as natural citizens, the Congress should be focused upon making sure that natural citizens have no less right to participate in the political process than do corporations under the Roberts Court ruling. Won’t that approach severely deplete the taxable revenue, you ask? Perhaps it would. But if that happened, it is only the necessary logical consequence of the decision and interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding citizenship under the US Constitution. Maybe the consequence of actually equalizing rights will demonstrate how absurd the reasoning and judgment of the Court was in the first place. It will not be the first time that the wisdom of experience has caused the Supreme Court to reverse itself. And the survival of the electoral process envisioned by the Founders requires…No more…No less.

A Pig With Lipstick

The pundits and politicians have responded with amazing alacrity to the negative public response to the Arizona Immigration Enforcement Act that frees local law enforcement officials to target, harass and arrest any person that they “suspect” may be an undocumented foreigner. Since the act of walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant is all that is required to entail potential felony liability, the State of Arizona has entrusted the determination of “probable cause” to the subjective judgment and prejudice of each local cop. The Governor, upon signing the law admitted that she had no idea how to fairly enforce the law or to constrain the ethnic biases of the police officers entrusted to apply it. Honestly, how many blond haired and blue eyed pale complexion people do you think will be detained? Given this sweeping detention authority and the inability of top State officials to explicate any rational assurance that it is even possible to enforce it in a Constitutional and non-discriminatory manner, it is logical that protesters would suggest that it would be prudent to avoid traveling in Arizona as long as the law is on the books. Now the politicians come forward to argue that a Boycott would be unfair and ineffective. They even argue that the Boycott would harm those it seeks to support. These arguments are both facile and false. They are akin to trying to “put lipstick on a pig.”

Those that argue that the Boycott would be counterproductive seek to deflect the core issue and stand it on its head. They argue that a Boycott would be “unfair” and (if you can believe it) “discriminatory.” For any rational person who seeks to avoid mistreatment and harassment, it would seem entirely fair and just to avoid a State which has endorsed an open license to harass individuals based upon skin color or any other predilection the police officer may use to justify “suspicion” of illegal status. If this were an action or policy of a single business or establishment, consumers and the public could simply avoid visiting the enterprise or using its products. But in the present case, the ENTIRE STATE of Arizona has adopted this odious policy and practice. If Arizona citizens believe that the consequence of the law their duly elected representative and Governor have approved, then the remedy they should seek is to communicate to those officials that they disapprove of the policy. But to cry foul to those who would be discriminatorily subjected to the law is absurd. Do not blame the victim. As the quote attributed to Edmund Burke says: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If you believe it is wrong, then fix it and stop squealing.

The argument that the Boycott would hurt Latinos because the shift of conventions and business away from Arizona will reduce employment in industries like hotels, restaurants and convention centers is even more misguided. This is indeed a twist of sophistry. First, we have to assume that the workers in those industries are legal employees and have the right to vote. If they are not, then it would be hypocrisy for Arizona not to be focused upon the employers who hire undocumented workers, rather than individuals on the street. Yet we know of the hypocrisy in Arizona of politicians who decry illegal immigrants while taking campaign contributions from businesses that profit from underpaying the illegals they employ. But more to the point, the victims of the law and the target of support the Boycott aims to support is virtually every citizen, and especially citizens who are of color. It is by no means clear or logical how advocating Boycott of a state that openly discriminates against brown skinned people would be against their interests, or the interests of all people who hold some genuine belief in equality and non-discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Former Presidential candidate, John McCain advances the argument that the issue of Arizona’s refusal to adopt a holiday for Martin Luther King, as virtually every other state had done, is different from the present situation and that a Boycott is unjustified. Let us set aside for a moment whether McCain was in favor of, or against, the King Holiday Boycott. Many who would try this argument are the same people who fervently opposed honoring the slain Civil Rights leader. The truth is that the issues are not, at the core, different. The State of Arizona has given voice and sinew to the underlying racial prejudice and ethnic bias held by the apparent majority of citizens and voters of that State. That was the message from the people of Arizona two decades ago, and it apparently has not changed despite the passage of time or even the national election of a President of color. McCain would distort the issue and claim that the Boycott is in support of illegal immigration status, as compared to a fallen hero who fought for justice and equality. While it is true that many supporters of the proposed Boycott would like to see due process and fair administration of justice applied to ALL, they do not advocate that immigration restrictions be abandoned. Those who support the Boycott want the same respect for all, regardless of the color of their skin, as did Dr. Martin Luther King. Any law that blatantly defies and violates that basic principle of humanity and social justice should be opposed. And it is the State of Arizona, the home of Sen. McCain that has adopted such a measure.

Finally, there is the question of impact. The politicians and the heads of tourism for Arizona are concerned that the Boycott relating to the King Holiday cost the city of Phoenix alone almost $200 Million. It took considerable time to recover that loss in revenue even after the State reversed course. That impact certainly affected jobs, and some such jobs were held by Latinos and people of color. Yet the facts tell us that Arizona has been experiencing a loss of workers for several years, since the inception of the public campaign against brown skinned people. One report cited concerns by Arizona manufacturing companies that were losing experienced craftsmen and supervisors, who happened to be Hispanic and had legal status, because those workers were moving to Nevada and other places to avoid racism. If the law is to be a permanent fixture instead of a public relations gimmick for political gain, then anyone living in Arizona should be able to plan their life and future around the social and political environment of that State. It would be foolish to think that the Arizona legislature will voluntarily repeal that measure, and the court system is slow and uncertain as a remedy. Indeed the current US Supreme Court seems to provide no great hope for relief in matters of racial and ethnic justice or due process for the individual against corporate driven political interests. So a shift of workers of color from the State of Arizona is a sad but logical and direct consequence of the legislative measure. The removal of professional sports franchises should, but will not likely, be another consequence of the measure. Many athletes, their friends, families and the multitude of fans that are of color do not deserve to be treated with disrespect. And it certainly is not beyond logic to assume that local police would try to use a sporting event that draws many thousands of people to a central location as a tool for conducting a “sweep” to detain and harass “suspected” undocumented persons. When is the last time you took your passport to a sporting event?

Just as the legislators who pushed for and adopted the law should have thought about the logical and inevitable consequences [short and long term] of enacting the law, the organizers of the Boycott should also assume and plan for short and long term impact. Contact with employers outside Arizona should be coordinated so that those areas can take advantage of the potential recruiting opportunity to lure experienced workers to their states and companies. Neighboring states like California, Nevada and New Mexico could benefit from a shift of investment and increase in production capability. While it may sound cynical, even bigots can benefit from the proposed Boycott. An exodus from the State would cause a further drop in the price of homes and make it easier for those who harbor the same prejudice as the supporters of the law to afford homes. Many experienced workers, from laborers to managers, would welcome the offer to move themselves and their families to a different state where the collective voice of the people has declared: “Show us your papers; we don’t want you here!”

Travel Advisory!

People of “a certain age” (myself included) remember when it was common knowledge that persons whose skin was darker than a very mild tan should take care in traveling in territories of the USA south of Nebraska or Maryland and in areas less populated than major cities. I personally recall traveling by car with my grandfather to Louisiana, to visit relatives, and having to sleep in the car because even third rate hotels and motels would not rent a room to two respectable and reasonably well dressed persons [one a child and the other a middle aged gentleman] driving a Cadillac. In the early 1960’s, this was considered “normal” social behavior for white folks and something to be accepted by people of color “or else.”

One would think that the sacrifice and struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the deaths of Rev. King, Bobby Kennedy, three little Black girls in Alabama and many others might have awakened a sense of morality and elevated social decency in the US populace at large. Some people rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, a person of color, as US President. They apparently believed that the election was a watershed moment in which the US had put behind the virulent racism that motivated social and political policies of the past. Much to their dismay, these optimists may be terribly wrong.

The State of Arizona has enacted an authoritarian, at best, [perhaps Nazi is more apt] system that enables and encourages police to stop and question any person who does not look “American” [substitute “Aryan”] to require that they prove their US citizenship. Anyone who actually believes that the Arizona police will be detaining white folks under the law is hopelessly naïve or simply self deluded. The so-called “probable cause” the Arizona cops will be looking for will be skin color and physical features that suggest Hispanic ethnicity. Virtually every published statement by Arizona authorities makes reference to “illegal aliens” and equates the term with Mexican or Hispanic origin. Now there are many US citizens who happen to be of Hispanic ancestry, just as there are of Asian, Eastern European and Southern European and just about every other background. So how do you profile a non-citizen on sight? An equally mystical question is how the State of Alabama plans to “train” its law enforcement officials to spot illegal immigrants, as opposed to simply targeting brown skinned folks who do not appear to be upper middle class.

One commentator provided cogent documentation and historical analysis that suggests that racism is only the tip of the cynical iceberg in official Arizona politics. The current Arizona governor, when Secretary of State, improperly kicked many thousands from the voter rolls; and a very substantial portion of those removed were persons with Hispanic surnames. Then when these people sought to re-register to vote, many experienced rejection of their application, despite ability to establish citizenship. This history suggests that the broader agenda is to intimidate and keep Hispanic citizens from voting. After all, who wants to be harassed by police, even when trying to exercise legitimate rights of citizenship? Now it is probably true that the right wing Gestapo-like tactics and the hate mongering by right wing fringers [egged on by GOP leaders and spokespersons] have not endeared the GOP to many Hispanic potential voters. So preventing them from voting probably favors GOP candidates. But at some point there needs to be a choice whether the US Constitution still means anything of substance, or whether it is simply cute wallpaper suitable for framing, but little else.

If the State of Arizona were honest and sincere about a legal measure to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants, it could have used existing laws to systematically inspect and monitor every business establishment that has employees. The existing law requires employers to check I-9 documentation respecting persons that are employed. In that circumstance, EVERY person of any race, religion or walk of life would be monitored to confirm legal status and authorization to work in the US. The penalty would properly fall upon companies that encourage and support illegal immigration.

But the business community that survives and thrives from the employment of non-documented immigrants has not and would not stand for such enforcement measures. It is easier and more profitable to support the racist blowhards and hate mongers while quietly employing illegal immigrants at substandard wages and disingenuously proclaiming “patriotism.” Green, after all, is the only color that they respect.

For now, however, anyone [non-Aryan] considering traveling to or even passing through Arizona should be forewarned. The summer brings tourist season and travel. There are 49 other US states in which a citizen is not required to produce a birth certificate or a passport to prove citizenship simply to walk on the sidewalk or drive a car. A prudent traveler would do very well to plan accordingly and avoid Arizona at all costs. The government of Mexico has already issued an advisory to its citizens that travel to Arizona should be avoided, and all other Latin American nations would do well to follow that prudent example. Indeed the US Department of State should issue a similar advisory to its own citizens inside the USA, as it does to citizens in other countries, to avoid trouble areas in which USA citizens may be subject to inconvenience and potential law enforcement harassment.

Link Posting- Tea Party / Black Tea?

My son graciously sent me the following posting that I think is important to share with you. I did not write it, Tim Wise wrote the piece. But it deserves to be forwarded, read, discussed an thought about as widely as possible.

It has been said that a greater threat to democracy than those who do evil, are those of good will who see and recognize evil and yet say nothing and do nothing. Wherever you are, speak out!


"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

The Skinny on Plus Size Advertising

It would seem to the objective observer that Media Network Management, ABC [Disney] and FOX in particular, have gotten so deep in denial that they simply cannot recognize truth, reality or reason. The latest flap comes over the refusal of the networks to air commercials for lingerie sold by Lane Bryant, the seller of “plus sized” clothing for women. The lingerie ads come at a time when the airwaves are inundated with sexually implicit and physically explicit ads hawking perfumes and intimate wear in advance of Mother’s Day consumerism. Lane Bryant accuses the networks of rejecting, demanding edits and delaying broadcast of ads because the Executives do not consider plus sized women to be appropriate images of “beauty” or “sexiness” that should be shown to the public. Network Executives deny the allegation and claim that they applied the same standards as to all other advertising.

Hold the phone! Do these network mavens not realize that anyone with an IQ above 50 can simply take a look at the Lane Bryant ads and the other fare currently being freely aired (for example the ads for J’Adore or Irresistible perfumes & Victoria Secret)? Even a moment’s viewing will expose the patent discrepancy and hypocrisy in the network’s claim. If the models are wafer thin, they are considered sexy and beautiful. But if the model is normal sized [let’s be honest, most women are not sized 0-4 like the Victoria Secret and perfume ad models], the exposure of the same sexy format is deemed too salacious or indecent to televise.

A couple of years ago, the fashion industry running the show in Barcelona attempted to back away from the destructive ideology of “women’s fashion” by requiring that exhibitors could not use models unless they had a body mass index that was not emaciated or anorexic. While this effort failed to gain industry acceptance around the globe, it was at least a clear admission of the unspoken strategy to make women feel insecure and inadequate with their normal weight and size. This recent action by the ABC and FOX network executives only completes the admission. Their message is simple: If you are thin, you can be beautiful, but If you wear a size 10 or up, the display of your body is not only unsexy, but indecent.

The ultimate question, however, is whether women of all shapes and sizes will recognize this insult and assault on their collective self esteem. Will women object to the double standard and discriminatory filtering on publicly aired television? Or will they meekly accept the “status quo” and self-deprecatory message that the networks are broadcasting? Will they declare their outrage over the mistreatment, covered up by outright lies and dissembling justifications? Or will they go buy more diet pills, cellulite reducing creams and spend more time in the gym trying to look like the skinny models they see on TV, but whose shape they will never attain? It was not always thus, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield and Raquel Welch were not size 2 women, and they were some of the most iconic beauties of their time.

Can we really blame the media for this destructive campaign if the women who are targeted by it quietly accept the mistreatment? After all, if the image and message sells products to women, it is doing its intended job. Whether or not it is moral or healthy matters little to profit oriented Executives when even the most deleterious actions actually work. As soon as women collectively decide not to accept this open and public denigration, the networks will have no choice but to change. I will be marching with them in protest, though they won’t need my help. For it is about women defining who they are and not what men want or how Ad Men would define them. And as to female Executives and apologists for the ABC and FOX [note how they cynically put women out front to explain and defend their actions], we can only say: “shame on you!”

The “Blind Side” and the Plebiscite

Both the movie going public and Hollywood seem to have embraced the recent picture starring Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side” but both seem to have failed to look beneath the surface to the more important lessons to be learned from the entertaining experience of the movie. In times of challenge and strife, the US public loves to embrace “feel good” movies that represent some of the better values to which the public might aspire. In the movie, a White suburban wife challenges her family to take in a young Black man, Michael Oher, who literally has no place else to go. The young man is able to reach his potential and the wealthy White family both learns and grows from the experience. Based upon a true events [with liberal Hollywood artistic license taken] the story is about, but ultimately transcends race. The heroine, played by Bullock neither loses sight of her humanity, nor is she willing to be bullied or persuaded by her peer group to ignore that humanity. One might argue that the hero is the young Black man who takes what life has given him and never really gives up a belief that something good will come of life, no matter how unlikely that may seem. And one may also argue that the true hero of the story is the young son of the family who befriends Michael Oher without artifice or guile and never seems to see race as an issue. Michael goes on to become a successful student and athlete who is ultimately drafted by the NFL and plays pro football.

But beneath the surface of the movie lie more significant messages and questions. If Michael had not been a rare physical specimen with athletic potential, would any of the Whites reached out to him to help a child survive and succeed in that society? Why was the Sandra Bullock character set in a wealthy suburb with a multimillion dollar home? Would any White private “Christian” school today really take a chance on a homeless and destitute Black child like Michael unless he had the likely potential to excel in sports? And most important, what does the movie say about the hundreds of thousands of young Black, Hispanic, Asian and White children in similar circumstances to those faced by Michael? Is the movie a representation of real hope in US society, or simply a cruel Hollywood hoax?

The reality in US society today seems quite different from the ethic depicted in the movie. Millions of children are homeless in the USA today and without their most basic needs of survival and care being met. Until passage of the recent Health Care Reform legislation, those children did not even have hope of access to basic medical care that they would likely need as a result of their destitution and living conditions. Yet instead of reaching out to those children, adults organized in unruly mobs to shout racial slurs and epithets at the legislators who voted to extend at least some measure of basic support to those children. The media pundits and prognosticators are treating such rabble as a “political movement” likely to challenge sitting Congressmen in the Fall 2010 elections, rather than as a small and insular group of mindless hooligans making fools of themselves. Some pundits tout the group as symbolic of the voice of the “average American.” Sandra Bullock, the star actress who won the Oscar for her portrayal of the wife who took in Michael, has no children of her own and is being challenged for not really being the “perfect wife” in the tabloids because of the infidelity of her husband. The media loves to tear down anything and the public appetite for such destruction seems endless.

Now it must be noted, in fairness, that the corporate control of media requires reservation before adopting its line as a true representation of the public spirit and the public will. The same media pundits seriously doubted that the US public would ever really vote to elect a non White President. The same media has spared no expense in attacking President Obama, perhaps in an effort to show that it was on the right side of the issue and the public should not have elected a Black or non White President. This media would claim that the average American is now gathering in the shadow of the Capitol to yell “Nigger” and “Faggot” at duly elected Congressmen going to vote in favor of legislation that would not only help millions of children like Michael Oher, but also provide benefits to these same protesters if they should happen to fall seriously ill or lose health insurance through their job. That conduct is a far cry from the selfless humanity portrayed by Bullock in the movie, and it does not even approach enlightened self interest – the American value supposed to undergird the democratic process.

The real question and the true plebiscite presented for the Fall elections is whether the media and the pundits are correct in proclaiming that the Tea Party and protesters like those who gathered on the Capitol, and the 14 Attorneys General who have sued to overturn the law actually do represent the current spirit and character of the “American People.” Each voter should ask him or herself, when entering the voting booth, whether their personal values, ethics and character are better represented by the family in “The Blind Side” movie or by the group of mean spirited and hate filled hooligans who gathered outside the Capitol. Would you rather be like the Sandra Bullock character or like Sarah Palin? Given what is at stake in the recovery of the country, economically and morally, this is no simple Hollywood poll.

It may prove true that “Average Americans” have become a mean spirited and hate filled mob that is more interested in being against something than in favor of anything representing the common welfare, for that is the rhetoric and agenda of the Tea Party and the leadership it appears to follow, even to the point of speeches advocating armed violence against elected officials who disagree with them. This is becoming a question that defines a divided Nation in which major social legislation must be passed without a single vote of bipartisan support. It has been said in times of prior division and heated public discourse in the USA that: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Which of these two visions does the American voting public truly hold? The question goes to the very heart of what the United States of American really is at present and whether it ever hopes to return to the values of fairness, opportunity and justice upon which it proclaimed freedom and strove to be a beacon of liberty.

Through The Looking Glass Darkly

Looking in the mirror can sometimes be a painful act. For those with courage, a pause at the looking glass provides a vision of public discourse in the United States and what divisive Right Wing politics hath wrought. As elected representatives of the US Congress tried to cross streets of Capitol Hill to their offices, the following scenes unfolded.

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred."It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn't frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. "He said it reminded him of another time."

Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said a protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is black. Clyburn, who led fellow black students in integrating South Carolina's public facilities a half century ago, called the behavior "absolutely shocking." "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus," Clyburn told reporters.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said protesters shouted "abusive things" to him as he walked from the Longworth building to the Rayburn building. "

Whether this type of activity is rejected or actually supported by the unified GOP leadership and caucus who have been rallying this type of constituency in opposition to Health Care Reform legislation is evidenced by the fact that the news report yielded not one statement of condemnation by the GOP leaders. In their eyes, this must seem like fair minded public debate, despite the fact that some of the overt actions by the crowd may border on hate crimes under existing legislation. The police apparently contained the boisterous crowd and used restraint in dealing with the more aggressive protesters.

While race and affectional preference have absolutely nothing to do with the substantive elements of the proposed legislation, the resort to hateful personal attacks on the legislators based upon race and sexual preference show the low minded and desperate nature of the protesters. It also suggests the emptiness of their arguments in opposition to the legislation. The opposition, grounded primarily upon resistance to ANY progressive legislation proposed by President Obama, has caused a regression in the character and quality of public discourse to a time reminiscent of the Pre-Civil Rights era. It exposes the dark and ugly underbelly of the Republican Party and its agenda. Whether such racist attitudes lie at the core of the GOP agenda, or if the GOP simply sees fit to stoop to the low level of using these sordid mobs as surrogates, the result makes little difference.

The state of affairs is indeed deplorable when major legislation that affects the fundamental well being of millions of US citizens and is focused upon the question of the role of the federal government as an active agent in attempting to address the common welfare faces a stone wall of opposition from GOP legislators. The fact that not a single GOP legislator is willing to exercise free will and the courage to support the legislation on its merits suggests that the GOP has abandoned any guise of acting as responsible representatives in the best interests of the public. If this were a true philosophical debate, there would be a plurality of positions in the GOP caucus, with the majority lining up in opposition. But unequivocal resistance and blind opposition strongly suggest that the vote turns on an agenda other than the merits of health care reform.

It is indeed a sad commentary that both parties have allowed the country to sink so low. Whether the country can ever again return to a level of debate and public service ethics, when representatives were more interested in the common good derived from fair and open minded debate than in the status of their campaign treasuries and relations with lobbyists who would stuff those accounts with cash, is a question that the clouded mirror does not allow us to see. But what is certain is that the current corrupt and morally depleted system will likely continue until the electorate demands better. Yet it will certainly take a more intelligent and more civil electorate that those protesting at the Capitol to bring about such improvements.

[Footnote: GOP leader, Rep Boehner, today -Sunday Mar. 21- effectively endorsed the tactics of the racist mobs on Capitol Hill claiming that they represented confirmation of his party's conviction that "the people" of the US do not want Health care reform legislation to pass.]

Throwing The Bath Out With The Baby.

The current negotiations with so-called Conservative Democrats to get sufficient votes to pass the Health Care reform legislation reminds one of the verity of the following adage: “There are two things you do not want to watch being made, sausage and legislation.” The process is ugly and we would rather not be exposed to the ugly and sometime disgusting steps in the process.

Rep. Stupak is apparently trying to hold the legislation and potential health care benefits for millions of US citizens hostage over language that MIGHT allow some insured to obtain a pregnancy termination procedure that is covered or partly covered by insurance premiums that MAY OR MAY NOT be subsidized by federal funds. As such, Stupak’s position is not about principles, not about health and welfare of his constituents or the public and not really even about abortion. First of all EXISTING US policy prevents the expenditure of federal funds for abortion procedures, so the posturing by Stupak is unnecessary. The Catholic Church, which opposes abortion on doctrinal or dogmatic grounds, has not declared opposition to legislation that will insure 30 million more people and save millions of lives.


His position is simply about public posturing on a controversial issue to bring attention to himself. The patients who may get federal support for a medical procedure that should be a personal choice will be denied that option if Stupak is successful. At the same time, the clumsy nature of legislation will also deprive many women of health care whether or not they arrive at the decision to seek to terminate a pregnancy, by choice or of necessity. To comply with the type of restrictions Stupak is demanding, insurance companies will be required to impose blanket exclusions for pregnancy related care. Health care providers fearing sanctions or loss of reimbursement will decline to see or treat women at the prenatal stage in order to assure that they do not get involved in a pregnancy termination. Arguments that the providers could review procedure records after the fact and then deny reimbursement are naïve and unrealistic. Stupak is seeking not only to deny funding, but to insure that no pregnancy termination procedures occur under the aegis of federally subsidized insurance coverage.

The problem with these tactics and grandstanding is that such measures have never had any real impact on the availability or performance of abortion procedures. Nor have they even attempted to address the social and medical issues that lead up to a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion. Let us set aside the very real question whether including the types of provisions that Stupak seeks are unconstitutional attempts to “establish religion” through federal statutes. The more practical question is why the entire legislation should be held hostage to the inclusion of language that is ineffectual even for the purported reason it is advanced. Millions of children will be denied preventive as well as remedial health care because Stupak wants to make a personal political statement. That makes no sense, logically, ethically, politically or morally. Were his objections based upon the cost of the legislation, that it fails to contain measures that would effectively deliver what it promises, or even that the government should not be in the business of providing health insurance subsidies his opposition could be rationalized as legislative discretion. But holding legislation hostage over a point that will not be achieved even if his demands are met is irresponsible.

The greater question is why the Democratic leadership feels the need to negotiate with this type of political or legislative terrorist? The label may seem harsh, but what else would you call someone who seeks deliberately to cause the death and denial of necessary health services to millions of innocent people simply to make a political statement? Other Representatives who either support the right of women to make personal decisions about medical procedures with the aid of their physicians, and others who recognize that the demands of Stupak are pointless from a practical standpoint, ought simply to say that THEY will oppose the legislation IF the Stupak demands are appeased. They should also state quite clearly that the reason for their position and the potential failure of the legislation must be laid directly at the feet of Stupak. If this Representative thinks he is playing to his constituency, then let him explain why the majority of them lack health care insurance because of his grandstanding and ego.

Dear Mr. President: Educate Yourself

In several recent articles, President Obama has been reported to offer tough talk about his plans for the reauthorization of NCLB [No Child Left Behind] legislation. That law, a holdover from prior administrations and corrupted by the Bush regime, purports to hold schools accountable for raising the academic competence and performance of students. However well-intended the law may have been initially, it has generally been proven a failure in meeting the desired goals. Illogical provisions that punish and remove funding from schools that are not performing well, often because of a lack of funding in the first place, are hallmarks of the law. Now Obama states that he plans to raise the performance standards by requiring states to sign on to an agreement to establish and implement “college readiness” curricula in the schools.

To his credit, the Obama Administration has taken steps toward the carrot rather than the stick approach to gaining support and cooperation at the state and local level. Rather than threatening to take over control of under performing school districts, as Bush had done, Obama places the responsibility on the school districts and states to adopt reforms in exchange for funding incentives. No reform, no additional funding. But states that adopt new measures, embrace greater flexibility and charter schools can receive significant help from the Federal government to help implement those reforms. This can be a bit illusory in a context of a failing economy that has stretched education budgets so thin that accepting reform is a survival imperative rather than a progressive option.

But Obama’s call to require all states to adopt curricula that prepare students for college and careers may suffer from an elitist fallacy. The idyllic “American Dream” may look like sending the kids to college to become doctors and lawyers, a house in the suburbs and 2.5 children. To be sure, an education that prepares students capable of and who seek that path should be available. The reality, however, is that not all students are suited to or desire college education. A crude analogy is played out in the US medical system. Currently, there are too many surgeons and specialists and not enough General Practitioners and primary care physicians. The point is that gearing a system that trains every student to be a career professional is neither necessary nor necessarily a wise application of resources.

I am not suggesting that the curriculum be “dumbed down” or should be let off the hook in any way. At minimum every school system must prepare every one of its students with a comprehensive set of basic skills to function in society productively and in a self sustaining manner. No less effort is worthy of such a great nation as a responsibility and goal for its people. But in the process of “raising the sights,” our aim at the appropriate target has been lost and damage may ensue. If we state that going to college is the minimum requirement, then do we not also implicitly declare that any student who is not college ready is a failure? While technology is advancing at a rapid pace, there are still jobs and occupations that are very respectable and capable of sustaining families that do not require a college degree. As a K-12 teacher, I strive to maximize the potential and dreams of each and every student I am entrusted with. But not every one of my students aspires to or performs at the academic level to be successful in a liberal arts or technical college. I am loath to label these students a failure.

Perhaps this is simply a matter of semantics, but I don’t think so. For Presidential decrees and initiatives carry a heavy pressure. When former President Kennedy announced a fitness initiative, millions of US citizens took to the jogging path and bicycles. In addition, huge industries of “natural foods” products, diet pills and weight control programs were spawned. And the public began to develop an antipathy for people who were not deemed “fit.” People who were overweight though no fault of their own were discriminated against. Fashion turned even more toward anorexic models with the resulting damage to the psyches of millions of young women. So I would be reluctant to pass this off as mere semantics.

The pendulum swings back and forth. A capitalist education that was designed to simply prepare students to work in factories is hopefully a thing of the past. The age of technology has shown the way to developing students that are capable of nearly incredible new discoveries. However, in a modern society there must be room for a democratic education that leaves room and supports [not simply tolerates] persons who either lack the academic acumen or the honest desire to pursue a professional career. Those who do seek that path to higher education must be encouraged and supported. But those who do not should not be condemned or labeled as failures.

We are also learning more and more about emotional and intellectual development. More and more people are “late bloomers” who return to the educational system with a purpose and a vengeance to develop their skills and competencies. It seems wrong to impose upon them the handicap of having to overcome a stigma of being labeled a failure because they did not have the desire, vision or readiness to enter college right after high school. Mr. President, I know that it is difficult for someone whose life has been marked by an insatiable drive for self-improvement and high achievement to envision the aspirations of someone who really dreams to become a fine auto mechanic or perhaps a plumber or metalworker. Those jobs may conceivably disappear or be overtaken by technology, but it is unlikely that this will happen completely for several generations. If a student wants to pursue such a path and does not need academic performance at a level that would garner college admission, why would you want to crush that student with the stigma of failing to meet your standards?