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....
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
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!”
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!”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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!”
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!”
Monday, April 05, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
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.]
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.
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?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The “WAITING GAME”
Democrats in Congress showed what resembles a spine in connection with their responsibility to govern when they met to discuss possible strategies for passing legislation without GOP support. The public impatience toward Congress because of the continuing economic slump and anemic recovery demands action. The technical requirement of a super-majority of 60 votes in the Senate to move legislation forward is little understood by the average voter who maintains a simplistic idea of democracy, thinking that "majority rules." In light of the GOP resistance to any constructive measure, and rebuff of any sincere attempt to work out compromises, the Democratic leadership has begun exploring strategic ways to get some legislation passed without relying upon GOP legislators to "cross the aisle."
For all the blather about “bipartisanship” in the media, the reality is that the GOP leadership has issued a clear and unequivocal directive to its members of obstruction and obfuscation toward any initiative that relates to public spending for the benefit of the poor and average US citizen. Witness the GOP wrath directed at the rookie Senator Brown of Massachusetts for voting in support of cloture [precluding a filibuster] on a major jobs bill so that it could be voted on by the full Senate. [You may recall that I previously opined that the GOP would expect Brown to be their lap dog and follow the "party line."]
Measures like true health care reform and jobs or unemployment benefits support are prime targets. Yet the scope of the opposition is made clearer when one looks at the recent report of more than 275 legislative measures passed by the House of Representatives that are stalled in the Senate. Some measures are earmarks and pork for specialized local constituencies that deserve to wither and die, but the majority of bills are broader measures directed to helping the country recover from the years of profligacy and ineptitude of the Bush Administration and to provide immediate relief to pressing public needs. Given this “stonewalling” approach to governance by the GOP, the only logical and sensible approach for the Democrats is to proceed with the country’s business as best they can in spite of the GOP, instead of waiting for some miracle of conscience or compassion to cause a change in GOP strategy.
Consider an interesting comment by Senate Majority leader McConnell regarding the Blair House health Care Summit. He declared that there was no point in attending a Summit on health care reform sponsored by the President because the Democrats were preparing to try to pass legislation without GOP votes. Now keep in mind that the reason the Democratic strategy may be necessary is the obdurate obstructionism by the GOP and a complete unwillingness by the GOP to put forward any constructive proposal. In essence, he was saying that the GOP need not attend a meeting in which they were invited to present and responsibly discuss constructive legislation to address the health care crisis because the GOP is going to oppose any reform legislation and the democrats are preparing to circumvent that obstruction. McConnell made no mention of an intention to offer any constructive approach to health care reform.
The GOP strategy is a form of waiting game. With an inability to lead or come up with constructive ideas, Republicans are hoping to curry favor with the public in two ways. First, by obstructing any useful broad based legislation proposed by the Democratic majority, they hope to portray the Democratic leadership as ineffective in the eyes of the public. Since the public tends to hold a negative view of politicians generally and Congress in particular, the GOP believes that the public wrath can be directed toward the party in the majority. They trust that the public is too stupid to realize that the REASON for the inaction on important matters affecting the public is the GOP obstruction. In this regard, ignorance and stupidity of the electorate, recent history has proven them right. The delay tactic is positioning for the midterm elections.
Second, the GOP hopes to stall any legislation that might have a real positive impact upon the economy and the jobless rate for as long as possible. The purpose of this delay is to strengthen the argument that the responsibility for the economic crisis the country faces lies in the lap of Obama instead of the Bush Administration. This too is an effective, if cynical, ploy to manipulate public opinion. The further we are from Bush’s departure from office, the more plausible it is that people will forget the true genesis of the economic misery they are facing. The sitting President is a much more likely target for the weak minded and those with limited attention spans. And yet a failure of the current President to devise a strategy for overcoming the deliberate obstruction DOES represent a failure of leadership. It is not how good government is supposed to work, but it does indicate the depths to which the US government and the game of politics have fallen.
While this gamesmanship continues, the jobless rate remains unnecessarily and unreasonably high. The blockage of financial reform means that small businesses remain starved for credit and capital they need to revitalize the economy. Millions of families without health care insurance, joined by more families losing such benefits in the worsening economy, are threatened each day that the Congress fails to pass effective health care reform. The GOP is playing the “waiting game” in hopes that the US voters will get angrier as they stew in their misery. They are betting that the public will blame the party in the majority for failure to help, instead of the party who has obstructed every effort to help. Unless the electorate wakes up and smartens up, the GOP strategy will succeed. And we will all be the worse for it.
For all the blather about “bipartisanship” in the media, the reality is that the GOP leadership has issued a clear and unequivocal directive to its members of obstruction and obfuscation toward any initiative that relates to public spending for the benefit of the poor and average US citizen. Witness the GOP wrath directed at the rookie Senator Brown of Massachusetts for voting in support of cloture [precluding a filibuster] on a major jobs bill so that it could be voted on by the full Senate. [You may recall that I previously opined that the GOP would expect Brown to be their lap dog and follow the "party line."]
Measures like true health care reform and jobs or unemployment benefits support are prime targets. Yet the scope of the opposition is made clearer when one looks at the recent report of more than 275 legislative measures passed by the House of Representatives that are stalled in the Senate. Some measures are earmarks and pork for specialized local constituencies that deserve to wither and die, but the majority of bills are broader measures directed to helping the country recover from the years of profligacy and ineptitude of the Bush Administration and to provide immediate relief to pressing public needs. Given this “stonewalling” approach to governance by the GOP, the only logical and sensible approach for the Democrats is to proceed with the country’s business as best they can in spite of the GOP, instead of waiting for some miracle of conscience or compassion to cause a change in GOP strategy.
Consider an interesting comment by Senate Majority leader McConnell regarding the Blair House health Care Summit. He declared that there was no point in attending a Summit on health care reform sponsored by the President because the Democrats were preparing to try to pass legislation without GOP votes. Now keep in mind that the reason the Democratic strategy may be necessary is the obdurate obstructionism by the GOP and a complete unwillingness by the GOP to put forward any constructive proposal. In essence, he was saying that the GOP need not attend a meeting in which they were invited to present and responsibly discuss constructive legislation to address the health care crisis because the GOP is going to oppose any reform legislation and the democrats are preparing to circumvent that obstruction. McConnell made no mention of an intention to offer any constructive approach to health care reform.
The GOP strategy is a form of waiting game. With an inability to lead or come up with constructive ideas, Republicans are hoping to curry favor with the public in two ways. First, by obstructing any useful broad based legislation proposed by the Democratic majority, they hope to portray the Democratic leadership as ineffective in the eyes of the public. Since the public tends to hold a negative view of politicians generally and Congress in particular, the GOP believes that the public wrath can be directed toward the party in the majority. They trust that the public is too stupid to realize that the REASON for the inaction on important matters affecting the public is the GOP obstruction. In this regard, ignorance and stupidity of the electorate, recent history has proven them right. The delay tactic is positioning for the midterm elections.
Second, the GOP hopes to stall any legislation that might have a real positive impact upon the economy and the jobless rate for as long as possible. The purpose of this delay is to strengthen the argument that the responsibility for the economic crisis the country faces lies in the lap of Obama instead of the Bush Administration. This too is an effective, if cynical, ploy to manipulate public opinion. The further we are from Bush’s departure from office, the more plausible it is that people will forget the true genesis of the economic misery they are facing. The sitting President is a much more likely target for the weak minded and those with limited attention spans. And yet a failure of the current President to devise a strategy for overcoming the deliberate obstruction DOES represent a failure of leadership. It is not how good government is supposed to work, but it does indicate the depths to which the US government and the game of politics have fallen.
While this gamesmanship continues, the jobless rate remains unnecessarily and unreasonably high. The blockage of financial reform means that small businesses remain starved for credit and capital they need to revitalize the economy. Millions of families without health care insurance, joined by more families losing such benefits in the worsening economy, are threatened each day that the Congress fails to pass effective health care reform. The GOP is playing the “waiting game” in hopes that the US voters will get angrier as they stew in their misery. They are betting that the public will blame the party in the majority for failure to help, instead of the party who has obstructed every effort to help. Unless the electorate wakes up and smartens up, the GOP strategy will succeed. And we will all be the worse for it.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Mental Illness and Health Care Reform
In 2009, health care spending grew by 5.7 percent, now reaching $2.5 trillion. It is the largest increase since the federal government began tracking these figures in 1960, according to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Health care costs also made up 17.3 percent of the US's gross domestic product (GDP), which was 1.1 percent higher than in 2008. CMS's 2009-2019 projections indicate that health expenditures will continue to grow "increasingly faster," at an annual rate of 6.1 percent - 1.7 percentage points faster than annual GDP growth - and climb to $4.5 trillion.
With the loss of the Democratic 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, it seems likely that the Health Care Reform legislation passed by both houses of Congress and scheduled for Conference Committee deliberation is on terminal life support. While the legislation produced to date is a weak excuse for real reform of the industry stranglehold on the economy and well being of the public, it was a step in the right direction. Even if the Conference Committee could craft a compromise that satisfied a perceived majority and was in the best interests of the public, that compromise would have to pass both houses. The new configuration provides the GOP their coveted procedural tool of blocking any form of public oriented legislation. The lobbyists for Insurance Industry groups and major health care conglomerates like WellPoint, Humana and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, that hold legislators in their thrall [if not by their scrota] will not allow any reform to pass that might challenge their irrational profit scheme.
In an environment of recession, economic meltdown and sacrifices that have destroyed not only economic stability but even the hope of many families and households in the country, these so-called “health care industry” agents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve increasing revenues that outstrip the economy by approximately 200%. But that is not the true problem that the country and the people face.
In light of this seeming irrational imbalance of power in which the health care industry is figuratively raping the populace and at the same time excluding more and more families from basic health care, the voters are following, like a herd of lemmings, the clarion call of the Right Wing leadership to advance a campaign to block any real effort to try to restore a modicum of balance. Brown was elected as a new GOP Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy with the express purpose of defeating health care reform. Using fear mongering tactics about "government expense" and taxes associated with health care reform, they conveniently ignore the fact that, according to the CMS Report: “Without the passage of a health care reform bill, currently stalled in the House, public spending will comprise more than 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2012.”
Ironically, major factors in the inexorable climb of health care costs and public spending for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid are: a) the amount of per patient usage and b) the rising unemployment rate from a worsening economy. In the first instance, the health care industry has managed to induce US customers to spend more than twice the average per capita amount spent by developed nations for health care, although the impact and level of overall health derived from such expense places the USA below average among the same developed nations. In the second instance, the Health Care industry has managed to profit from the disadvantage of millions of people in the US resulting from the failing economy.
Behaving as though it is experiencing a psychotic break, the public is being exhorted to get behind right wing demagogues in an effort to prevent any development or passage of legislation that might actually benefit the average citizen and which might both limit the increase in health care costs and provide basic health care coverage to all families in the country. It is only a few steps removed from the mass insanity that led the group in Jonestown to drink the lethal kool aid punch. As long as the public can be driven to mass delusional behavior, believing in actions directly contrary to their own future physical and economic health, then the health care industry will be able to exploit this public mental illness to their economic advantage. And why not? Can you name a single health care executive who does not have the best health care services available 24 hours a day for his family? How fortunate that the very people being exploited can be duped into attacking the ones seeking to help them, rather than the ones profiting from their misery.
With the loss of the Democratic 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, it seems likely that the Health Care Reform legislation passed by both houses of Congress and scheduled for Conference Committee deliberation is on terminal life support. While the legislation produced to date is a weak excuse for real reform of the industry stranglehold on the economy and well being of the public, it was a step in the right direction. Even if the Conference Committee could craft a compromise that satisfied a perceived majority and was in the best interests of the public, that compromise would have to pass both houses. The new configuration provides the GOP their coveted procedural tool of blocking any form of public oriented legislation. The lobbyists for Insurance Industry groups and major health care conglomerates like WellPoint, Humana and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, that hold legislators in their thrall [if not by their scrota] will not allow any reform to pass that might challenge their irrational profit scheme.
In an environment of recession, economic meltdown and sacrifices that have destroyed not only economic stability but even the hope of many families and households in the country, these so-called “health care industry” agents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve increasing revenues that outstrip the economy by approximately 200%. But that is not the true problem that the country and the people face.
In light of this seeming irrational imbalance of power in which the health care industry is figuratively raping the populace and at the same time excluding more and more families from basic health care, the voters are following, like a herd of lemmings, the clarion call of the Right Wing leadership to advance a campaign to block any real effort to try to restore a modicum of balance. Brown was elected as a new GOP Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy with the express purpose of defeating health care reform. Using fear mongering tactics about "government expense" and taxes associated with health care reform, they conveniently ignore the fact that, according to the CMS Report: “Without the passage of a health care reform bill, currently stalled in the House, public spending will comprise more than 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2012.”
Ironically, major factors in the inexorable climb of health care costs and public spending for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid are: a) the amount of per patient usage and b) the rising unemployment rate from a worsening economy. In the first instance, the health care industry has managed to induce US customers to spend more than twice the average per capita amount spent by developed nations for health care, although the impact and level of overall health derived from such expense places the USA below average among the same developed nations. In the second instance, the Health Care industry has managed to profit from the disadvantage of millions of people in the US resulting from the failing economy.
Behaving as though it is experiencing a psychotic break, the public is being exhorted to get behind right wing demagogues in an effort to prevent any development or passage of legislation that might actually benefit the average citizen and which might both limit the increase in health care costs and provide basic health care coverage to all families in the country. It is only a few steps removed from the mass insanity that led the group in Jonestown to drink the lethal kool aid punch. As long as the public can be driven to mass delusional behavior, believing in actions directly contrary to their own future physical and economic health, then the health care industry will be able to exploit this public mental illness to their economic advantage. And why not? Can you name a single health care executive who does not have the best health care services available 24 hours a day for his family? How fortunate that the very people being exploited can be duped into attacking the ones seeking to help them, rather than the ones profiting from their misery.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The P. Diddy School of Business – “Bling Academy”
I read a news article, or actually an “infotainment” article yesterday that made me laugh. In the article, it describes a plan by P. Diddy to form a business school for “young entrepreneurs.” Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no hater. I won’t even get down on the source of much of the entertainer’s wealth, the promotion of misogyny and violence. He does own other more “mainstream” enterprises that manufacture and sell consumer goods. If anyone wants to establish an enterprise to promote educational opportunity, I am usually one of the first in line to support such efforts. Considering the wealth that P. Diddy has gained from his entertainment career and enterprises, the benevolent idea that he may want to give something back to the community by helping inspire and support nascent Black entrepreneurs is heartwarming. So, why the chuckle, you ask?
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Two Steps Back.....
"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) statement introducing legislation to counter the High Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bye Bye Miss American Pie – or – Death of the Commonwealth
If one is to believe the “national consensus” as reflected in the “dialogue” of the Blogosphere and internet commentary, the events in Massachusetts are a fitting memorial to the death of a republican democracy, a true “Commonwealth.” In the main, the rhetoric of these commentaries is characterized by self-righteous and self-centered “nattering nabobs of negativity,” to borrow a phrase from former GOP Vice president Spiro Agnew. Government can do nothing right when it attempts to aid the jobless, homeless, aged or infirm. We are urged to ignore years of destructive and divisive policies by the former Administration that pushed a solvent nation into near bankruptcy, lost or wasted jobs at a rate in excess of three quarters of a million or more each month, expended billions of dollars every month to support a war effort that was proven to be fraudulently and unnecessarily started in Iraq, and guided financial markets to a point where pensioners lost a minimum of one-third of the value of their retirement savings or benefits. Attempts to ameliorate the devastation wrought by such faulty and mean spirited policies and incompetent stewardship are attacked as “too costly” or because they failed to remedy over a decade of damage in less than one year.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
The legacy of the Kennedys is hallmarked by the phrase coined by former President, John F. Kennedy, when he chided and challenged the American people to “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.” It was a philosophy, belief and commitment that the collective good will of the American people, when channeled through the reasonably efficient machinery of government, could improve life for the citizens of the country and give hope to the world. Robert Kennedy, prior to his assassination, used his power and talents to try to shape government policy in the direction of providing equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens. Ted Kennedy, the last of the brethren clan gave his last full measure and his dying breath to see the enactment of legislation that would bring universal health care to the USA, the richest and most powerful so-called developed nation lacking such fundamental regard for the well-being of its people.
Now Massachusetts has turned its back on Ted Kennedy and elected a GOP senator who is almost certain to derail the dream that Teddy fought tirelessly for decades to bring to fruition. While brain cancer technically laid the "Lion of the Senate" to rest, it is perhaps best that he did not live to see his constituency stab him in the back and turn from his values as they have done.
As a practical matter, what Freshman Senator Brown thinks is irrelevant. His ego may cause him to believe that his personal views matter, but his party affiliation is all that really does count. He is merely a tool of the GOP and the Health Insurance lobby to sabotage the health care legislation. As a new senator of the minority party, he cannot realistically be expected to achieve or even try passage of any meaningful personal initiative. As the 41st GOP vote in the opposition bloc, he can be expected to do exactly as he is told and support the obstruction of any and every progressive or citizen oriented initiative of the White House or the Democratic Majority in Congress. In 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts may recognize their folly and elect a different senator to represent their interests, but the damage will have been done. It will be interesting to see how hard the GOP fights and how much they are willing to spend to actually retain the Brown US Senate seat at that time.
Let us be frank, the GOP is intelligent. As a party of leadership, they have proven repeatedly to be a failure in the last three decades. They understand that limitation. While Democrats cannot claim any great comfort in their leadership accomplishments, there is a record of at least trying to make the life of US citizens as a whole better. For all his faults, Clinton left the nation with a positive budget and a relatively stable economy. The subsequent Administration turned that surplus into a staggering deficit by granting tax cuts that the country could not afford to people and corporations that did not need them. No, leadership is not the objective, that would be too difficult and require more work and more risk.
Instead, the GOP has adopted a strategy of negation and negativity. Consider the children playing on the beach. How easy it is for the belligerent bully to knock down the hours of effort spent by a child constructing a sand castle. And if the child tries again to construct anything of beauty or value, the bully can knock it down and destroy it in seconds. Maybe the sand castle was not of the best design, but it was a positive effort to build something. The bully stands by the side, proud of his efforts, but never having to build or defend anything worthwhile. His sole accomplishment is to destroy and frustrate constructive effort.
Look at the record, if you think this assessment unduly harsh. Other than some earmarks and pork for his home state, I have struggled to identify a single constructive initiative by Mitch McConnell. The former Senate majority leader was known, not for any constructive legislation, but rather for browbeating and intimidating fellow GOP members into submission to his will or whimsy. Until beaten down by criminal prosecution for his misconduct, he was justifiably known as "The Hammer." There have been Senators who have made furtive attempts to cross the aisle in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, but they have been chastised, ostracized and punished by GOP leadership for doing so. Witness the public opprobrium heaped upon Sen. Collins and Sen. Snowe of Maine for supporting full consideration of the Health care legislation on the senate floor. This despite their equivocation and backpedaling that they had not committed to vote for the legislation, but only to enable it to be debated openly. Their votes really symbolized only a rejection of blind, mindless opposition and obstruction. They were brought to heel on the final vote.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats need to shoulder blame as well. They were elected and given a majority mandate. they promised to act with vision and courage to repair serious damage by the prior Administration and to change the course of the country back to one in which the collective well being, the “Commonwealth,” once again meant something real. Weak kneed pandering to GOP representatives who had already openly declared that there was “No set of circumstances" under which the GOP would support an Administration health care initiative, was a mistake. The Democrats failed to move forward with a reasonable measure, regardless of GOP opposition. They instead allowed that measure to be shot down by unified GOP obstruction and disinformation. They opted to risk the measure being undermined by allowing the GOP time to expend hundreds of millions in lobbying funds to sabotage the effort, while pretending to “bipartisanship.” If the GOP threatened filibuster, make the issues clear and let them go on public TV. No matter how much sophistry they might employ, their fundamental opposition to any measure that would benefit average citizens in favor of protecting the interests of large corporate and private investment campaign donors would smell so ripe that even the least sophisticated citizen would have to detect it. Their argument is tautological. Because GOP Administrations have failed to provide for the common good, government is incapable of working for the common good.
But the Obama Administration has generally walked in the same path as his predecessor in too many ways. He has failed to make a clear and instill faith in his promise to end the phony and expensive military escapade in Iraq. Indeed he is embarking on another costly adventure in Afghanistan. He appointed the foxes to oversee the hen house in the financial industry, and we are still seeing executives rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses while reporting billion dollar losses, after being bailed out by public taxpayer funds. The sham of military trials for GITMO detainees continues to mock the fundamental values and principles of the American Justice system. And no effort has been made to hold prior Administration officials accountable for clearly provable criminal actions. An ethic of non-accountability and a philosophy of "it doesn't matter what I should do, it only matters what I can get away with" carries over into much of the current Administration. It is no wonder the public has lost faith in all quarters of the government, at least based upon what they have seen for the past 13 years. But just because this is what HAS happened, does not mean that this is what MUST happen.
The pundits would have us believe that support for the jobless and universal health care are unworthy and unachievable goals, despite steps in the direction of both having seen some success. But perceptions can too quickly become reality in the political sphere. If the Democrats continue to act without spine and without principles, they very well could play into the GOP strategy and lose the Congressional majority. The GOP does not want or need the White House [consider McCain’s running mate] to achieve its goals. It needs only a sufficient voting block to obstruct or derail any Administration initiative. The democrats appear to lack the stomach and the nerve to take the initiative and the fight to the GOP and publicly expose them.
If we look behind the curtain of the loud mouthed spokespersons attacking the progressive agenda, we see how little they really have in common with the “people” they purport to speak for. When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck ever entertained a concern about health care or unemployment benefits? [While Limbaugh’s did have concerns about obtaining his OxyContin legally, this was not an economic issue.] When is the last time either of them had to manage a small business payroll? I recall Jesse Ventura running for Governor of Minnesota pledging to end student aid subsidies [Jesse never went to college] and obtaining support from misguided college aged students, the primary beneficiaries of such public support. Perhaps these college students thought it was a rerun of "Animal House." But in any event, so many people were swayed to act and vote directly contrary to their self interest and the interests of average people generally. People who fail to hang together, as the saying goes, are likely to hang separately. And the current plight of the individual families all across the USA attests to the wisdom of that adage.
This can only occur in an environment where all faith and trust in a government’s ability to protect and advance the common well being of its citizens has been abandoned. This is not a time for alarmist rants, but it is a time for cold eyed and realistic assessment. The title of “United” should legitimately be removed from the name of a nation in which a policy of “every man for himself” prevails. And the government should be ashamed to proclaim a Judeo-Christian foundation when the admonitions of Jesus concerning care for the poor and “whatsoever thou doest unto the least” of my people are rejected as unworthy values. If that kind of nation is not truly what the people want, then they should wake up and realize that it is what they currently HAVE and get to work changing the status quo.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Say It Ain’t So….
Despite continual protests that it is unfair or untrue that the media and US society has a virulent racist undercurrent, repeated experience tells us that the charge rings true. Consider the recent and ongoing tragedy in Haiti. Tens of thousands of people are already confirmed dead. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced and without adequate food, water and shelter. It is, by any human standard, a tragedy warranting an international outpouring of assistance.
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
What is the response of the US mainstream media? Alleged Christian and televangelist Pat Robertson makes a public statement that the Haitian people deserved this calamity because of some “pact with the Devil” made to free the Haitian people from oppression by the French colonizers. Rush Limbaugh, that sage of the GOP limelight, announced that US citizens need not worry about giving aid to the sufferers in Haiti because the US government has already provided some foreign aid to Haiti. And today MSNBC features a “top story” attacking an aid foundation led by Haitian born recording artist Wyclef Jean. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Aside from the abject and deplorable ignorance of Robertson regarding some alleged superstition, making an announcement that the people of Haiti deserved such a disastrous fate at a time when calls have gone out for immediate international relief aid is, at best, monstrous. It is insensitive and falls outside the realm of acceptable human behavior. If that is the mindset and the value system of Robertson and his true believers, it is a wonder that the Bible does not shrivel up on his desk or in his pocket. What WOULD Jesus do in response to such human suffering? Would he have turned his back and declared that they victims deserved to suffer? I think not.
Rush Limbaugh may have been on another of his drug induced stupors when he announced that aid was not really needed, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of deaths, injuries, hunger and suffering. Rush has never been one to extol the virtues of treating your fellow humans with respect or dignity, but this rant lacks even the appearance of logic or common sense. When actions defy logic, rationality and simple standards of human decency, chances are that we are dealing with bigotry. How else can you reconcile his positions advocating the “rights” of white folks in the Southwest against an “invasion” by brown skinned Mexicans without mentioning white illegal immigrants from Canada and Eastern Europe, this latest pronouncement against Black skinned Haitians and the basic principles of coherent logic. I suggest that it cannot be done by any stretch of sophistry.
The MSNBC story lacks all sense of proportion or relevance. It fails to consider that the entire revenue of the Haitian Foundation set up by Wyclef Jean last year was $1.9 million while a single couple in the US just won a Power ball lottery of $128 million. The need in Haiti will certainly exceed hundreds of millions as schools, hospitals and other basic systems need to be rebuilt. But the lead story is to attack a Haitian for making an attempt to help the people of his birthplace, and indirectly accuse him of tax fraud or the lack of organizational resources to provide effective aid. Step aside and let the white-run big boys agencies provide the aid. A Black man is unfit to help his own people. Those are the messages of the MSNBC story, both in content and decision to lead with the story. No mention is made of the many Haitian American communities, as in Boston, who are banding together to raise and deliver aid and reconnect with relatives in Haiti. No, that story element would have provided balance and focused upon the FACT that aid is needed no matter where it comes from. It would have shown how working class and professional Haitian born US citizens [yes, I did say professionals] are shouldering an effort to help in this human catastrophe. But all that MSNBC can do is denigrate such aid efforts.
Now, what of this "unfounded" charge of racism in the US media?
Saturday, January 09, 2010
How Bizarre – How Hypocritical
Having lived in and spent considerable time in New England, and particularly in Boston, there is little that can be truly surprising anymore. However there are stories that can still amuse and perhaps dismay. A very recent news article details how dozens of immigrants, accused of illegal status and under detention from INS, were trucked to Gillette Stadium to clear snow before the NFL Playoff Game.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/detained_immigrants_were_set_to_clear_gillette_snow/
While the article spent considerable time bemoaning the fractured immigration agency operation and faulty immigration policies, little attention was focused on the obvious issue of the use of detainees for impromptu labor details for the convenience of the city’s professional sports franchise. In years gone by, it was common in the Southern States of the USA for local police to arrest people on charges of “vagrancy” and other pretextual justifications and turn them over to be used as slave labor to politically influential landowners or companies. Their labor was supposed to be part of their penalty, though frequently the impressments occurred prior to any presentment or judicial determination of guilt. Of course, the police officials received “gratuities” for assisting the local politicos in obtaining virtually free labor.
We do not know whether these detainees forced to shovel snow at Gillette Stadium were actually paid for their services. If they were, then there was a direct breach of law relating to employment of illegal aliens. Claims that the contractor did not know the workers' status seems flimsy, at best, when a truckload of workers arrive in a vehicle marked “INS.” If the workers were not paid for their services, then the problem of using work gangs as slave labor rears its ugly head.
Certainly, in light of weather problems, Boston and its beloved professional sports franchise and fans needed to have the snow cleared. And the practice of graft and questionable "under the table" schemes involving government officials and local bigwigs is all but endemic to life in Boston. Police and Fire employees on disability collecting more from off duty jobs than they did for regular service is fairly common. The current head of the Massachusetts National Guard is to be court-martialed for fraudulent creation and misuse of a “slush fund” of about $6 million. So it is not surprising that the event sparked little outrage in Boston. I suppose if the fruit of their labor were actually going to be put to use to pay for deportation transport, a thin rationalization could be constructed. But my experience in Boston causes me to seriously doubt that the money paid for the services will ever wind up in the pockets of the workers or public coffers.
However, the question begs asking whether it is appropriate, legal or ethical to force detainees to perform work in this manner. Many of the immigrants came to the USA to flee poverty and political instability in their home country. They would gladly have taken jobs performing the same kind of backbreaking work that they have been forced to do, legally, if that were possible. After all, in the current economy, if the work assignment paid a reasonable wage and there were plenty of legal workers who wanted the job, why was the impressment of detainees necessary? So, if these workers were performing manual labor no-one else wanted, why are they denied legal opportunity to do the much needed work? Seems to me more than a little hypocritical. And for a city that was once the center of the abolitionist movement, this corrupt use of slave labor seems especially unworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)