Self-Centered Society and "Me-Itis"

To read the news today gives so many examples of the degree to which self-centered delusion, egotism and avoidance of personal responsibility has risen in society. The most obvious example, of course is the gun rights fanatics who hold the distorted view that their “personal” right to own semi-automatic weapons trumps any societal need to improve public safety and prevent gun violence resulting in mass murders. Not content with merely the right to own basic firearms for sport hunting and the deluded notion of home protection [studies have long shown that far more gun related injuries and deaths occur as a result of accidents and domestic disputes than from encounters with home intruders] these “guns rights” advocates demand open access to semi-automatic weapons whose sole purpose is rapid and multiple human death and mayhem.

Certain types of speech can be regulated, births require the parent to sign a certificate to register responsibility and the right to vote or drive a vehicle have some measure of regulation attached for the public good. Is it not arrogance and hubris to contend that the public welfare cannot demand that certain weapons be banned and that ALL purchases and sales of weapons and ammunition be recorded to a person to whom responsibility would attach?

A current article about what to do if one is “unfairly terminated from employment” spoke only about recourse of attacking the employer for a variety of reason and placing blame for the event upon someone other than the employee himself or herself. No doubt, some employers do discriminate and terminate employees unjustly. But “justice” requires looking at all the facts and circumstances. Nowhere in the “advice” article was there an admonition to FIRST take a hard look at the employee’s own performance, late arrivals at work, failure to follow company procedures, altercations with supervisors or fellow workers, failure to meet standards of performance set for the department or work group. The attitude is to sue the employer for wrongdoing, sue the lawyer if he or she does not obtain revenge against the employer – in short, lay blame to anyone and everyone OTHER than the most likely source of the problem. This self-centered and delusional myopia is a sad commentary of today’s society.

Arizona landowners complain that the federal government is not doing enough to secure their land from smugglers. They purchased land right on the border, where there have been illegal crossings for many decades, and now cry foul that the “government” is not protecting their property. These same individuals rant that the government should not impose any additional taxes to support revenue to PAY for these demanded and individualized services. They also rail about “small government” and that the government should keep out of state and local affairs. Integrity would suggest that they use the ingenuity they profess to find a local solution OR that they offer to pay additional taxes to support additional government services. Instead, they demand what they want for themselves and that someone else should be responsible for providing them. Of course, if they are seriously concerned about safety, they could always use personal initiative and responsibility to just move away from the border and avoid personal involvement in the problem.

 I recall, as Chairman of a public school district Board of Education years ago, having to deal with irate homeowners who built new houses next to the site of a major high school complex, and then complained that “someone” had to do something about the bright lights from the football stadium on game days. No one forced them to build or buy a home so near the stadium if the light would be a concern. This kind of self-centered myopia is nothing new. However, it seems to have gotten more widespread, more damaging to the fabric of society and more deadly.

Government "At" the People, instead of Government "of" the People

For those attuned to teach and discuss gender studies, several weeks could be productively spent deconstructing and exploring the implications of the “Super Bill [HB5711]” passed by the lame duck and vindictive Michigan legislature the day after passage of so-called “Right to Work” law. The GOP controlled legislature was stripped of its majority in the election, but has chosen to strike back at the electorate by passage of extreme and mean spirited laws that will need to be undone, if possible in subsequent years. The “Super Bill” attacks women, and particularly women in working and poorer classes in three main ways. First, consider that ending unplanned pregnancies is a more crucial decision for women of limited means who are struggling to support themselves and children they may already have. The law would prohibit private insurers licensed in the state to offer coverage for pregnancy termination services. Next, the bill allows employers to exclude contraception and birth control from coverage.

Cynically, this could lead to more unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, the termination of which would be most difficult and expensive under the new law. In addition, the law imposes regulations on health care providers that offer abortion services that will likely cause many to end such services, making those services less accessible even for the women who can find the money for them. There are also restrictions on advertising pregnancy termination services so that public information will be restricted. Nothing in the bill addresses enforcement of paternity obligations or seeks to balance the burdens of the legislation from the shoulders of women toward the men who father the children of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. It is hard to believe that we are approaching 2013, and yet such retrograde social legislation is moving more than 60 years in into the past.

French Lesson?

An egocentric and xenophobic mainstream of thought in the United States these days seems reluctant to believe that anything of value can be learned from any other country or culture. History tells us otherwise and that an intelligent person seeks out the experience and wisdom of many ideas and systems of logic to inform sound judgment. The United States, in early states of the national political race for control of the White House and both houses of Congress, is embroiled in a divisive struggle over solutions to the crippling recession brought on by unwise and inept policies of the prior Bush Administration. These wealth shifting strategies of lowering tax revenue, increasing subsidies to the wealthy, deregulation of banking and finance industries and at the same time involving the nation in costly foreign military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in economic collapse and the worst recession since the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. As the nation and the economy struggles to recover from that setback, debate centers upon whether to employ a strategy of austerity and frugality or to embark on a strategy of targeted economic stimulus spending to jumpstart the economic recovery. The presidential election in France currently under way involves a very similar debate. The current president Sarkozy has aligned with German leader Merkel to develop a Eurozone plan that is based upon restraint on government spending and deficit reduction. Rather tight control measures are demanded of all members of the European Union as a precondition to international banking and economic reserves. Contender, and current favorite in French polls, Hollande is labeled a “Socialist” and advances a strategy of government stimulus spending to promote job growth and economic activity as a response to France’s current economic doldrums. The approach of Sarkozy and Merkel was in a limited way successful when applied to the Greek economy, which has adopted painful austerity measures, but has succeeded in raising its national credit rating. It is one thing to propose such draconian measures for a desperate country that really had no alternative if it was to survive as a member of the European community. It is far different to extend that same strategy to one’s own country, which is at risk but not to the degree that Greece was. The Greek culture is a bit different as well. There is a deep seated custom of not paying individual taxes and even evasion of taxes by small business. Therefore, the national social program expenditures were built upon a model that created expectation by the public of jobs and services while there was no corresponding ethic of members of the public having to sacrifice for the government largesse by paying their share of taxes. Under those conditions, the refusal of the European Union reserve funds to extend financial help without drastic measures to provide assurances of reform seems logical. The same conditions do not exist to that degree in France. Accordingly, such austerity measures advanced by Sarkozy as prophylactic measures are more closely aligned with a strategy of retaining wealth among an elite group. In contrast, Hollande looks to history that suggests that virtually every successful recovery from a deep economic recession has come from one of two sources: war or stimulus spending. War imposes discipline and increases productivity through huge government spending on war materiale and support. This is a form of government stimulus spending, but it is typically unchallenged because it is cloaked in a patriotic mantle to which even those conservatives who champion austerity cleave. Absent war, other economic recoveries have come through government stimulus spending on public projects that infuse money into the economy and create jobs to produce those public interest and infrastructure projects. The multiplier effect stimulates economic expansion and growth which results in subsequent tax revenue increases that reduce the deficits generated to provide the stimulus. It is a risk based strategy, but a risk based upon belief in a future of the national economy. A strategy that is based upon greater emphasis toward the international economy than upon the nation itself as a participant in that economy is a salient distinction. Leaders like Sarkozy and Romney are in control of enormous wealth and realize that they will not really suffer if the economy of their own nation stagnates. Their personal wealth may not increase as rapidly, but it will not be seriously threatened because they can move that wealth to anywhere in the world where they see economic activity and growth. Only a global recession troubles their strategy. But they advocate measures that look to favor international interests and multinational corporate wealth over national economy and local prosperity or poverty. The current backlash in France suggests that Hollande has greater support of the populace because his strategy is more concerned with the local interests of the French people. They are aware of and concerned about the Eurozone, but believe that if France starves while aspiring to an ideal of a stable European union; it will be of no real consequence. They believe that reasonable and targeted aggressive public spending to stimulate a French economy will ultimately create a more robust participant in that European community.

Democrats need to remember: “Don’t sweat the small stuff!”

The GOP attempts to shore up the glaring faults of their candidate Mitt Romney are prime examples of how the GOP is very clever at coming up with trivial slogans, but unable to develop credible and substantive ideas. Witness the current controversy about “the war on women” that seeks to exploit a comment by an Obama consultant that “Ann Romney never worked a day in her life.” This errant comment is seized upon by the GOP as a supposed attack on the right of women to choose to be “stay at home” moms. A spokeswoman for the GOP says that there is no war on women but that Democrats are waging a war on “reality.” The Obama campaign has this been obliged to respond by disavowing the comment, at least as it has been interpreted.

All of this is a tempest in a teapot. GOP claims that Democrats are out of touch with reality are belied by the many all too concrete examples of GOP inspired and passed legal measures that attack and undermine women’s reproductive choice, access to health care, education of children and attacks on teacher employment. A recent initiative in Wisconsin seeks to undermine rights of women to sue for wage discrimination based upon gender. In the teacher employment example, women make up the large majority of women and teaching at the K-12 level is unfortunately viewed stereotypically as a “women’s profession.” So an attack on teacher job security is a surrogate for attacks on women. Other listed issues are more feminist than exclusively female in that concern for the well-being of children and their education above corporate profits and power struggles based upon masculine normativity are feminist issues. In short, the GOP can claim that Democrats are out of touch with reality, but they cannot hide the actual damage the GOP is doing to the rights and liberties of women.

Hypocrisy is nothing new to the GOP, however. The attack on contraception is a prime example. Yes, the Catholic religion “officially” forbids contraception despite more than 80% of women Catholics who disapprove and disregard the edict. But in the US, freedom of religion permits a woman who rejects such paternalistic dogma to walk away. In contrast, a general law that prohibits contraception or criminalizes abortion circumvents freedom of religion and conscience and dictates choices women may have regardless of their beliefs. On one hand, the GOP decries government intrusion, and at the same time it promotes and enacts measures that invade the most private aspects of a person’s life.

It would be easy to get bogged down in minutiae, but the Democrats have real work to do. The REAL substance of the Ann Romney comment is not about her equivocal choice to be a stay at home mom. It is that her lifestyle has so far removed her from the real challenges facing the average American family that she cannot credibly speak as a leader or even an enlightened representative to the daily issues that affect most women. Hiring nannies and chefs may be challenging, but it has little resonance with the struggles of millions of women and families trying to just put decent meals on the table and access to decent health care. These are issues that Ann Romney knows nothing about except in some very abstract way. The issue is not "mommy wars" but rather "class wars" that wealthy elite like Romney are inflicting upon the poor and middle classes. The same theme is applicable regarding Mitt Romney and unemployment. A man who made a vast fortune dismantling and cannibalizing companies, and throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the process, is probably not the best qualified person to lead in the area of promoting the interests of the millions of unemployed. He can, however, represent the interests of non-working shareholders whose only concern is increasing profit whether at the expense of destitute families or not. Romney has outspent his opponents 4 to 1 in order to attain the position of GOP candidate. Does anyone believe that he will trun away from holding the interests of the wealthy elite as his prime objective if he were elected?

And so the Democrats should not allow their attention to be distracted from the core issues of the economy, jobs, health care and education. These are the issues that really matter to most people. Seriously harmful but wacky legislation that would force doctors to effectively rape a woman seeking medical assistance for an unwanted or even coerced pregnancy can be repealed and undone if the GOP majorities in those states are defeated. But their defeat will not come about by engaging in trivial squabbles. It will only happen when people begin to realize that ideological demagoguery about “freedom” and “democracy” paired with measures that restrict liberty and destroy individual rights and voices is a cynical game. The object of the game is to shift wealth up to the 1% and shift all risk and burdens downward upon the non-wealthy. If focus is kept on the big issues instead of sweating the small stuff, there is a possibility for the nation to become great again. Quibbling over slogans and playing the GOP games of denial and dissembling will only further erode the potential for success and meaningful lives for the great majority of Americans.

Justice for Trayvon Martin

I would never suggest a rush to judgment or presume conviction before the evidence has been put forward. The justice system should be allowed to work as prescribed, and that is precisely what the parents of Trayvon Martin are asking. And yet the process cannot work its way through if it is short circuited at the inception. Context is important as well. In a state judicial system that found Casey Anthony not responsible for the death of her toddler daughter, it is fair to at least consider that a different standard of respect for human life may apply in Florida. The so-called “Stand Your Ground” law has been implicated, but it seems odd under the circumstances.

If we look at facts available to date, and circumstantial evidence is relevant, Zimmerman was acting as a self-appointed vigilante. Neighborhood Watch members state that genuine participants are not supposed to carry weapons or to approach people deemed "suspicious" and instead are instructed to simply call police and let them handle situations that arise. Zimmerman made a 911 call in which he stated [recorded] that the teenager looked suspicious because he was “black.” There was no description of any illegal or even questionable activity on the part of the teenager, other that in Zimmerman's mind a black person did not belong where he was. Based on information Zimmerman gave police, he was expressly advised that he had no need to approach Martin. A reasonable person would have waited for the police. We know from the phone call Martin had with his girlfriend at that moment that he was scared about being followed and was heading home. We know that Zimmerman, who is well over 200 pounds, approached Martin, and unarmed Martin was shot dead. Witnesses say he made no effort to help Martin or call for help. It strains credulity to twist these facts into a “self-defense” plea, but such pleas are commonplace as an initial step in the process. The potential of a charge for hate crime warrants careful consideration. It is suggested that because Zimmerman’s mother is Latina that he somehow is immune to bigotry, but his actions indicate otherwise. The important fact is not who his mother is, but what Zimmerman actually did.

What is most curious is that Zimmerman was not even charged with manslaughter [accidental killing], the very least that one would expect when evidence indicates he deliberately approached the victim while armed and then shot the victim. All of the media noise in which Zimmerman’s counsel is claiming that “some of his best friends are colored people” is really irrelevant to the central question of justice. They may be character evidence regarding intent in a trial for murder. However, such information is of no consequence, or should not be, in the decisions whether to charge Zimmerman for criminal assault resulting in death. There is no conceivable way in which the evidence could be interpreted to suggest that the encounter between Zimmerman was accidental, or initiated by anyone other than Zimmerman. There seems even clearer evidence that the system of justice in Florida is flawed, at least for one young black teenager, who is no more.

Lipstick on a Pig, Once Again

Gov. Bentley showed up at a rally in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Montgomery on Monday and gave a short speech in which he urged the audience to “be like King.” One has to question, by the way, whether this is a case for advice of “be careful what you wish for” because there are a number of serious issues in the state of Alabama that would motivate Dr. King to renew mass protest and civil protest against social and economic injustice. That aside, the appearance by the Governor would seem more superficial, a “PR move,” than a sincere effort to bridge the racial divide in the state and country. Let us examine some of the disjuncture between word and deed.

“As we meet the difficulties, let’s continue Dr. King’s message to be brothers and sisters,” said Bentley, who attended a unity breakfast earlier in the day in Huntsville.

This is a current statement from a Governor who stated upon his inauguration that, unless a person was a “born again Christian,” the person could not be deemed one of Bentley’s “brothers.” Was Bentley backing off from his religious intolerance? Was he contradicting himself in calling upon everyone to adopt his fundamentalist dogma? Certainly Dr. King would never have imposed such a limitation upon the concept of brotherhood, and so there are few who are so “unlike” King than Gov. Bentley appears to be in word and deed.

Take as another example the Alabama “immigration” law championed by Bentley that has promoted Alabama to the forefront of overt ethnic bigotry by targeting Hispanics. The fallacy and deception behind the law - the arguments that it was necessary to protect jobs and reduce unemployment, to eliminate economic burdens caused by social welfare to illegal immigrants or criminal suppression of "undesirable elements" - have all been thoroughly debunked. That has left the state with serious problems and loss of revenue because of the number of Hispanics (including many legal citizens) that have left the hostile environment of the state, as would any rational person. Agricultural and food processing companies have lost crops and have had to curtail operations due to the unavailability of workers. The recovery from the April 27 tornado has reportedly been delayed because many of the Hispanic laborers who were skilled in construction and roofing have departed. Contract jobs are not scheduled and completed as quickly as they might previously have been done because skilled workers were unavailable to fill the job vacancies. School officials had to publicly beg Hispanic parents to allow their children to come back to school in light of the hostile atmosphere and persecution promoted by the legislation. Bentley defends the law as a “states’ rights” issue, an argument traditionally used to defend state sponsored racism and discrimination going back to the Civil War and through the Civil Rights Movement.

Again it is inconceivable that Dr. King would have supported such measures. Indeed, if the people of Alabama were to heed the Governor’s advice there would be tens of thousands in the streets marching in peaceful protest until the law is brought down. This also suggests again that the rally attendance and speech by Gov. Bentley were contrived as a public relations move to try to camouflage his manifest record in support of actions and principles that are directly contradictory to the values and the admonitions of Dr. King: “injustice anywhere is an injury to justice everywhere.”

And so we again are confronted with a high profile politician seeking self-promotion by public appearance and statements that try to gloss over and to obscure a shameful record, an attempt to “put lipstick on a pig.” Once again, it may be incumbent to extend apologies to pigs in light of this unfortunate sham and the metaphor.

Iowa Caucuses and the Road to Hell

How sad and fitting that the two leading exponents and contenders for standard bearer for the GOP are a corporate elitist who made millions liquidating companies and eliminating jobs to secure shareholder profits, and an unabashed racist who spouts platitudes about the virtues of "free markets" while simultaneously working to preserve corporate subsidies and privileges that prevent market entry and survival by smaller companies and businesses. Romney and Santorum appear to be the best that the GOP has to offer to defeat Obama. These candidates, based upon their campaign statements, could not be more out of step with what the country needs. Yet they do probably represent the sentiments of the GOP "base." The term base is really a misnomer because it goes not reflect the majority of probable GOP voters but rather fringe and extremist elements who control a lot of campaign money and use it to force candidates to pander to extremist views. [If that is hard to grasp, just think of how the Ayatollahs in Iran dictate what Ahmadinejad says and does.]

Of course, one has to consider the source as well. In Iowa, there were even prospective GOP caucus attendees who still think that Bachmann is a viable candidate. Their mentality obviously is that ANY white candidate is preferable to a non-white in the White House. So we will have to wait for other primaries to see if there is some consensus.

How ironic that Newt Gingrich now becomes the champion of "true conservatism" ethics, the one to brandish shibboleth and sword in battle against the "moderate" Romney. Gingrich is agile with rhetoric and the turn of a phrase, even if he is unpredictable and what he says has neither truth nor substance. But he is a worthy verbal champion to send out to slay the dragons of moderation, compromise and reason. It is a little like asking Al Capone take on the role of the primary crime fighter to clean up politics, isn't it?

After all, Newt has applauded the universal mandate in health care reform - but of course now opposes it. Newt is in favor of "honesty" and candor for Romney, but is a confessed adulterer and betrayer of his family, spouse and his oath sworn before whatever religious doctrine he happened to "believe in" at the time. And of course it is difficult to trust Newt's public proclamations, as he was committing adultery at the same time he was publicly persecuting Clinton for sexual indiscretions. Hypocrisy does not seem to be in Newt's vocabulary despite his erudition. And for a History professor, he has a remarkably short term memory.

Again, it all seems so sad because the country is facing serious challenges and really needs two serious candidates with intelligence, integrity and vision to face off in the 2012 election. Above all, what is needed is a contest between two candidates that actually care about and are interested in serving ALL the citizens of the nation and finding strategies to cooperate and work together for the common good. The polarization we are now experiencing is the path of doom. Without someone actually willing and able to do something to bring unity instead of just lip service [like the pronouncements by Romney that talk about unity in one sentence, and follow in the next sentence by blaming all the ills on Obama] we will just see the same kind of obstruction and stalemate that characterize Congress over the past 3 years. After all, based upon pure logic and not substantive merit, if the GOP captured the White House, why would the Democrats not use the same strategy that McConnell and the GOP have used to preclude virtually every policy initiative by a GOP president in order to produce a record of "failure" for the administration? It would be no more foolish that what we have seen from Boehner and McConnell. And unless the GOP moderates its current proposals to impose such drastic cuts in the budget that would push the nation into a serious depression, there is a plausible reason to oppose their initiatives. If Obama is re-elected we can expect another round of GOP intransigence, obstruction and extremism. If the GOP candidate wins the White House we will see continued stalemates and inaction. [After winning by a majority of 50.6% the GOP will doubtless claim some phony "mandate" for draconian and muddled policies.] All the while, the middle class is dying and the GOP has used the procedural tactics in Congress to block any attempt to create jobs while blaming the lack of job growth on the Administration.

Only some miracle that pulls the Congress out of the throes of corporate dictated campaign policies and restores some semblance of democratic voice for the middle class can hope to improve the situation. There has to be a change of mind and change of heart. If people are confused about what OWS is all about, this failure of government to govern lies at the heart of their complaints. Different segments point to different manifestations of the failures, but the theme is consistent and constant. "Public servants" [political leaders and representatives] no longer feel obliged to serve the public.