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.]
Saturday, March 20, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 01, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)