The Wisconsin State Legislature is making an interesting mockery of the term “conservative,” as its GOP controlled Senate and Assembly have resorted to deceitful and possibly illegal maneuvers to avoid the procedural safeguards meant to protect and preserve the people in a democratic society. One such protection is that if a measure is to be debated and adopted, the moving party [typically the majority] must give clear advance notice to all regarding the proposed action. This has been termed the “Open Meeting Law.”
Under the open meetings law, 24 hours' notice is generally needed to hold any public meeting, with at least two hours' notice required in an emergency.
These laws were enacted to put an end to backroom deals and slick maneuvers that had allowed legislators to abuse majority power by enacting surprise or covert measures. If the opposition could not muster the votes to defeat the measure, it should at least be made aware of the content and purpose of the measure in advance in order to express opposition on the record and in open public debate.
That process of procedural fairness seems to have escaped the Wisconsin GOP in its zeal to attach and destroy collective bargaining rights of public employees. Previously, Gov. Walker has argued that the attack on worker rights was a necessary strategy to help balance a budget deficit. However, the act of stripping the union busting measure from the fiscal bill makes evident that he was not being honest to the public about his motives and agenda.
The law was further advanced in the Assembly when the GOP majority there arbitrarily cut off debate and passed the measure that had been adopted by the Senate in its surreptitious bill. The legislative enactment will certainly be signed with maximum haste by the Governor, anxious to claim “victory” in his ideological battle. The issue really is about who he is in battle with and who he has defeated. He may see it as a victory over the opposing political party, but it may also be seen as a temporary victory over the people, especially the middle and working class, that he was elected to represent. That “victory: may turn out to be a case of winning the battle and losing the war.
Several incidents have come to light recently in which Governor Walker has openly misrepresented facts regarding his motives and political actions that he has advanced. The most recent example is when he represented to the Court that the cost of the demonstrations to the State was $7.5 million, in order to obtain a restraining injunction to remove the demonstrators. Subsequent analysis puts the cost at less than $375,000, including the usual costs of maintenance and security that would be incurred without the demonstrations. Inflating the estimate by 20 times in order to induce official court action could be an abuse of process offense leading to sanctions against an attorney signing such pleadings, so it is not just a matter of “puffery.” The point is that Walker has a record of prevarication to achieve ideological ends. Whether his decimation of public employee union rights will actually result in taxpayer relief, balanced budgets and more jobs is a doubtful proposition that awaits proof.
In any event, when the majority party uses closed room strategy sessions, backroom deals and violation of open meeting laws to push through measures, it suggests that those measures would not stand up to scrutiny if dealt with openly. When representatives of the people resort to deceitful strategies that conceal information from open and public debate and ignore procedural safeguards, the process of government becomes one of ambush and not democracy. Those safeguards were put in place as conceptual principles in support of founding values that a democratic government should not allow for the oppression of the minority interests through abuse by the majority. The people may well respond, and it will be no ambush. There are already a number of recall petitions circulating to remove legislators from office.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Sunday, March 06, 2011
King of the Hill
Modern TV fans will recall the animated comedy in which the lead character is a relatively clueless but goodhearted redneck embattled by children and wife, and winds up taking on misguided adventures to try to break out of his mediocrity. That character is now being displaced by Rep. Peter King of New York. Pete’s newest adventure to rise above the crowd is even more misguided and not so good hearted. Rep. King wants to anoint himself as the new scourge of all things un-American and “Inquisitor in Chief” of the USA polity.
Not content to let the shameful past lie buried, after the country has tried to live down the era of HUAC and the tyranny of Sen. Joe McCarthy, King now wants to carry out a similar campaign against Muslims. Keep in mind that we are NOT talking about targeting Al Qaida or Taliban camps in the Middle East, we are talking about US citizens who happen to be Muslim. King apparently believes that the most pressing issues that face the nation include the threat of law abiding US citizens who do not look like King and who may worship a different religion. If King has his way, every single Allah fearing Muslim in the US will be investigated, brought before his hearing tribunal and forced to testify in blood as to their unswerving loyalty to Uncle Sam. In addition, they will undoubtedly have to testify under oath that they do not know anybody, who has ever known anybody, who has ever thought about supporting any Islamic cause.
It is often said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to face them again and again. Maybe it is another example of the failure of our educational system. But this circus is not just misguided, it threatens to shred any remaining coherence of what had been the fabric holding together some semblance of common ground for the American people. Public scapegoating for political gain is one of the worst forms of chicanery. It is dishonest, mean spirited and cynical. It seeks to capitalize on a period in which the public is under great stress and feed that fear and encourage hatred, pitting US citizens against each other. That is the lesson of McCarthyism.
We can only hope that someone in the House of Representatives will have the courage shone by Joe Welch, Head Counsel to the US Army, who confronted McCarthy publicly and asked:
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…. Senator, you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
We can only hope that someone will stand up to King and similarly confront his antics. We can also only hope that this will happen before King is able to inflict similar cruelty and injustice to the disgraceful behavior of McCarthy.
Not content to let the shameful past lie buried, after the country has tried to live down the era of HUAC and the tyranny of Sen. Joe McCarthy, King now wants to carry out a similar campaign against Muslims. Keep in mind that we are NOT talking about targeting Al Qaida or Taliban camps in the Middle East, we are talking about US citizens who happen to be Muslim. King apparently believes that the most pressing issues that face the nation include the threat of law abiding US citizens who do not look like King and who may worship a different religion. If King has his way, every single Allah fearing Muslim in the US will be investigated, brought before his hearing tribunal and forced to testify in blood as to their unswerving loyalty to Uncle Sam. In addition, they will undoubtedly have to testify under oath that they do not know anybody, who has ever known anybody, who has ever thought about supporting any Islamic cause.
It is often said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to face them again and again. Maybe it is another example of the failure of our educational system. But this circus is not just misguided, it threatens to shred any remaining coherence of what had been the fabric holding together some semblance of common ground for the American people. Public scapegoating for political gain is one of the worst forms of chicanery. It is dishonest, mean spirited and cynical. It seeks to capitalize on a period in which the public is under great stress and feed that fear and encourage hatred, pitting US citizens against each other. That is the lesson of McCarthyism.
We can only hope that someone in the House of Representatives will have the courage shone by Joe Welch, Head Counsel to the US Army, who confronted McCarthy publicly and asked:
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…. Senator, you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
We can only hope that someone will stand up to King and similarly confront his antics. We can also only hope that this will happen before King is able to inflict similar cruelty and injustice to the disgraceful behavior of McCarthy.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Reaping What One Sows- Media and the Youth Movements
If one takes a step back to gain perspective, the wave of youth activism and committed opposition to the economic and political disenfranchisement that has been imposed upon marginalized young people is breathtaking. Consider the following examples of such protests and public uprisings: London, Puerto Rico and Ireland [tuition increases foreclosing higher education opportunity]; France and Greece [economic austerity measures]; Spain and Italy [unemployment levels over 30%]; Tunisia and Egypt [unemployment, marginalization and repression] and Libya [economic disenfranchisement and repression].
To the nature of the response, one may wonder what took so long for the cauldron to boil over. The rhetoric and political discourse orchestrated by elite moneyed interests with a stranglehold on power and the economy has been conflicting if not schizophrenic. While mouthing blandishments about the need to take action to secure the future for youth and the generations to come, actions by these powerbrokers toward today’s youth has been to marginalize, demonize or ignore their needs and concerns. Such systematic disenfranchisement and disinvestment has been carried out with the arrogant belief that young people were either not paying attention or did not care about even their own well-being and future. A very dangerous assumption.
The narcissistic mainstream media has become to believe that what it publishes is the official and only truth, and that young people are even remotely interested in such broadcast content other than as white noise. In fact, young people abandoned mainstream media quite some time ago in favor of electronic social media and blogs that spread information more efficiently and often more accurately across town, across the country and across the globe. The attention that the feature film “the Social Network” received this year is but a tacit recognition of a manifest history relating to new ways in which youth communicate. Yet the movie is already historical and outdated. The irony is stark when one realizes that youth who were believed to be asleep or complacent have managed to shake the fundament and even bring down repressive governments using tools that the powerbrokers had dismissed as toys and diversions. Henry Giroux* remarks:
Mass demonstrations have been organized through the emergent screen
cultures of a generation well versed in new technologically assisted
forms of social networking and political exchange.
Youth across the globe have joined together to speak with a collective voice against the marginalization and profligate stewardship by the power elite of economic and natural resources that represent the future of these young people. The information necessary to organize resistance, to record and to report the events of these youth movements ran like synaptic currents throughout a virtual brain that connected and assisted youth movement groups. And while the action was taking place, the mainstream media was more of an afterthought than a true journalistic presence, the high school senior without a prom date. Perhaps network executives have come to realize the truth that one thing worse than being hated is being deemed unimportant. The same media that turned its back on any sincere efforts to speak to, for or about the genuine needs and interests of young people now has come face to face with the realization that young people have mobilized while turning their backs on mainstream media. Recall the words of Gil Scott Heron who cautioned decades ago that “the revolution will not be televised.”
*Henry A. Giroux | Left Behind? American Youth and the Global Fight for Democracy
To the nature of the response, one may wonder what took so long for the cauldron to boil over. The rhetoric and political discourse orchestrated by elite moneyed interests with a stranglehold on power and the economy has been conflicting if not schizophrenic. While mouthing blandishments about the need to take action to secure the future for youth and the generations to come, actions by these powerbrokers toward today’s youth has been to marginalize, demonize or ignore their needs and concerns. Such systematic disenfranchisement and disinvestment has been carried out with the arrogant belief that young people were either not paying attention or did not care about even their own well-being and future. A very dangerous assumption.
The narcissistic mainstream media has become to believe that what it publishes is the official and only truth, and that young people are even remotely interested in such broadcast content other than as white noise. In fact, young people abandoned mainstream media quite some time ago in favor of electronic social media and blogs that spread information more efficiently and often more accurately across town, across the country and across the globe. The attention that the feature film “the Social Network” received this year is but a tacit recognition of a manifest history relating to new ways in which youth communicate. Yet the movie is already historical and outdated. The irony is stark when one realizes that youth who were believed to be asleep or complacent have managed to shake the fundament and even bring down repressive governments using tools that the powerbrokers had dismissed as toys and diversions. Henry Giroux* remarks:
Mass demonstrations have been organized through the emergent screen
cultures of a generation well versed in new technologically assisted
forms of social networking and political exchange.
Youth across the globe have joined together to speak with a collective voice against the marginalization and profligate stewardship by the power elite of economic and natural resources that represent the future of these young people. The information necessary to organize resistance, to record and to report the events of these youth movements ran like synaptic currents throughout a virtual brain that connected and assisted youth movement groups. And while the action was taking place, the mainstream media was more of an afterthought than a true journalistic presence, the high school senior without a prom date. Perhaps network executives have come to realize the truth that one thing worse than being hated is being deemed unimportant. The same media that turned its back on any sincere efforts to speak to, for or about the genuine needs and interests of young people now has come face to face with the realization that young people have mobilized while turning their backs on mainstream media. Recall the words of Gil Scott Heron who cautioned decades ago that “the revolution will not be televised.”
*Henry A. Giroux | Left Behind? American Youth and the Global Fight for Democracy
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Fool me once, Shame of you. Fool me twice, Shame on me!
The dueling partisan debate over government spending cuts and the continued operation of government services draws to a climax on March 4. Atmospherics aside, the positions of the opposing sides are rather clear. The Democrats have declared the position that a continuing resolution to maintain spending at current levels, including the freeze in spending that Obama has already imposed and which yields reduced spending at an annual rate of $41 Billion, should be adopted as an interim measure. This is the approach that the government and Congress have taken in the past when a budget impasse has arisen. The GOP demands that a spending cut amounting to a reduction rate of $100 Billion be accepted in exchange for an agreement to avoid a government shutdown.
The Wall Street Journal reported: “In exchange for extending the deadline, Republicans want Democrats to agree to cut spending even in that short-term measure, and will try to put the onus on Democrats if they oppose it.”
Now we have the posturing about who gets the blame if the government shutdown actually occurs. The GOP is trying to construct some form of contrived logic to shift the blame to the Democrats and President. However, the continuing resolution is likely to be a short term and purely temporary measure that the public will not see as a sufficiently big deal to require agreement on the GOP plan. Why not simply continue the present course until a new plan and budget is enacted. Indeed, it is customary in the minds of most of the public that the old contract continues until replaced by a new one. Sen. McConnell has trotted out, once again, a specious pronouncement that his opinion represents what “the people” of the country want, despite no evidence whatsoever of any basis for that conjecture or credibility on his part to so proclaim. Recall the supposed public election mandate to create jobs, followed by McConnell’s proclamation that his primary goal was to defeat Obama in 2012. That does not sound like someone closely in touch with the will of the people.
The last showdown yielded an adoption of the status quo by extending the Bush tax cuts, including tax relief for the most wealthy who do not need it and which exacerbated the deficit that the GOP now wants to cut spending to address. It may sound simplistic, but it appears that the GOP made a mess and now wants to blame someone else for the cleanup cost. In any event, the Democrats, if they have the spine for it, ought to simply hold firm and demand that the status quo again be maintained. If the GOP really wants major spending cuts, then they ought to be more focused upon crafting a long range budget plan that can gain bipartisan support and avoid a Presidential veto. The quicker they achieve that solution, the shorter period of time the stopgap measure will be in place.
Given the recent past behavior of the Democratic Party and the President, there is room for serious doubt about the combined courage and wisdom to remain firm on a continuing resolution that does not make things worse than they already are, and insist on maintaining the current spending levels. This is, however, a test of leadership and will be a strong signal to the public about whether Obama can expect support from liberal and moderate voters in 2012. If he caves once again, especially when it is totally unnecessary, the damage to his credibility and reputation for leadership may be irreparable. The GOP bluffed last time, and the President blinked and caved. What he called conciliation was actually appeasement, as the current pseudo-crisis reveals. With appeasement, giving ground unnecessarily typically leads to the bully demanding even more concessions. This time around, the GOP is again bluffing and people will be looking to see if the President has learned any lessons.
The Wall Street Journal reported: “In exchange for extending the deadline, Republicans want Democrats to agree to cut spending even in that short-term measure, and will try to put the onus on Democrats if they oppose it.”
Now we have the posturing about who gets the blame if the government shutdown actually occurs. The GOP is trying to construct some form of contrived logic to shift the blame to the Democrats and President. However, the continuing resolution is likely to be a short term and purely temporary measure that the public will not see as a sufficiently big deal to require agreement on the GOP plan. Why not simply continue the present course until a new plan and budget is enacted. Indeed, it is customary in the minds of most of the public that the old contract continues until replaced by a new one. Sen. McConnell has trotted out, once again, a specious pronouncement that his opinion represents what “the people” of the country want, despite no evidence whatsoever of any basis for that conjecture or credibility on his part to so proclaim. Recall the supposed public election mandate to create jobs, followed by McConnell’s proclamation that his primary goal was to defeat Obama in 2012. That does not sound like someone closely in touch with the will of the people.
The last showdown yielded an adoption of the status quo by extending the Bush tax cuts, including tax relief for the most wealthy who do not need it and which exacerbated the deficit that the GOP now wants to cut spending to address. It may sound simplistic, but it appears that the GOP made a mess and now wants to blame someone else for the cleanup cost. In any event, the Democrats, if they have the spine for it, ought to simply hold firm and demand that the status quo again be maintained. If the GOP really wants major spending cuts, then they ought to be more focused upon crafting a long range budget plan that can gain bipartisan support and avoid a Presidential veto. The quicker they achieve that solution, the shorter period of time the stopgap measure will be in place.
Given the recent past behavior of the Democratic Party and the President, there is room for serious doubt about the combined courage and wisdom to remain firm on a continuing resolution that does not make things worse than they already are, and insist on maintaining the current spending levels. This is, however, a test of leadership and will be a strong signal to the public about whether Obama can expect support from liberal and moderate voters in 2012. If he caves once again, especially when it is totally unnecessary, the damage to his credibility and reputation for leadership may be irreparable. The GOP bluffed last time, and the President blinked and caved. What he called conciliation was actually appeasement, as the current pseudo-crisis reveals. With appeasement, giving ground unnecessarily typically leads to the bully demanding even more concessions. This time around, the GOP is again bluffing and people will be looking to see if the President has learned any lessons.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Education Policy - Donkey or Jackass?
All too often as I listen to current pronouncements about education policy from the current so called leaders and pundits, I am reminded of the old [borrowed] saying my mother taught me. “Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and prove them right.” The other sad complement to such musing is that in establishing education policy, the “Golden Rule” applies, that is…he who has the gold makes the rules. Consequently, those who establish policy need have no knowledge or expertise about education in order to set policy, only the power to control funds badly needed for educating the nation’s most vulnerable youth. The Secretary of Education’s main qualification for shaping education policy seems to be his participation in pickup basketball games with President Obama. This proximity connection provides him influence over federal purse strings for education and a pulpit for pushing his neoliberal agenda of corporatizing public education. While I would not denigrate student athletes generally, those are not the quarters I would turn to first for intellectual capital and academic leadership. After all, LeBron James is a tremendous athlete, but I would not put him in charge of developing national policy on anything. Moreover, the slash and burn strategy and promotion of charter schools adopted under Duncan’s brief reign over Chicago schools has, in hindsight proven a failure.
We are now told by these vocal “experts” that teachers are the primary problem for student failure to improve academic performance. Teacher unions that seek to maintain a voice in the decisions about school curriculum [to the extent that this has not been totally emasculated] and insight as to what really occurs in the classroom, we are told, should be abolished. Students of impoverished backgrounds, undernourished and with enormous socio-economic disadvantages are branded failures before they start classes and their academic performance [which may take a backseat to mere survival] is to be the measure for teacher competence. We are also told that teaching effectiveness is the same whether a teacher has 20 or 30 children in a classroom; yet any teaching professional with even the least experience will confirm the ample research demonstrating that to be a falsehood. And, to throw salt in the wounds inflicted by these assaults on the teaching profession, we are told that Teach for America is a prime solution to the problem of poor teacher quality. The facts show us that an extremely low percentage of Teach For America participants stay in the teaching profession, if they even complete their required tenure commitment of only a couple of years in the classroom.
My experience as student and teacher is that students can tell almost immediately whether the person who presents as a teacher has the skills and talent to be a good teacher. Having a firm grasp on the course content is important, but not every content specialist can teach. This is a pervasive fallacy that runs through the public consciousness and is perpetuated by bureaucrats who know little or nothing about pedagogy. To be sure, most Teach for America participants leave teaching because it was, from the inception, simply a way to put a “service” marker on their resume. They move on to a more lucrative career that was their aim all along, following “missionary work.” But they also leave because they simply cannot handle the pressures and the demands of teaching and they do not want to work in the substandard conditions and with the poor children that exist in the schools to which they are assigned. It is like joining the Peace Corps, but not having to go abroad or learn another language. And despite these glowing pronouncements about Teach for America's benefits, the evidence that school with Teach for America participants experience lasting academic improvement is lacking.
So despite the repetitious and passionate rhetoric by the likes of Arne Duncan, the factual and knowledge based foundation for many current federal education policies is absent. However, over $4 Billion dollars of federal largesse is handed out based upon unproven theories, misguided policies and directed to largely irrelevant goals. The kernel of truth is that there are a small number of teachers who should not be in the classroom, and that some measure of assessment or accountability is important to the educational process. Branding all teachers as incompetent and demonizing the profession is better directed toward getting the high quality teacher to leave than it is to removing the few incompetents. Seeking accountability by measuring rote learning through standardized multiple choice and machine scored tests is feasible, but actually tells nothing about the quality or improvement of the learning process that is supposed to be measured. As an independent observer, I may risk losing my invitation to Democratic cocktail chats. I have learned not to wait for invitations to those GOP soirees foolishly preaching corporate “free market” ideology as the template for public education. But, if this all leads you to the conclusion that what comes out of Secretary Duncan’s mouth is foolish braying. I can only say that my mother would have warned him….
We are now told by these vocal “experts” that teachers are the primary problem for student failure to improve academic performance. Teacher unions that seek to maintain a voice in the decisions about school curriculum [to the extent that this has not been totally emasculated] and insight as to what really occurs in the classroom, we are told, should be abolished. Students of impoverished backgrounds, undernourished and with enormous socio-economic disadvantages are branded failures before they start classes and their academic performance [which may take a backseat to mere survival] is to be the measure for teacher competence. We are also told that teaching effectiveness is the same whether a teacher has 20 or 30 children in a classroom; yet any teaching professional with even the least experience will confirm the ample research demonstrating that to be a falsehood. And, to throw salt in the wounds inflicted by these assaults on the teaching profession, we are told that Teach for America is a prime solution to the problem of poor teacher quality. The facts show us that an extremely low percentage of Teach For America participants stay in the teaching profession, if they even complete their required tenure commitment of only a couple of years in the classroom.
My experience as student and teacher is that students can tell almost immediately whether the person who presents as a teacher has the skills and talent to be a good teacher. Having a firm grasp on the course content is important, but not every content specialist can teach. This is a pervasive fallacy that runs through the public consciousness and is perpetuated by bureaucrats who know little or nothing about pedagogy. To be sure, most Teach for America participants leave teaching because it was, from the inception, simply a way to put a “service” marker on their resume. They move on to a more lucrative career that was their aim all along, following “missionary work.” But they also leave because they simply cannot handle the pressures and the demands of teaching and they do not want to work in the substandard conditions and with the poor children that exist in the schools to which they are assigned. It is like joining the Peace Corps, but not having to go abroad or learn another language. And despite these glowing pronouncements about Teach for America's benefits, the evidence that school with Teach for America participants experience lasting academic improvement is lacking.
So despite the repetitious and passionate rhetoric by the likes of Arne Duncan, the factual and knowledge based foundation for many current federal education policies is absent. However, over $4 Billion dollars of federal largesse is handed out based upon unproven theories, misguided policies and directed to largely irrelevant goals. The kernel of truth is that there are a small number of teachers who should not be in the classroom, and that some measure of assessment or accountability is important to the educational process. Branding all teachers as incompetent and demonizing the profession is better directed toward getting the high quality teacher to leave than it is to removing the few incompetents. Seeking accountability by measuring rote learning through standardized multiple choice and machine scored tests is feasible, but actually tells nothing about the quality or improvement of the learning process that is supposed to be measured. As an independent observer, I may risk losing my invitation to Democratic cocktail chats. I have learned not to wait for invitations to those GOP soirees foolishly preaching corporate “free market” ideology as the template for public education. But, if this all leads you to the conclusion that what comes out of Secretary Duncan’s mouth is foolish braying. I can only say that my mother would have warned him….
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"Nobody knows..." or "the changing light bulbs riddle..."
When I announced my plans to move to Alabama to complete and advanced degree in education, I was met with a fair amount of ribbing from my professional educator colleagues. The obvious ones came first, such as the line that “they really don’t believe in education in Alabama,” and “the math scores in Alabama dropped because they started making the children wear shoes.” Ok, I can take good spirited jest. But other friends gave sincere looks and asked if I had a Mother Theresa complex, as if pursuing education in Alabama was akin to laboring in the slums of Calcutta. They pointed to news stories about potential governor candidates idiotically seeking to ban the use of any language other than English on drivers’ exams and license applications, despite the fact that doing so would forfeit millions in federal highway funds. In summary, they pointed out that they were willing to give George Wallace a pass because of the passage of time, “but what has Alabama done lately?” Well, of course they did win the NCAA Football Championship, but that is hardly a testament to intellect or a socially progressive environment. I took the ribbing in stride, mustered hope and convinced myself that if my belief in improving the quality of education was strong and true, what better place to apply my labors than areas that appeared to have the greatest need.
Today, an article hit the news that would try the patience and faith of the most stalwart:
CBS News) -- Alabama Republican Governor Robert Bentley said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day message Monday that he does not consider Americans who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior to be his brothers and sisters. ------------And in a brilliant rhetorical flourish, he declared: -------- "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters," he continued. "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=118271
Now I have no problem with a man of faith taking on the challenges of public service in a democratic society. The demands of such office no doubt require courage and a bit of divine inspiration, particularly in these financially troubled and morally challenging times. The “fly” in the veritable ointment is that there just happens to be a substantial segment of the citizenry of Alabama who are not fundamentalist Christians; and the oath of office, as well as the Constitutions of the United States and Alabama call upon elected officials to apply and enforce the laws giving equal protection to ALL people in the State.
The American Atheists president and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League representative expressed dismay over the new Governor’s remarks. After all, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution should give pause to a reasonably intelligent person in such office seeking to use the Governor’s “bully pulpit” to proselytize a particular brand of religion. But perhaps, as was the case with Ms. O’Donnell who unsuccessfully ran for the US Senate, the new Alabama Governor never took the time to actually read the document that he has sworn to uphold. Fair enough, a little on the job training may be in order. A bright guy ought to be able to pick it up as he goes, right?
But then the new Governor was asked about his duty to represent all the people of Alabama. His odd response lines up with the likes of “some of my best friends are colored people” as he asserts that he will be “color blind.” After all, no one had raised the race issue in the questioning. So why did the Governor feel the need to assure people that he would not discriminate on the basis of color? And did he not even register that the immediate problem with his remarks was about religious intolerance and not race? Makes one kinda wonder what gears were creaking in his head, doesn’t it?
So I guess all I can now say is….Roll up my sleeves, and move over Mother Theresa, we’ve got a LOT of mess to clean up around here. Let’s just hope this brain eating virus disease is not contagious!
Today, an article hit the news that would try the patience and faith of the most stalwart:
CBS News) -- Alabama Republican Governor Robert Bentley said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day message Monday that he does not consider Americans who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior to be his brothers and sisters. ------------And in a brilliant rhetorical flourish, he declared: -------- "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters," he continued. "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=118271
Now I have no problem with a man of faith taking on the challenges of public service in a democratic society. The demands of such office no doubt require courage and a bit of divine inspiration, particularly in these financially troubled and morally challenging times. The “fly” in the veritable ointment is that there just happens to be a substantial segment of the citizenry of Alabama who are not fundamentalist Christians; and the oath of office, as well as the Constitutions of the United States and Alabama call upon elected officials to apply and enforce the laws giving equal protection to ALL people in the State.
The American Atheists president and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League representative expressed dismay over the new Governor’s remarks. After all, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution should give pause to a reasonably intelligent person in such office seeking to use the Governor’s “bully pulpit” to proselytize a particular brand of religion. But perhaps, as was the case with Ms. O’Donnell who unsuccessfully ran for the US Senate, the new Alabama Governor never took the time to actually read the document that he has sworn to uphold. Fair enough, a little on the job training may be in order. A bright guy ought to be able to pick it up as he goes, right?
But then the new Governor was asked about his duty to represent all the people of Alabama. His odd response lines up with the likes of “some of my best friends are colored people” as he asserts that he will be “color blind.” After all, no one had raised the race issue in the questioning. So why did the Governor feel the need to assure people that he would not discriminate on the basis of color? And did he not even register that the immediate problem with his remarks was about religious intolerance and not race? Makes one kinda wonder what gears were creaking in his head, doesn’t it?
So I guess all I can now say is….Roll up my sleeves, and move over Mother Theresa, we’ve got a LOT of mess to clean up around here. Let’s just hope this brain eating virus disease is not contagious!
Monday, January 17, 2011
Requiem for Dr. King
On this day of memoriam for the slain civil rights leader, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a time of reflection and perspective seems appropriate. Looking about at the seemingly pervasive culture of incivility and self-indulgent divisiveness today, it is difficult to see a way forward towards a more humane society. When even the suggestion that all people in the United States should have access to basic and affordable health care brings a chorus of derision, how can one hope for restoration of a social contract that affords liberty to all while protecting the most vulnerable? When education is touted as the key to global competitiveness and the future, teachers are being demonized by the top Education official of the land, and funding is doled out to the privileged at the expense of large numbers of children denied adequate resources for educational opportunity, what realistic hope can we see for that golden future? Yet Dr. King saw a world and a society that was at least as divided and in which the soil for growing a verdant future seemed even more barren, and he did not despair. He acted.
In that time, a Black man could be lynched simply for being on the road alone at night. A Black family could be denied public lodging simply because of skin color, as happened to me. The Governor of a State, supported by barricades and police, could stand in the doorway to publicly funded educational institutions reserved for Whites and deny Black youths entry. People did not talk about discrimination in employment based upon race and ethnicity; they simply did it as a matter of common practice. Black people who misunderstood the plain words of US Constitution, and thought that it provided a right to vote in public elections faced potential arrest or worse if they sought to go to the polls. The right of assembly to protest these injustices was a doubtful proposition, at best, that could lead to serious consequences, including death. This was the “America” that Dr. King faced.
He called upon the people of the country to look within and decide whether the society that they were actually living in reflected the kind of society that they aspired to live in. And despite the resistance to change that would undermine unjust privilege and ability to abuse power, the consciousness of the society changed. There was a belief, not in a perfect society, but that the fabric of society had become soiled and tattered. There was a consensus that the country could do better, be better, than it was. The vicious response to freedom and civil rights protesters, especially Whites who went to the South to support civil rights, sparked an awakening that transformed the nation.
Progress and change are not linear processes. There are steps forward and faltering retreats. We believe Human evolution is inexorable, but it is not constant or as persistent as we might like. There will be dissemblers and prevaricators, beyond the pale of honest debate, who seek retreat to the baser levels of humanity. Some will argue that maintaining the right to self defense and protection requires the permission of individuals to carry lethal weapons of indiscriminate and massive destruction in public, and try to wrap that justification in the cloak of patriotic rights. Some, who themselves are descendant from illegal immigrants to North America, would deny basic human and civil treatment of other immigrants who seek only a chance to invest their hard labor in order to build a life for themselves and their families. And there are those who claim the benefit of a nation of laws founded upon a principle of religious freedom and tolerance who would demonize, discriminate against and preach hatred against people because of their religious faith. Government of and for the people cannot do everything, but there are minimal things it must be willing to do to hold faith with its principles and ideals.
The outlook today seems bleaker, perhaps because there is at least some awareness that the vision described by Dr. King is potentially more attainable than ever, though it is at the same time more fragile. When we have made manifest laws and standards that prohibit unjust discrimination against people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, there is a subtle gut wrenching when we see public pronouncements by so-called leaders calling for revival of such base practices. There is, on some level, a fear of going backward into the pit from which we have climbed. We know that such “leaders” make such calls out of greed for privilege and power, not from any sense of integrity or belief in the common welfare. Yet they are listened to and followed nevertheless. Leaders are not rebuked or shunned who publicly advocate violence, directly or through rhetoric, against those who disagree with their agenda. This despite a basic understanding that the society can survive only if a system of change based upon the vote and not the bullet is preserved.
And so, in the wake of the recent attempted assassination and murders in Tucson, we honor the life of Dr. King who was taken from us by the same type of violence that is being condoned and even fomented by purported leaders of government and society. Many of the accepted “conservative” mantras faced by Dr. King have been proven false: Black and White children could not learn together, Catholics and Jews should not be allowed to live among “respectable” White folks, women did not deserve equal say with men on matters of importance, etc. Many of the ideas now being touted by today’s conservatives are equally unfounded: corporations have the same right to participation in the electoral process as human citizens, trillions of dollars can be spent on foreign wars while billions for health care and education at home is too expensive, fundamental rights of speech, privacy and against unnecessary search and seizure must be surrendered to meet some vague and pervasive notion of “national security,” etc.
Perhaps it is time to once again ask the question that Dr. King posed so eloquently. Is this the kind of society that we want to live in and maintain? Can we do better, and if we can, why don’t we? No one ever said that the climb would be easy. But the future is still within our grasp. We must decide whether to stand shoulder to shoulder with others to pull ourselves upward. We must lend our efforts along with those we disagree with on some issues, while agreeing that there is a common desire for all to succeed. Dr. King reminded us of the wisdom of Sir Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Dr. King declared, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." People of good will and honest desire for a better society must do more than rue the decline, they must act.
If we can recall this, perhaps we will do honor to Dr. King, not just give lip service.
In that time, a Black man could be lynched simply for being on the road alone at night. A Black family could be denied public lodging simply because of skin color, as happened to me. The Governor of a State, supported by barricades and police, could stand in the doorway to publicly funded educational institutions reserved for Whites and deny Black youths entry. People did not talk about discrimination in employment based upon race and ethnicity; they simply did it as a matter of common practice. Black people who misunderstood the plain words of US Constitution, and thought that it provided a right to vote in public elections faced potential arrest or worse if they sought to go to the polls. The right of assembly to protest these injustices was a doubtful proposition, at best, that could lead to serious consequences, including death. This was the “America” that Dr. King faced.
He called upon the people of the country to look within and decide whether the society that they were actually living in reflected the kind of society that they aspired to live in. And despite the resistance to change that would undermine unjust privilege and ability to abuse power, the consciousness of the society changed. There was a belief, not in a perfect society, but that the fabric of society had become soiled and tattered. There was a consensus that the country could do better, be better, than it was. The vicious response to freedom and civil rights protesters, especially Whites who went to the South to support civil rights, sparked an awakening that transformed the nation.
Progress and change are not linear processes. There are steps forward and faltering retreats. We believe Human evolution is inexorable, but it is not constant or as persistent as we might like. There will be dissemblers and prevaricators, beyond the pale of honest debate, who seek retreat to the baser levels of humanity. Some will argue that maintaining the right to self defense and protection requires the permission of individuals to carry lethal weapons of indiscriminate and massive destruction in public, and try to wrap that justification in the cloak of patriotic rights. Some, who themselves are descendant from illegal immigrants to North America, would deny basic human and civil treatment of other immigrants who seek only a chance to invest their hard labor in order to build a life for themselves and their families. And there are those who claim the benefit of a nation of laws founded upon a principle of religious freedom and tolerance who would demonize, discriminate against and preach hatred against people because of their religious faith. Government of and for the people cannot do everything, but there are minimal things it must be willing to do to hold faith with its principles and ideals.
The outlook today seems bleaker, perhaps because there is at least some awareness that the vision described by Dr. King is potentially more attainable than ever, though it is at the same time more fragile. When we have made manifest laws and standards that prohibit unjust discrimination against people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, there is a subtle gut wrenching when we see public pronouncements by so-called leaders calling for revival of such base practices. There is, on some level, a fear of going backward into the pit from which we have climbed. We know that such “leaders” make such calls out of greed for privilege and power, not from any sense of integrity or belief in the common welfare. Yet they are listened to and followed nevertheless. Leaders are not rebuked or shunned who publicly advocate violence, directly or through rhetoric, against those who disagree with their agenda. This despite a basic understanding that the society can survive only if a system of change based upon the vote and not the bullet is preserved.
And so, in the wake of the recent attempted assassination and murders in Tucson, we honor the life of Dr. King who was taken from us by the same type of violence that is being condoned and even fomented by purported leaders of government and society. Many of the accepted “conservative” mantras faced by Dr. King have been proven false: Black and White children could not learn together, Catholics and Jews should not be allowed to live among “respectable” White folks, women did not deserve equal say with men on matters of importance, etc. Many of the ideas now being touted by today’s conservatives are equally unfounded: corporations have the same right to participation in the electoral process as human citizens, trillions of dollars can be spent on foreign wars while billions for health care and education at home is too expensive, fundamental rights of speech, privacy and against unnecessary search and seizure must be surrendered to meet some vague and pervasive notion of “national security,” etc.
Perhaps it is time to once again ask the question that Dr. King posed so eloquently. Is this the kind of society that we want to live in and maintain? Can we do better, and if we can, why don’t we? No one ever said that the climb would be easy. But the future is still within our grasp. We must decide whether to stand shoulder to shoulder with others to pull ourselves upward. We must lend our efforts along with those we disagree with on some issues, while agreeing that there is a common desire for all to succeed. Dr. King reminded us of the wisdom of Sir Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Dr. King declared, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." People of good will and honest desire for a better society must do more than rue the decline, they must act.
If we can recall this, perhaps we will do honor to Dr. King, not just give lip service.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
An Environment Under Fire
Today in the news, a story recounted a man in Michigan who shot and killed his two young children and wife, then took his own life. He was found in his car in a parking lot with weapons presumably used to kill his family and then himself. There was no history of criminal behavior or even official reports of domestic violence. There was some indication of financial difficulties and a potential impending divorce. This follows on the heels of the shooting massacre in Tucson that garnered national attention because a Congresswoman and a Federal Judge were shot, along with bystanders in a calculated rampage by a young man with a semi-automatic assault weapon with high capacity ammunition clips that he easily obtained despite a history of anti-social behavior.
Unfortunately, the majority of the public seems too shortsighted, self centered and egotistical to look beyond the surface and consider implications. The common belief is that: “I would never do anything like that, so it is not necessary to consider that such tragedies happen or why they happen –conditions that make them more likely rather than less likely.” Because the individualist thinks that he or she is totally responsible with guns at all time, the belief is that guns should be readily available to everyone under all circumstances. In truth, most people do not really know or understand [or perhaps even care] what depression can do to a person. If an analogy is needed, consider the mudslides being experienced in Brazil and Haiti. The landscape was denuded so the conditions were ripe for disaster in the event of a heavy rain. No one person takes responsibility; it is just the deteriorated environment that everyone accepts. In the same way, the widespread possession of handguns creates an environment that makes disaster more likely when a bad spell occurs.
It is doubtful that we will or even should know the intimate details that led this man to crisis and the murder of his children and spouse. What is evident, however, is that most of these tragedies do involve shootings. It is conceivable that he might have strangled or stabbed the victims, but shooting was apparently more convenient and the method of choice. But the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the man as a “madman” which is also too convenient. It is true that he is to blame, but to fail to ask whether the ubiquitous presence of firearms made the event more likely and more feasible is socially irresponsible.
There are two directions that the debate can go. In the first instance, the basic position is that having firearms in the possession of so many people and so readily available is a social norm that is more important than the thousands of deaths each year from events like this family in Michigan and the massacre in Tucson. In this case, we rationalize the actions of the shooter and crazy and ignore the conditions that facilitated the event. The second direction is to question what type of society we want to live in and whether conditions that facilitate, if not promote, gun violence are socially acceptable. In this case, we seek to balance the freedom to own guns for legitimate sporting and true defense protection against the danger to society that having too many guns so readily available will result in too many deaths from abuse of those rights. In my view, carrying a gun around just in case someone might offend you is not legitimate protection need. The first argument seems to hold sway in the US, despite the weekly or daily deaths that result from the permissive and indiscriminate possession and use of handguns.
Thus, it is hard to accept as sincere the expressions of dismay or even surprise that such deaths occur. It would be like expressing surprise that a person who walks in a snake pit gets bitten by a snake. The death would be regrettable, but in no way should it seem surprising that the result flowed from the conditions. We buy into phony arguments and rationalizations. We make false and insincere expressions of sadness and regret, knowing that the conditions that facilitated the tragedy are ones we would fight to maintain despite also knowing that such tragedies will be repeated.
The gloss that the Supreme Court has layered on the Second Amendment to turn a provision initially intended to enable militia to be formed to protect against a foreign threat, when a national army was not fully established or readily available, into a supposed right of every person to own and carry automatic weapons in public is fait accompli. Despite its lunacy and historical inaccuracy, it has passed into the normative culture of US society. The question that we all should now consider is whether to continue to follow an irrational dogma or to consider the implications of too many guns. Having shotguns in the hands of licensed hunters for use during regulated seasons in regulated areas for purposes of duck and pheasant hunting is not the same as carrying a Glock 19 in an urban parking lot. That is a dangerously silly false equivalency. Yet preserving the former is used as an excuse for the latter. And the gun lobby is not even consistent in its lunacy. By its simplistic logic, there is no reason why every individual ought not to be able to own and carry incendiary grenades or even nuclear devices if they could be miniaturized so that a person could carry them. Yet the NRA would probably [note the uncertainty] that permitting such conceal and carry freedom would not be a good idea.
It is time, if there is a sincere concern about the recent shooting injuries and death, to start thinking about what can be done to begin the process of disarmament of the country. The cold war mentality that says that there are crooks and robbers out there with guns, so I must be armed, is a false goal. It leads to the next step of saying that the crook has a bigger gun, so I need a more powerful weapon, until everyone is armed with weapons they do not need for purposes that they will never face. And thus we find ourselves in the veritable “snake pit” in which the present of so many guns creates a danger in and of itself. When someone loses a temper, it becomes easier to take a gun than to just punch a fist into a wall or some other relatively harmless method of letting off steam. When that anger is directed toward a specific person, the potential of a shooting then becomes far more likely than if there were no guns readily lying about. That is the environment that we now have. The challenge is whether we want it to continue and to worsen, or do we want it to get better and less lethal.
Unfortunately, the majority of the public seems too shortsighted, self centered and egotistical to look beyond the surface and consider implications. The common belief is that: “I would never do anything like that, so it is not necessary to consider that such tragedies happen or why they happen –conditions that make them more likely rather than less likely.” Because the individualist thinks that he or she is totally responsible with guns at all time, the belief is that guns should be readily available to everyone under all circumstances. In truth, most people do not really know or understand [or perhaps even care] what depression can do to a person. If an analogy is needed, consider the mudslides being experienced in Brazil and Haiti. The landscape was denuded so the conditions were ripe for disaster in the event of a heavy rain. No one person takes responsibility; it is just the deteriorated environment that everyone accepts. In the same way, the widespread possession of handguns creates an environment that makes disaster more likely when a bad spell occurs.
It is doubtful that we will or even should know the intimate details that led this man to crisis and the murder of his children and spouse. What is evident, however, is that most of these tragedies do involve shootings. It is conceivable that he might have strangled or stabbed the victims, but shooting was apparently more convenient and the method of choice. But the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the man as a “madman” which is also too convenient. It is true that he is to blame, but to fail to ask whether the ubiquitous presence of firearms made the event more likely and more feasible is socially irresponsible.
There are two directions that the debate can go. In the first instance, the basic position is that having firearms in the possession of so many people and so readily available is a social norm that is more important than the thousands of deaths each year from events like this family in Michigan and the massacre in Tucson. In this case, we rationalize the actions of the shooter and crazy and ignore the conditions that facilitated the event. The second direction is to question what type of society we want to live in and whether conditions that facilitate, if not promote, gun violence are socially acceptable. In this case, we seek to balance the freedom to own guns for legitimate sporting and true defense protection against the danger to society that having too many guns so readily available will result in too many deaths from abuse of those rights. In my view, carrying a gun around just in case someone might offend you is not legitimate protection need. The first argument seems to hold sway in the US, despite the weekly or daily deaths that result from the permissive and indiscriminate possession and use of handguns.
Thus, it is hard to accept as sincere the expressions of dismay or even surprise that such deaths occur. It would be like expressing surprise that a person who walks in a snake pit gets bitten by a snake. The death would be regrettable, but in no way should it seem surprising that the result flowed from the conditions. We buy into phony arguments and rationalizations. We make false and insincere expressions of sadness and regret, knowing that the conditions that facilitated the tragedy are ones we would fight to maintain despite also knowing that such tragedies will be repeated.
The gloss that the Supreme Court has layered on the Second Amendment to turn a provision initially intended to enable militia to be formed to protect against a foreign threat, when a national army was not fully established or readily available, into a supposed right of every person to own and carry automatic weapons in public is fait accompli. Despite its lunacy and historical inaccuracy, it has passed into the normative culture of US society. The question that we all should now consider is whether to continue to follow an irrational dogma or to consider the implications of too many guns. Having shotguns in the hands of licensed hunters for use during regulated seasons in regulated areas for purposes of duck and pheasant hunting is not the same as carrying a Glock 19 in an urban parking lot. That is a dangerously silly false equivalency. Yet preserving the former is used as an excuse for the latter. And the gun lobby is not even consistent in its lunacy. By its simplistic logic, there is no reason why every individual ought not to be able to own and carry incendiary grenades or even nuclear devices if they could be miniaturized so that a person could carry them. Yet the NRA would probably [note the uncertainty] that permitting such conceal and carry freedom would not be a good idea.
It is time, if there is a sincere concern about the recent shooting injuries and death, to start thinking about what can be done to begin the process of disarmament of the country. The cold war mentality that says that there are crooks and robbers out there with guns, so I must be armed, is a false goal. It leads to the next step of saying that the crook has a bigger gun, so I need a more powerful weapon, until everyone is armed with weapons they do not need for purposes that they will never face. And thus we find ourselves in the veritable “snake pit” in which the present of so many guns creates a danger in and of itself. When someone loses a temper, it becomes easier to take a gun than to just punch a fist into a wall or some other relatively harmless method of letting off steam. When that anger is directed toward a specific person, the potential of a shooting then becomes far more likely than if there were no guns readily lying about. That is the environment that we now have. The challenge is whether we want it to continue and to worsen, or do we want it to get better and less lethal.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition
How deep we have sunken. One respondent to an article criticizing the incredibly high number of automatic assault weapons in the hands of US citizens, claimed that guns are not the problem, just crazy people and evil murderers. He claims that gun regulation deprives us of "our freedoms." Under his logic, anyone is a "dumbass" who advocates reasonable safety regulation. There is no reason to encroach on our "freedoms." No reason for preventing food manufacturers from putting rat poison in food, no reason why pilots should be licensed or regulated [anyone should be able to fly any plane they want to anywhere they wish, right?] and no reason to limit semi-automatic assault weapons in peaceful rally sites where there are young children.
I do not see anyone advocating elimination of gun ownership, just reasonable regulation of who can purchase and how they can be stored and used. The historical facts surrounding the Second Amendment only call for a regulated militia, not for individual ownership of guns with a right of individuals to carry concealed weapons in crowded pubic areas in time of peace. Yet folks as crazy as Loughner have a knee jerk reaction any time someone mentions the idea that maybe we don't need assault weapons in Safeway parking lots. Some of those folks argue that everyone at the Meet Your Congresswoman event should have been armed and opened fire. [Loughner would probably have been killed, along with a couple hundred other people in the crossfire.]
The idea of "common welfare" suggests that we create as a society areas or zones where certain conduct is prohibited for the benefit and safety of all. If I go to a gun range, I can expect to see guns and maybe get shot. If I wander in the woods during deer hunting season, I assume some risk. But I should not have to expect danger from Glock 19 pistols at the local Safeway. I do not think it unreasonable to require that, if you own a gun, you must be responsible for it and have it inspected and accounted for each year just like cars and emission certification. Then if a gun is missing, it will be known. The owner would bear responsibility for not securing the gun against loss or theft. I do not think it unreasonable to require trigger locks to prevent accidental injury by children. Most gun accidents come from children playing with unattended weapons. The problem is that extremist gun ownership advocates attack even the most reasonable protections. They demand the right to misuse of weapons, in the name of protecting gun ownership. That seems absurd. Does my right to own a car include a right to be reckless and to run down anyone I choose? Of course not. And it is hard to imagine that even the founding fathers would have contemplated the Second Amendment as authorizing the use of guns for people to walk into town meetings and start shooting everyone in sight. All perspective is lost.
Quite simply, it is time to stop the duplicity. If Loughner was deranged and mentally unstable, then why was he able to easily purchase a Glock 19 and large magazines for $500 locally? If he is the sort that should NOT be able to own and use such weapons freely and easily, then it is clear that the existing regulations are not working. If guns should be allowed "for legitimate" sporting purposes, what "sport" involves use of an automatic assault weapon in a supermarket parking lot? The "justifications" for rampant gun toting have risen to the level of the absurd, at the same time that the death rate from guns in the United States is THOUSANDS times higher than other developed countries. If we are not to restrict gun toting, should not all buildings and public establishments be equipped with metal detectors so that at least everyone will be alerted to the fact that a gunman is present?
There are no easy answers, but putting more guns on the streets clearly is NOT an answer. Like nuclear arms reduction, the survival of our society calls for disarmament. There is a need to reduce gun ownership and restrict areas and ways in which guns can be stored and used. Perhaps then public servants will only need to fear free speech expressions against them in the form of heckling, and not from the burst of an assault weapon.
I do not see anyone advocating elimination of gun ownership, just reasonable regulation of who can purchase and how they can be stored and used. The historical facts surrounding the Second Amendment only call for a regulated militia, not for individual ownership of guns with a right of individuals to carry concealed weapons in crowded pubic areas in time of peace. Yet folks as crazy as Loughner have a knee jerk reaction any time someone mentions the idea that maybe we don't need assault weapons in Safeway parking lots. Some of those folks argue that everyone at the Meet Your Congresswoman event should have been armed and opened fire. [Loughner would probably have been killed, along with a couple hundred other people in the crossfire.]
The idea of "common welfare" suggests that we create as a society areas or zones where certain conduct is prohibited for the benefit and safety of all. If I go to a gun range, I can expect to see guns and maybe get shot. If I wander in the woods during deer hunting season, I assume some risk. But I should not have to expect danger from Glock 19 pistols at the local Safeway. I do not think it unreasonable to require that, if you own a gun, you must be responsible for it and have it inspected and accounted for each year just like cars and emission certification. Then if a gun is missing, it will be known. The owner would bear responsibility for not securing the gun against loss or theft. I do not think it unreasonable to require trigger locks to prevent accidental injury by children. Most gun accidents come from children playing with unattended weapons. The problem is that extremist gun ownership advocates attack even the most reasonable protections. They demand the right to misuse of weapons, in the name of protecting gun ownership. That seems absurd. Does my right to own a car include a right to be reckless and to run down anyone I choose? Of course not. And it is hard to imagine that even the founding fathers would have contemplated the Second Amendment as authorizing the use of guns for people to walk into town meetings and start shooting everyone in sight. All perspective is lost.
Quite simply, it is time to stop the duplicity. If Loughner was deranged and mentally unstable, then why was he able to easily purchase a Glock 19 and large magazines for $500 locally? If he is the sort that should NOT be able to own and use such weapons freely and easily, then it is clear that the existing regulations are not working. If guns should be allowed "for legitimate" sporting purposes, what "sport" involves use of an automatic assault weapon in a supermarket parking lot? The "justifications" for rampant gun toting have risen to the level of the absurd, at the same time that the death rate from guns in the United States is THOUSANDS times higher than other developed countries. If we are not to restrict gun toting, should not all buildings and public establishments be equipped with metal detectors so that at least everyone will be alerted to the fact that a gunman is present?
There are no easy answers, but putting more guns on the streets clearly is NOT an answer. Like nuclear arms reduction, the survival of our society calls for disarmament. There is a need to reduce gun ownership and restrict areas and ways in which guns can be stored and used. Perhaps then public servants will only need to fear free speech expressions against them in the form of heckling, and not from the burst of an assault weapon.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
An “Indelicate” proposal of “Just Say NO.”
President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are trotting about the country touting a federal government policy that the goal of all public schools is to prepare students to be college and career ready. Toward this aim, substantial funds are directed to support beleaguered public schools if they buy into the Administration policies. Further, penalties and threats to deny or take away funding are brandished if schools do not embrace this policy.
To be clear, as a holder of undergraduate and advanced degrees, I am not in any way opposed to the pursuit of college and higher education. As a former school district board member and advisor, I am also well aware of the aspiration to provide students with the educational services best designed to help student maximize their intellectual development and curiosity. At the same time, my experience tells me that not every student is suited for or prepared for the demands of higher education at the time of graduation from high school. Keep in mind that the notion of immediate entry into university from high school has not always been the norm. So while I agree that public schools should strive to provide a foundation for each student who wishes to build an academic career, I am not in agreement with a federal policy that drives a system to force students into modes and paths for which they are indisposed, ill suited and ill prepared. But that is not the gravamen of this essay.
Recent reports suggest that the average undergraduate education in the United States now has a price tag of around $80,000. Some of that cost is covered in grants and scholarships but a substantial part is covered by loans and indebtedness. The average college graduate has at least $24,000 in remaining debt, and many have six figure obligations. In perspective, graduation from college mortgages the future of our youth more heavily than would purchase of a home. A mortgage on a home can be discharged in bankruptcy while a student loan cannot be discharged for the student or the parent who co-signs.
In an economy where a very large portion of graduates do not have jobs to go to that will enable them to pay these mountainous debts, the exhortation and federal pressure that pushes college education as the "norm" is a cruel hoax. Absent federal government allocation of funding and reform of predatory lending programs and practices, the Administration should rethink and rescind its policy. I am not suggesting abandonment of efforts to improve the quality of public school instruction. It is not the goal, but rather the methodology that is unsound. There is an old challenge from the streets: “put your money where your mouth is.” And the challenge applies to the federal government and its policy of college readiness.
Young people should not be forced into college at the expense of their future economic health simply to advance a slogan. Unless the college opportunity and experience is made economically viable, the policy lacks balance and coherence.
Of course this simply exposes the class division in the country. The wealthy have always been able to purchase college educations for their children. Unless demonstrably talented enough to merit large grants and scholarships, by white middle and upper class standards, poor and minority students have been denied equality of opportunity. The middle class has been under increasing pressure and attack, and these are the ones who suffer the ironic deception of graduating from college with a pile of debt in one hand and a useless resume in the other.
So the indelicate suggestion to the federal government should be to take the policy of “college readiness” for all students and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Until the same federal government is prepared to enact measures that provide reasonable financial support that makes a college education economically viable, it is guilty of the same type of irresponsible predatory tactics that induced home buyers and owners to take out unaffordable mortgages that led to the housing bubble and subsequent economic tragedy from which the country is still suffering. Pressuring youth with the message that a college education is essential when seeking such a degree can lead to financial indentured servitude or ruin is simply wrong.
One more point might be added. The “trickle down” theory does not work. One would imagine that wealthy business owners who depend upon a well educated workforce would act in their own self interest by providing endowments for colleges and universities with the tax breaks that are served up by Congress and the Administration. If the theory worked, talented students should have financial support available so that going to college would not result in a huge loan obligation. But the reality is not so. Employers could also offer to pay the equivalent of up to one year’s salary toward a new hire’s student loans for each position filled which requires at least an undergraduate degree, with a substantial tax deduction for doing so. Such a targeted proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy than extending tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% in the nation. It would also be a coherent strategy that would help make the policy of universal college readiness rational. But no such proposal is on the table or even being considered. So when the federal government comes knocking with demands to change public education programs to require college readiness for every student…..Just Say NO.
To be clear, as a holder of undergraduate and advanced degrees, I am not in any way opposed to the pursuit of college and higher education. As a former school district board member and advisor, I am also well aware of the aspiration to provide students with the educational services best designed to help student maximize their intellectual development and curiosity. At the same time, my experience tells me that not every student is suited for or prepared for the demands of higher education at the time of graduation from high school. Keep in mind that the notion of immediate entry into university from high school has not always been the norm. So while I agree that public schools should strive to provide a foundation for each student who wishes to build an academic career, I am not in agreement with a federal policy that drives a system to force students into modes and paths for which they are indisposed, ill suited and ill prepared. But that is not the gravamen of this essay.
Recent reports suggest that the average undergraduate education in the United States now has a price tag of around $80,000. Some of that cost is covered in grants and scholarships but a substantial part is covered by loans and indebtedness. The average college graduate has at least $24,000 in remaining debt, and many have six figure obligations. In perspective, graduation from college mortgages the future of our youth more heavily than would purchase of a home. A mortgage on a home can be discharged in bankruptcy while a student loan cannot be discharged for the student or the parent who co-signs.
In an economy where a very large portion of graduates do not have jobs to go to that will enable them to pay these mountainous debts, the exhortation and federal pressure that pushes college education as the "norm" is a cruel hoax. Absent federal government allocation of funding and reform of predatory lending programs and practices, the Administration should rethink and rescind its policy. I am not suggesting abandonment of efforts to improve the quality of public school instruction. It is not the goal, but rather the methodology that is unsound. There is an old challenge from the streets: “put your money where your mouth is.” And the challenge applies to the federal government and its policy of college readiness.
Young people should not be forced into college at the expense of their future economic health simply to advance a slogan. Unless the college opportunity and experience is made economically viable, the policy lacks balance and coherence.
Of course this simply exposes the class division in the country. The wealthy have always been able to purchase college educations for their children. Unless demonstrably talented enough to merit large grants and scholarships, by white middle and upper class standards, poor and minority students have been denied equality of opportunity. The middle class has been under increasing pressure and attack, and these are the ones who suffer the ironic deception of graduating from college with a pile of debt in one hand and a useless resume in the other.
So the indelicate suggestion to the federal government should be to take the policy of “college readiness” for all students and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Until the same federal government is prepared to enact measures that provide reasonable financial support that makes a college education economically viable, it is guilty of the same type of irresponsible predatory tactics that induced home buyers and owners to take out unaffordable mortgages that led to the housing bubble and subsequent economic tragedy from which the country is still suffering. Pressuring youth with the message that a college education is essential when seeking such a degree can lead to financial indentured servitude or ruin is simply wrong.
One more point might be added. The “trickle down” theory does not work. One would imagine that wealthy business owners who depend upon a well educated workforce would act in their own self interest by providing endowments for colleges and universities with the tax breaks that are served up by Congress and the Administration. If the theory worked, talented students should have financial support available so that going to college would not result in a huge loan obligation. But the reality is not so. Employers could also offer to pay the equivalent of up to one year’s salary toward a new hire’s student loans for each position filled which requires at least an undergraduate degree, with a substantial tax deduction for doing so. Such a targeted proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy than extending tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% in the nation. It would also be a coherent strategy that would help make the policy of universal college readiness rational. But no such proposal is on the table or even being considered. So when the federal government comes knocking with demands to change public education programs to require college readiness for every student…..Just Say NO.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Wikileaks and the Big Bad Wolf
A good doctor seeks to determine and reduce or eliminate the cause, not just treat the symptoms.
Why is it that no on seems to consider the strategy that the US government should stop lying to its citizens and engaging in a policy that creates more terrorists and terrorism?
We are supposed to take as a "given" that the terrorist fear and hysteria is a "way of life." But it clearly has not always been so, even under the Reagan Administration, and he was the darling of the Right Wing. Bill Clinton warned of GWB's foreign policy ineptitude by saying that: "you cannot kill enemies as fast as you can make them, so it is better to try to make friends." Bush never listened and declared a "Crusade" against Islam and the Arab culture. To consolidate his domestic power, Bush sought the Patriot Act to take away civil liberties and create a climate of fear and hysteria. Obama has done little to change this climate, despite mild push back from the public in the form of objections to airport "security" measures.
I do not condone all that Wikileaks has done, but this is something [like the Pentagon Papers] that the government has brought upon itself. Everyone knows that diplomats make candid and derogatory comments about their counterparts. The list of critical sites could probably be developed by any college student with a computer and Google Earth, just like information about military installations of any country, so I think the reaction is deliberately overblown. For example, we know exactly where and at what pace North Korea and Iran are building facilities that may or may not contain work on nuclear projects. Is it reasonable to think that other countries do not know about US installations? seriously? But the volume of disclosure runs the risk of being indiscriminate and releasing a couple of things that could actually be damaging.
The government insists on a culture of deception and concealment of information the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. If national security were actually used as a claim or complaint when national security was really at issue, people would be more respectful of government claims. But knowing what books people check out at the local library is a long stretch from any legitimate claim of national security. So no one believes or respects the government complaints anymore. They have lied and cried wolf too many times in order to maintain a climate of fear about "terrorism." They can threaten to prosecute Wikileaks, but that will not alter the deep distrust that exists about government integrity and transparency. A wise man once said that trust cannot be obtained at the end of a barrel of a gun, it must be earned. Does the US government want to be just feared, or respected?
True journalism [whose duty is as a watchdog to keep the government honest] has died or been sold to corporate greed. The youth of today have abandoned "mainstream media" as a source of credible information. Sadly, no one respects the media [Fox, MSNBC, etc] as a source of credible information any longer. Weather reports, to the extent that one could ever rely on them, are about the only thing people take seriously at all anymore.
That opens the door to a form of citizen action or vigilante justice [depending upon your viewpoint] that is Wikileaks. Prosecuting Assange may give the appearance of control, from the storm trooper perspective, but it is just symptomatic treatment. It will only deepen the distrust and disrespect toward a government that lies to its people, and crushes anyone who threatens to expose the deceit.
Why is it that no on seems to consider the strategy that the US government should stop lying to its citizens and engaging in a policy that creates more terrorists and terrorism?
We are supposed to take as a "given" that the terrorist fear and hysteria is a "way of life." But it clearly has not always been so, even under the Reagan Administration, and he was the darling of the Right Wing. Bill Clinton warned of GWB's foreign policy ineptitude by saying that: "you cannot kill enemies as fast as you can make them, so it is better to try to make friends." Bush never listened and declared a "Crusade" against Islam and the Arab culture. To consolidate his domestic power, Bush sought the Patriot Act to take away civil liberties and create a climate of fear and hysteria. Obama has done little to change this climate, despite mild push back from the public in the form of objections to airport "security" measures.
I do not condone all that Wikileaks has done, but this is something [like the Pentagon Papers] that the government has brought upon itself. Everyone knows that diplomats make candid and derogatory comments about their counterparts. The list of critical sites could probably be developed by any college student with a computer and Google Earth, just like information about military installations of any country, so I think the reaction is deliberately overblown. For example, we know exactly where and at what pace North Korea and Iran are building facilities that may or may not contain work on nuclear projects. Is it reasonable to think that other countries do not know about US installations? seriously? But the volume of disclosure runs the risk of being indiscriminate and releasing a couple of things that could actually be damaging.
The government insists on a culture of deception and concealment of information the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. If national security were actually used as a claim or complaint when national security was really at issue, people would be more respectful of government claims. But knowing what books people check out at the local library is a long stretch from any legitimate claim of national security. So no one believes or respects the government complaints anymore. They have lied and cried wolf too many times in order to maintain a climate of fear about "terrorism." They can threaten to prosecute Wikileaks, but that will not alter the deep distrust that exists about government integrity and transparency. A wise man once said that trust cannot be obtained at the end of a barrel of a gun, it must be earned. Does the US government want to be just feared, or respected?
True journalism [whose duty is as a watchdog to keep the government honest] has died or been sold to corporate greed. The youth of today have abandoned "mainstream media" as a source of credible information. Sadly, no one respects the media [Fox, MSNBC, etc] as a source of credible information any longer. Weather reports, to the extent that one could ever rely on them, are about the only thing people take seriously at all anymore.
That opens the door to a form of citizen action or vigilante justice [depending upon your viewpoint] that is Wikileaks. Prosecuting Assange may give the appearance of control, from the storm trooper perspective, but it is just symptomatic treatment. It will only deepen the distrust and disrespect toward a government that lies to its people, and crushes anyone who threatens to expose the deceit.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Long Live Sanity!
The Rally to Restore Sanity was a much needed break from the negative, ad hominem and vitriolic discourse that has come to characterize US elections and politics. Held in Washington, DC and sponsored by Comedy central stars Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert, the rally was estimated to have drawn over 215,000. I am, of course chary of placing much credence on crowd estimates, but even with a huge margin of error it is fair to say that the crowd outnumbered the right wing pep fest hosted by Beck and Palin that drew about 85,000. Though the margin is still less than I would like, a representation that there is at least a 2:1 ratio of people who favor sanity and compassion to intolerance, suppression of civil or human rights and divisiveness is somewhat encouraging.
One need not search for the deeply profound in the humor inspired rally, other than the affirmation that there are still a lot of people in the US who have not totally lost their sense of humor. But we may consider some very apt quotes taken from the crowd that seem to express the sentiment that inspired the rally and that may represent a substantial feeling among average US citizens.
"It's the first time a message like this has resonated with me," said Jonathan Dugan, 37, a product engineer who flew from San Francisco to stand on the mall on a sunny fall afternoon. "We need to get people to talk to each other in a meaningful way."
With politicians seeking to attack their opponents on a personal level and claiming to state what “the people” want, without ever taking the time to consult the populace, it is a desire profoundly to be wished.
"I'm really concerned that we're not agreeing on anything," said Jean Mathisen, 63, who runs a seniors fraud-prevention program in Seattle. Reminded that the country was bitterly divided over Vietnam and civil rights during her youth, she said, "I felt that back then, at least a lot of people wanted to work together."
The GOP in the Senate voted unanimously to block virtually every initiative of the Obama Administration, and now chastises the administration for "failing to deliver” the promised change. Such is the hypocrisy that now colors the highest legislative body of the nation. And the Senate majority leader stated openly that he “wished that they could have obstructed more," as if that were possible. So it is no wonder that there are people in the country who are frustrated with the lack of action.
But what remains to be seen is whether they will be rational enough to recognize the reasons and the mechanics of the inertia and vote accordingly. One might speculate that the Democrats could have capitulated further in order to gain GOP support, but we must remember the statement from the GOP leadership that no proposal from the White House would gain GOP support. So such speculation would be futile.
“People,” as suggested by characters as diverse as Thomas Jefferson to P.T. Barnum to Elmer Gantry can be fooled almost all the time. So the media hype, backed by billions of dollars spent by anonymous entities on ad campaign attacks, will undoubtedly influence some beyond those who have stopped thinking and seek only to convince themselves of their preconceived convictions. They are unlikely to be persuaded, and will only get confused if you try to throw facts or intelligent arguments at them.
Yet the best thing that could happen to the country might be the awakening of the sleeping, and sometimes apathetic, middle group of people represented by the attendees of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Not consulted by any of the horse race and dog fight pollsters, this huge group has the power to speak with a loud voice to politicians and perhaps send a message that artful dodging and mindless intransigence are not acceptable. The message might be that the electorate demands better from its government. That would be the makings of a seismic political shift not seen since the War for Independence from Britain.
But maybe it is just wishful thinking…
One need not search for the deeply profound in the humor inspired rally, other than the affirmation that there are still a lot of people in the US who have not totally lost their sense of humor. But we may consider some very apt quotes taken from the crowd that seem to express the sentiment that inspired the rally and that may represent a substantial feeling among average US citizens.
"It's the first time a message like this has resonated with me," said Jonathan Dugan, 37, a product engineer who flew from San Francisco to stand on the mall on a sunny fall afternoon. "We need to get people to talk to each other in a meaningful way."
With politicians seeking to attack their opponents on a personal level and claiming to state what “the people” want, without ever taking the time to consult the populace, it is a desire profoundly to be wished.
"I'm really concerned that we're not agreeing on anything," said Jean Mathisen, 63, who runs a seniors fraud-prevention program in Seattle. Reminded that the country was bitterly divided over Vietnam and civil rights during her youth, she said, "I felt that back then, at least a lot of people wanted to work together."
The GOP in the Senate voted unanimously to block virtually every initiative of the Obama Administration, and now chastises the administration for "failing to deliver” the promised change. Such is the hypocrisy that now colors the highest legislative body of the nation. And the Senate majority leader stated openly that he “wished that they could have obstructed more," as if that were possible. So it is no wonder that there are people in the country who are frustrated with the lack of action.
But what remains to be seen is whether they will be rational enough to recognize the reasons and the mechanics of the inertia and vote accordingly. One might speculate that the Democrats could have capitulated further in order to gain GOP support, but we must remember the statement from the GOP leadership that no proposal from the White House would gain GOP support. So such speculation would be futile.
“People,” as suggested by characters as diverse as Thomas Jefferson to P.T. Barnum to Elmer Gantry can be fooled almost all the time. So the media hype, backed by billions of dollars spent by anonymous entities on ad campaign attacks, will undoubtedly influence some beyond those who have stopped thinking and seek only to convince themselves of their preconceived convictions. They are unlikely to be persuaded, and will only get confused if you try to throw facts or intelligent arguments at them.
Yet the best thing that could happen to the country might be the awakening of the sleeping, and sometimes apathetic, middle group of people represented by the attendees of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Not consulted by any of the horse race and dog fight pollsters, this huge group has the power to speak with a loud voice to politicians and perhaps send a message that artful dodging and mindless intransigence are not acceptable. The message might be that the electorate demands better from its government. That would be the makings of a seismic political shift not seen since the War for Independence from Britain.
But maybe it is just wishful thinking…
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Lessons from Arkansas
We are all, for better or for worse, teachers in what we do and fail to do. The impact of our pedagogy may be limited to our friends and immediate family; and it may possibly reach to other people, communities and to the world. And so Mr. Clint McCance, a commercial carpet cleaner from Midland, Arkansas has stepped to the lectern, perhaps unwittingly, to provide us all a lesson. Our task is to draw what we can of value from his teachings and see how they may help us make sense of an ever perplexing world. Mr. McCance also happened to hold elective office as the Vice President of the local school board, and so the concept of education should not be altogether foreign to him. This coincidence may seem ironic as we examine the wisdom which he apparently seems to be imparting.
McCance, an immigrant to the technology of the day like many of us, participates in social networking over the internet. Last week, he posted a message responding to a general call for people to wear the color purple in support of families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they were or were perceived to be gay and had been bullied. Several such cases have been made public in the recent past, and suicide prevention organizations tell us that only a fraction of all such cases reach public notice. Mr. McCance opined that all gay people, including children, should commit suicide and that would be the only event that would induce him to don purple. His vitriolic rant included numerous scurrilous references and offensive terms that need not be repeated here. McCance cloaked his commentary in a proclamation of his Christian faith and beliefs, suggesting that his views are examples of Christian values. But the tone was steeped in the vilest hatred one might see posted in any public sphere.
This screed was picked up by a former student of the school district and came to the attention of a wider public when communicated to a support group that serves gays and youth. The story quickly became viral as the words of McCance were transmitted across the internet at blazing speed that the medium permits. The school district promptly posted a disclaimer and condemned the statements of McCance and the hateful and bullying attitudes it expressed. Later, the State of Arkansas Education Commission posted an announcement stating that the comments were unacceptable and that they should not be associated with education or the State of Arkansas. It said that it had no direct authority to take action as McCance is an elected official. Apprised of the offensive rant, US Secretary of Education Duncan declared that an individual expressing such views has no business in a position supervising the education of children.
We turn now to what lessons McCance has to teach or that we might glean from events that his actions have sparked. First, and most obvious, must be the demonstration of the low level of public dialogue and the moral bankruptcy of debate that we seemed to have reached. Whether the commentary by McCance is the nadir can be hoped, but cannot be assured. His seemingly unprovoked outburst suggests that what we might want to consider as commonly accepted voluntary social filters on exercise of free speech in public debate may either be non-existent or seriously dysfunctional.
The ease and speed of internet communication provides wide access to a vehicle of public expression of ideas and opinions. At the same time, the ability to engage in such dialogue from the “cover” of one’s office or room does away with the face to face element that previously typified public debate. No longer does one feel compelled or constrained to consider the impact of one’s words on others who are exposed to the communication. Such consideration tended, in the past, to impose some social constraints and a measure of civility. That McCance is a publicly elected official is salient as well, in that the aforementioned filters in the past would cause such officials to consider the consequences of their action on the constituents that elected them, in addition to the social and political consequences for themselves personally.
The decline in civility is not confined to McCance. Politicians seeking national office suggesting that the answer to the problem of insuring those with pre-existing illness would be solved if those persons simply died quickly, and other politicians suggesting that if their views do not prevail that the alternative response should be the “Second Amendment” solution, a thinly veiled reference to taking up firearms in lieu of the electoral process. Another candidate seeking office requiring support and defense of the US Constitution apparently does not know what the founding document says, and another wants to do away with fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment. And so the comments by McCance, which he now acknowledges were “over the top” and “ignorant,” are not altogether aberrant in the context of current public dialogue. And so one lesson that we might take from the McCance lecture is that the costs of free speech in a democracy may be at time greater than we would like to consider or than we are comfortable with in what we might consider a “civilized” society.
The screed by McCance was not without repercussions. He reports receiving thousands of phone calls and emails mostly protesting and condemning his actions. He suggested that he felt compelled to send his family out of the State, based upon some unspecified threats. A social networking page was set up to denounce McCance and demand his resignation, a site generating support of over 60,000 in less than 72 hours. His business was identified so that the public could express its disapproval by submitting negative feedback to discourage potential customers. He was contacted by the head of an Arkansas suicide prevention organization to discuss and explain to McCance the terrible import of the suicide tragedies that he was promoting. Finally, he appeared on network television to publicly apologize and announce that he plans to resign his post as school board officer and member. While any threats to McCance and his family would be deplorable, such responses do suggest that the public can and will rise up to respond when the level of dialogue descends to a level that is too low. In other words, there still seems to remain “some” standard of civility below which the public generally will not accept without pushing back.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hopeful lesson that may be gleaned from this episode is that a society still exists that seeks to maintain some minimal standards of common values and civility. There are still a substantial number of people who believe that, although a citizen has the right to express opinions in the exercise of free speech, but also believe that such personal views may disqualify the citizen for holding public office, particularly when the office is to specifically oversee the formation of children’s character in public education. It can be hoped that the viability of such a popular view, weak or hidden though it may be, can gain strength and that its voice can come forward.
Regardless of differing views along the political and social spectrum, perhaps we can regain some sense of decorum and civility in public dialogue. What calls for suppression is only the idea that one need not think before speaking, and that one need not consider the impact of one’s comments before a public rant. Not to ask for too much, perhaps we can hope that candidates for and holders of public office will treat the positions of public trust that they hold with greater respect. If they cannot respect the office and cannot make the effort to educate themselves regarding the responsibilities entailed by the position, they should withdraw or resign in favor of others willing to shoulder the burdens that go along with the prestige.
These are some lessons that we might derive from the thoughtless, hateful and intemperate outburst by an official charged with the duty to oversee the public education of impressionable children. Though he lives in a small town in Arkansas, and will no doubt soon fade from public notice, in this regard McCance has indeed provided a public service as educator.
McCance, an immigrant to the technology of the day like many of us, participates in social networking over the internet. Last week, he posted a message responding to a general call for people to wear the color purple in support of families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they were or were perceived to be gay and had been bullied. Several such cases have been made public in the recent past, and suicide prevention organizations tell us that only a fraction of all such cases reach public notice. Mr. McCance opined that all gay people, including children, should commit suicide and that would be the only event that would induce him to don purple. His vitriolic rant included numerous scurrilous references and offensive terms that need not be repeated here. McCance cloaked his commentary in a proclamation of his Christian faith and beliefs, suggesting that his views are examples of Christian values. But the tone was steeped in the vilest hatred one might see posted in any public sphere.
This screed was picked up by a former student of the school district and came to the attention of a wider public when communicated to a support group that serves gays and youth. The story quickly became viral as the words of McCance were transmitted across the internet at blazing speed that the medium permits. The school district promptly posted a disclaimer and condemned the statements of McCance and the hateful and bullying attitudes it expressed. Later, the State of Arkansas Education Commission posted an announcement stating that the comments were unacceptable and that they should not be associated with education or the State of Arkansas. It said that it had no direct authority to take action as McCance is an elected official. Apprised of the offensive rant, US Secretary of Education Duncan declared that an individual expressing such views has no business in a position supervising the education of children.
We turn now to what lessons McCance has to teach or that we might glean from events that his actions have sparked. First, and most obvious, must be the demonstration of the low level of public dialogue and the moral bankruptcy of debate that we seemed to have reached. Whether the commentary by McCance is the nadir can be hoped, but cannot be assured. His seemingly unprovoked outburst suggests that what we might want to consider as commonly accepted voluntary social filters on exercise of free speech in public debate may either be non-existent or seriously dysfunctional.
The ease and speed of internet communication provides wide access to a vehicle of public expression of ideas and opinions. At the same time, the ability to engage in such dialogue from the “cover” of one’s office or room does away with the face to face element that previously typified public debate. No longer does one feel compelled or constrained to consider the impact of one’s words on others who are exposed to the communication. Such consideration tended, in the past, to impose some social constraints and a measure of civility. That McCance is a publicly elected official is salient as well, in that the aforementioned filters in the past would cause such officials to consider the consequences of their action on the constituents that elected them, in addition to the social and political consequences for themselves personally.
The decline in civility is not confined to McCance. Politicians seeking national office suggesting that the answer to the problem of insuring those with pre-existing illness would be solved if those persons simply died quickly, and other politicians suggesting that if their views do not prevail that the alternative response should be the “Second Amendment” solution, a thinly veiled reference to taking up firearms in lieu of the electoral process. Another candidate seeking office requiring support and defense of the US Constitution apparently does not know what the founding document says, and another wants to do away with fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment. And so the comments by McCance, which he now acknowledges were “over the top” and “ignorant,” are not altogether aberrant in the context of current public dialogue. And so one lesson that we might take from the McCance lecture is that the costs of free speech in a democracy may be at time greater than we would like to consider or than we are comfortable with in what we might consider a “civilized” society.
The screed by McCance was not without repercussions. He reports receiving thousands of phone calls and emails mostly protesting and condemning his actions. He suggested that he felt compelled to send his family out of the State, based upon some unspecified threats. A social networking page was set up to denounce McCance and demand his resignation, a site generating support of over 60,000 in less than 72 hours. His business was identified so that the public could express its disapproval by submitting negative feedback to discourage potential customers. He was contacted by the head of an Arkansas suicide prevention organization to discuss and explain to McCance the terrible import of the suicide tragedies that he was promoting. Finally, he appeared on network television to publicly apologize and announce that he plans to resign his post as school board officer and member. While any threats to McCance and his family would be deplorable, such responses do suggest that the public can and will rise up to respond when the level of dialogue descends to a level that is too low. In other words, there still seems to remain “some” standard of civility below which the public generally will not accept without pushing back.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hopeful lesson that may be gleaned from this episode is that a society still exists that seeks to maintain some minimal standards of common values and civility. There are still a substantial number of people who believe that, although a citizen has the right to express opinions in the exercise of free speech, but also believe that such personal views may disqualify the citizen for holding public office, particularly when the office is to specifically oversee the formation of children’s character in public education. It can be hoped that the viability of such a popular view, weak or hidden though it may be, can gain strength and that its voice can come forward.
Regardless of differing views along the political and social spectrum, perhaps we can regain some sense of decorum and civility in public dialogue. What calls for suppression is only the idea that one need not think before speaking, and that one need not consider the impact of one’s comments before a public rant. Not to ask for too much, perhaps we can hope that candidates for and holders of public office will treat the positions of public trust that they hold with greater respect. If they cannot respect the office and cannot make the effort to educate themselves regarding the responsibilities entailed by the position, they should withdraw or resign in favor of others willing to shoulder the burdens that go along with the prestige.
These are some lessons that we might derive from the thoughtless, hateful and intemperate outburst by an official charged with the duty to oversee the public education of impressionable children. Though he lives in a small town in Arkansas, and will no doubt soon fade from public notice, in this regard McCance has indeed provided a public service as educator.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Fare Well Senator Byrd
Senator Robert Byrd passed away this weekend and the passage merits acknowledgment. At the age of 92, Byrd was the longest serving senator in Congress. As such he has both seen and experienced the changes in US society and values that have transpired during his long years of service.
It is not without irony that Senator Byrd has been one of the strongest defenders of civil rights in the last decade. Yet it is Senator Byrd who teamed with Senator Strom Thurmond in 1964 to insert an amendment to cover discrimination against females into the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they believed that the amendment would kill the Civil Rights legislation completely. Now more than 35 years later, Senator Byrd would argue that some aspects of the legislation have not been forceful enough to remove vestiges of slavery based discrimination in US society, culture and business.
Racist tinged GOP strategies cloaked in pseudo-patriotic jargon, with the support and proxy help of extremist Tea Party zealots would roll the clock back and reduce or eliminate egalitarian and remedial measures that the government tries to impose to create a more participatory democracy and to encourage the growth of social justice. Sadly, as was recognized when the Civil rights Acts were passed, the protections provided by such legislation goes beyond race gender and religion to protect fundamental freedoms purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution. These freedoms have been seriously eroded in recent decades by a craven and fearful mentality that makes every neighbor a potential threat and every person who is not "alike" a potential enemy. Intolerance among cultures and ethnicities is rising to levels not seen since the days when the civil rights Acts were first passed. Psychological and political warfare between social classes is increasing and threatens to erupt into physical warfare if not checked.
The growth and evolution of Senator Byrd from a champion of racist and exclusionary policies into a true statesman who championed a pluralistic and participatory society in which every American citizen had at least the opportunity to participate according to his or her talents and willingness to work and sacrifice is a lesson to us all. People can change, and in the process of that change they can influence change toward a better society and a better tomorrow. In contrast to the current conventional wisdom that even the most honorable of men will fall to corruption and venal servitude to their own egos and powerful corporate lobbyists, Senator Byrd's example suggests that a man may indeed grow in character and respect for the true duties of his position while in the service of country in the US senate.
In addition, Senator Byrd's long years of service made him a procedural expert and strategist. Thus, he was able to give wise counsel not only on what should be done, but on how to steer legislation through Congress even against determined obstructionist
Yet for every transformation toward social justice, there arise multiple objectors and obstructionists who would revert to a discriminatory and exclusionary alternative in the name of "Conservatism." These defenders of privilege, including privileges that they themselves may not enjoy [yes, they are employed as proxies and stooges], in order to maintain an imbalance between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. They would defend the right of capitalist enterprises to destroy the environment in pursuit of profit without regard to the consequences for "we the people."
We can only hope, with bated breath, that some few members of Congress will recognize the true loss that the people and the country have sustained in the death of Senator Byrd. And with that realization, that a few will put aside their pettiness and egos in favor of a bona fide effort to be the public servants that the country and the people deserve.
It is not without irony that Senator Byrd has been one of the strongest defenders of civil rights in the last decade. Yet it is Senator Byrd who teamed with Senator Strom Thurmond in 1964 to insert an amendment to cover discrimination against females into the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they believed that the amendment would kill the Civil Rights legislation completely. Now more than 35 years later, Senator Byrd would argue that some aspects of the legislation have not been forceful enough to remove vestiges of slavery based discrimination in US society, culture and business.
Racist tinged GOP strategies cloaked in pseudo-patriotic jargon, with the support and proxy help of extremist Tea Party zealots would roll the clock back and reduce or eliminate egalitarian and remedial measures that the government tries to impose to create a more participatory democracy and to encourage the growth of social justice. Sadly, as was recognized when the Civil rights Acts were passed, the protections provided by such legislation goes beyond race gender and religion to protect fundamental freedoms purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution. These freedoms have been seriously eroded in recent decades by a craven and fearful mentality that makes every neighbor a potential threat and every person who is not "alike" a potential enemy. Intolerance among cultures and ethnicities is rising to levels not seen since the days when the civil rights Acts were first passed. Psychological and political warfare between social classes is increasing and threatens to erupt into physical warfare if not checked.
The growth and evolution of Senator Byrd from a champion of racist and exclusionary policies into a true statesman who championed a pluralistic and participatory society in which every American citizen had at least the opportunity to participate according to his or her talents and willingness to work and sacrifice is a lesson to us all. People can change, and in the process of that change they can influence change toward a better society and a better tomorrow. In contrast to the current conventional wisdom that even the most honorable of men will fall to corruption and venal servitude to their own egos and powerful corporate lobbyists, Senator Byrd's example suggests that a man may indeed grow in character and respect for the true duties of his position while in the service of country in the US senate.
In addition, Senator Byrd's long years of service made him a procedural expert and strategist. Thus, he was able to give wise counsel not only on what should be done, but on how to steer legislation through Congress even against determined obstructionist
Yet for every transformation toward social justice, there arise multiple objectors and obstructionists who would revert to a discriminatory and exclusionary alternative in the name of "Conservatism." These defenders of privilege, including privileges that they themselves may not enjoy [yes, they are employed as proxies and stooges], in order to maintain an imbalance between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. They would defend the right of capitalist enterprises to destroy the environment in pursuit of profit without regard to the consequences for "we the people."
We can only hope, with bated breath, that some few members of Congress will recognize the true loss that the people and the country have sustained in the death of Senator Byrd. And with that realization, that a few will put aside their pettiness and egos in favor of a bona fide effort to be the public servants that the country and the people deserve.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
How Stupid …. Part ???
Like the “Rocky” franchise, this saga of US government insanity seems to have innumerable sequels. The term “stupid” is used intentionally and advisedly. Ignorance is the lack of information or understanding. Stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant or choosing to ignore basic common sense and understanding and electing the irrational option. So the following example falls in the category of stupidity on the part of the US government by acting with knowledge and information in a manner that is both illogical and against the interests of the citizens of the USA. The alternative characterization is almost too cynical to consider, as discussed below.
Witness the recently released report regarding Pakistan funding and support of the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The report issued by the London School of Economics is based upon sources in Pakistan and present and former Taliban officials in Afghanistan. [See -http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e8f6f5c-76b4-11df-ba79-00144feabdc0.html] The report also confirms previous reports within the US military command that indicated belief of complicity by the Pakistan government with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Thus, it is fair to say that the US government had reason to believe Pakistani involvement and has further confirmation of that charge.
Her lies the stupidity. The US government spends billions of dollars in aid to prop up the Pakistani government. At least some of these funds are being used to supply intelligence, munitions and supplies to the Taliban to wage its insurgency in Afghanistan. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent by the US government to wage a fight against Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. These funds and the soldiers they support are being “expended” in a deadly war to prevent Taliban insurgency from taking control of Afghanistan. In simple terms, the US is funding a government effort by Pakistan to undermine and defeat the US mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban – waging a war against itself. Consider the role of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in firing top security officials in his government because they were too aggressive in their pursuit of Taliban leadership. The only beneficiaries of this lethal game of duplicity are the government officials in Islamabad and Kabul who are building multi-million dollar palaces with US government funding siphoned off through corruption and venality.
Pakistan has nuclear capability and is banking [literally] on the US unwillingness to withdraw financial support due to fear that the country might switch alliances. In reality, this is an empty threat because the alternative alliances could not and would not fund the corruption that currently exists. Karzai is playing a duplicitous role by taking US funding to defeat the Taliban while handicapping his subordinates who truly attempt to eliminate the Taliban capacity to threaten the government. Karzai relies upon support in Taliban controlled areas to stay in office. The Taliban see a sweet irony in taking US funding to wage a campaign to defeat a US backed effort to oust them from control of areas in Afghanistan and from seeking to take control of the Afghan government.
My grandfather used to tell me about a saying on the “street” regarding treatment of foolish attempts to get involved in a game that one does not understand and is not savvy enough to play. “Catch a sucker, bump his head!” The meaning is fairly clear in this case. Any street hustler would spot the game immediately, and Obama’s experience in Chicago community organizing should make him wise enough to spot it as well. The government “leadership” of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban in the supposed “conflict” are capitalizing on the ideological blindness and naivety of the US and bilking US taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars while also exploiting the people of Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of this military gamesmanship. The advantage that these hustlers have is that the game will never end as long as there is so-called “strategic” territory to fight over and people living in the area.
The Losers are the US taxpayers who are funding this scam with dollars that could be better spent alleviating the suffering caused by the Bush recession and reviving the struggling US economy. In addition, continued involvement in this game feeds Anti-US propaganda being used in the Islamic world to recruit extremists who in turn support non-religious criminal terrorism activities. There is virtually no way that continuation can be rationalized as in the long term interest of the US citizenry. The cynical view referenced above relates to the other potential beneficiary in this scam, weapons manufacturers. No matter what the political landscape may be, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex urge continuance because that means greater sales of more weapons to wage lethal conflict. Since the US government funding is actually supporting the purchase of weapons for the Taliban as well as the Afghan military, the weapons makers profit as long as the conflict continues. Isn’t that too cynical to be true?
Witness the recently released report regarding Pakistan funding and support of the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The report issued by the London School of Economics is based upon sources in Pakistan and present and former Taliban officials in Afghanistan. [See -http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e8f6f5c-76b4-11df-ba79-00144feabdc0.html] The report also confirms previous reports within the US military command that indicated belief of complicity by the Pakistan government with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Thus, it is fair to say that the US government had reason to believe Pakistani involvement and has further confirmation of that charge.
Her lies the stupidity. The US government spends billions of dollars in aid to prop up the Pakistani government. At least some of these funds are being used to supply intelligence, munitions and supplies to the Taliban to wage its insurgency in Afghanistan. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent by the US government to wage a fight against Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. These funds and the soldiers they support are being “expended” in a deadly war to prevent Taliban insurgency from taking control of Afghanistan. In simple terms, the US is funding a government effort by Pakistan to undermine and defeat the US mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban – waging a war against itself. Consider the role of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in firing top security officials in his government because they were too aggressive in their pursuit of Taliban leadership. The only beneficiaries of this lethal game of duplicity are the government officials in Islamabad and Kabul who are building multi-million dollar palaces with US government funding siphoned off through corruption and venality.
Pakistan has nuclear capability and is banking [literally] on the US unwillingness to withdraw financial support due to fear that the country might switch alliances. In reality, this is an empty threat because the alternative alliances could not and would not fund the corruption that currently exists. Karzai is playing a duplicitous role by taking US funding to defeat the Taliban while handicapping his subordinates who truly attempt to eliminate the Taliban capacity to threaten the government. Karzai relies upon support in Taliban controlled areas to stay in office. The Taliban see a sweet irony in taking US funding to wage a campaign to defeat a US backed effort to oust them from control of areas in Afghanistan and from seeking to take control of the Afghan government.
My grandfather used to tell me about a saying on the “street” regarding treatment of foolish attempts to get involved in a game that one does not understand and is not savvy enough to play. “Catch a sucker, bump his head!” The meaning is fairly clear in this case. Any street hustler would spot the game immediately, and Obama’s experience in Chicago community organizing should make him wise enough to spot it as well. The government “leadership” of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban in the supposed “conflict” are capitalizing on the ideological blindness and naivety of the US and bilking US taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars while also exploiting the people of Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of this military gamesmanship. The advantage that these hustlers have is that the game will never end as long as there is so-called “strategic” territory to fight over and people living in the area.
The Losers are the US taxpayers who are funding this scam with dollars that could be better spent alleviating the suffering caused by the Bush recession and reviving the struggling US economy. In addition, continued involvement in this game feeds Anti-US propaganda being used in the Islamic world to recruit extremists who in turn support non-religious criminal terrorism activities. There is virtually no way that continuation can be rationalized as in the long term interest of the US citizenry. The cynical view referenced above relates to the other potential beneficiary in this scam, weapons manufacturers. No matter what the political landscape may be, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex urge continuance because that means greater sales of more weapons to wage lethal conflict. Since the US government funding is actually supporting the purchase of weapons for the Taliban as well as the Afghan military, the weapons makers profit as long as the conflict continues. Isn’t that too cynical to be true?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Feedback Loop
In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.
That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.
Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.
The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.
When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.
Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.
To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.
The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.
In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.
That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.
http://www.truthout.org/obamas-missing-moral-narrative59968
Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.
The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.
When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.
Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.
To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.
The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Politicians: Listen up! CAREFULLY
While the incoherent rants of the extremist Wing Nuts seem to capture the limited and warped attention span of the mainstream media, the voices of the populace seem to get little more attention than a cry in the wilderness. The proper role of the media is to inform the people and reflect the pulse and sentiment of the general public. Yet an increasingly corporate controlled and market driven media has all but eliminated the traditional line between the “newsroom” and the Board room. The responsibility of the former used to be objectivity and credibility, while the latter was motivated by profit. Just as a judge cannot function as a just and neutral arbiter of the law when there is an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, the news media cannot function in its proper role when the information it presents is developed and edited through the filter of corporate agendas with a primary goal of “infotainment” and is supported exclusively by unnamed and unidentified “anonymous” sources. This transition is of no small moment in a society where collusion, corruption and abuse of the official functions of government and commerce threaten permanent destruction of the ecosystem and the global economy. Democracy can only survive in the context of a reasonably informed and educated electorate. But when the nightmare of Orwell’s 1984 type of media is becoming more of a reality than fiction, the ability of the public to function independently and intelligently is undermined. Democracy is neither conquered by an “evil empire” nor threatened by “terrorists,” rather it simply rots from within.
Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]
The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.
In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?
Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:
This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.
The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.
Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]
The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.
In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?
Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:
Why? Because the government doesn't run things here; corporations do, and it wouldn't do to upset the capitalistic apple cart now, would it?! Just a bit of history; there has been thirty years of administrations, beginning with Reagan, that have downsized, defunded, and detoothed our regulatory departments whose job it is to watchdog industry on behalf of the citizens of this country. Next time they call for LESS government remember that that's what they intend to do. What they mean is: we will have money and you will have NO representation. Taxes come down, only for the wealthy, the military-industrial complex, and the corporations. Collection of wealth goes to the top 1% and wages for the lower and middle classes are stagnant.... oh and we get to pay the lion's share of taxes. We reap what apathy has sown.
BP will end up exonerated just like the financial Banksters, Our government is run by politicians who were raised by and with corporate interests. They will never see the harm to this country because they are too busy mining [sic] their own interests.
"Why hasn't the government launched a criminal investigation into BP?"
Because our neoliberal President, who always favors, and kisses the ass of, Big Business, and promotes Corporate-Based Law Making -- measuring all things in market terms with neoliberal market lingo -- is in their pockets. He's one of them.
BP must be investigated, following whistleblower testimony that BP upper management gave the order for a highly risky series of events, despite advice to the contrary, that culminated in the explosion. If the government does not investigate BP for criminal negligence/recklessness, it is abrogating its responsibility to those who pay their salaries, the taxpayer, and we must get them out of office as fast as possible.
This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.
The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Education Has Clearly Failed Us
The push is on from US Congress and the Obama Administration to develop and implement “national standards” for academic competency and performance as a way to raise the quality of public education in the country. This initiative would presumably seek to establish a floor or minimum standard for what is deemed a "well educated person" in the country. Sometimes, however, well meaning policy initiatives expose embarrassing facts when run through the sausage mill of the legislative process. The education initiative is no exception.
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has joined with leaders seeking $23 Billion in emergency funding from Congress. The funding is needed to avoid as many as 300,000 teacher layoffs as a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic recession. One might think that these distinguished members of Congress would recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of the educational system (i.e., teachers) if there is any hope of reaching the goal of implementing national performance standards. That conclusion is not exactly (pardon the expression) rocket science. Yet members of Congress appear to be balking in their support of the funding request. The reasons given are a need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the expenditure, and that such funding would be a “bailout” of education.
(Pause a moment for the laughter to subside.)
Now let us address reality for just a moment. The same Congress has authorized over $700 Billion in taxpayer funds to bail out financial institutions, and it looks like the public will never see even a small fraction of those dollars in tangible benefit. We are told that the expense was worth it because of the damage that might have occurred if the money had not been given away to huge banks and investment firms. The same Congress has authorized the expenditure of more than 50 times the amount requested for education to be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The experts may have been right in their speculation that failure to bail out the financial institutions might have worsened the economic collapse. The cost of such speculation was enormous, and the failure of those institutions to expand lending and increase flexibility in mortgage foreclosure as a result of the bailout – the payback the public was supposed to get from the decision to risk their tax dollars on the bank bailout- renders the wisdom of the bailout questionable at best. Yet it is a near certainty that failure to provide emergency funding relief to education: a) will damage the quality of instruction to the nation’s children, b) will have immediate negative impact on the functioning of the educational system by increasing class sizes significantly and c) will set the goal of raising performance toward national standards back several years. And the cost of a “risky” bailout of education amounts to the mere fraction of the interest that would be earned on the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. A person who cannot reason through such an alternative and conclude that the choice to support education in the short and long term interests of the country is a “no-brainer” may well be, in fact, a person lacking a functioning brain. Simple logic and the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of public service would demand immediate aid to education.
It is apparent that these Congressional representatives could not pass any proposed national education standards in math, economics, reading, history or social studies. This is even greater reason why Congress should hasten to support the request for emergency support to education. If our current system produces leadership of such caliber, there is cause for despair unless urgent measures are undertaken to improve the quality of instruction in the country. Imagine a new crop of leaders who are less educated than the current crop....
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....
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!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)