Towards an asexual business culture??

The plethora of accusations coming forth in the media about women reporting a wide array of incidents deemed harassment or sexual assault or inappropriate sexually oriented behavior has sparked a one sided conversation that has illuminated the issues of sexual politics, abuse of power and empowerment of women to speak out. These accusations should not be lumped into a single basket, but the mainstream and social media trends toward the indiscriminate. Typically, one sided conversations are usually unproductive and fail to foster understanding or growth. At present, the frenzy of public scorn directed at men generally, and particularly those who have engaged in any questionable  sexually oriented encounter in the past, overshadows any critical or nuanced discussion directed toward better understanding.

To be sure, there are and have been sexual predators who are predominantly male, because of the male dominated culture of the working world. When power is wielded, it is usually the holder of power exploiting it. Since gender discrimination has created and maintained a power imbalance in favor of men, it is logical that the great majority of those exploiting such imbalance are men. Harvey Weinstein is a classic example. It is important to acknowledge distinctions, however. The focus here is not the rapist who attacks a woman either as a mugging assault or as date rape. The focal issue is the combination of sexually oriented interaction coupled with exploitation of power and position for intimidation and induced fear of reprisal that could damage career opportunities.

Examination of that issue requires dissecting the dynamics of power and such interactions as they have evolved. Men, having prospered from the privilege of power imbalance cannot be heard to complain that women seek to expose and address that privilege. Women, having adapted and having found ways to advance within the existing system must also accept some measure of responsibility for its perpetuation. This mutual accountability is apparently in short supply. When Mayim Bialek spoke out and noted that she chooses not to dress in sexually attractive wear for business contexts, a refusal to accede to the dominant expectations, she was attacked vociferously by women for allegedly "slut shaming." Her comments touched a nerve by exposing that women dress and present themselves in ways that are deliberately sexually distinctive in order to attract or access opportunities or to compete with other females for advancement. That the existing systems of power induce women to exploit sexuality for career and sustenance is wrong. To deny that such behaviors are prevalent denies accountability while demanding accountability from men, and is counterproductive.

The accusations against Al Franken, before he became a senator, provide a good case study, if we are allowed to look carefully, critically and closely. We do not know all the facts, but available evidence allows for exploration. There were two incidents, or parts to the story. Franken acknowledges his participation in both, a marked contrast from Roy Moore and the President who face more serious accusations involving many more women, but publicly deny their involvement. The first is the accusation of groping and kissing in connection with a skit performed during a USO event. The inclusion of a kissing scene was inappropriate for inclusion in the show - particularly if the female journalist or Franken was not comfortable and consenting. But the female journalist admits she agreed to do it. Was consent induced by fear that she would lose work opportunities. She is not an entertainer whose future career then comedian Franken could have impacted significantly. We next ask whether consent was genuine at the time, but retracted after the fact. In between these options is the possibility of faulty calibration. Suppose she consented to the kissing scene, but Franken's idea of what that entailed was different that what she expected or was comfortable with. If that were the case, Franken's acknowledgement of the event and the differing recollections of it are plausible. Did the journalist stop rehearsal and object? Was the scene pulled from the show on her objections? These might be helpful things to know if there is a desire to truly understand.

The second part of the story is a staged photograph in which the journalist appears to be asleep, dressed in field gear and a protective vest, with Franken reaching toward her breasts. Witnesses, including photographer, say that she was feigning sleep and was a willing participant in the "comedic" photo. She says she only saw the photo after the fact. Both statements can be truthful, but the media has seized upon the photo as evidence of past misconduct. Franken agrees in retrospect that the photo was in bad taste and was not "funny." The complicating factor in the debate may be whether the journalist was complicit in the photo. She was not touched, but was treated as a sex object in the photo setting. It is important that accusations of women coming forward be presumed credible if progress and change are to take place.  Yet if evidence is corroborated that she participated in staging the photo, and does not acknowledge this, her accusations will be criticized as false claims and may undermine credible claims of assault and abuse by other women.

A potentially troublesome, but possibly beneficial change on the horizon may be toward a totally  asexual business environment. That would be an end result unless there is more nuanced dialogue. One perspective opened by the Kevin Spacey accusations is that victimization is not exclusive to women. Men may be victimized in the workplace by male or female superiors, particularly with regard to claims of intimidation and humiliation. So the result is that women would not be allowed to wear any clothing that is reflective of sexuality. and men would similarly be required to dress in an androgynous fashion. A comment of "you look well" or "your dress is quite professional" would be permitted. However, no comment suggesting other the person "looks attractive" would be permitted. Every interaction would need to be recorded, and any one-on-one interaction that is cross-gender must be avoided.

While the current law would not support a claim of harassment or hostile work environment based upon a compliment, the current court of public media could destroy a career based solely upon any accusation. Any person with career position or aspirations would be well advised to avoid any fraternizing with any professional co-worker or acquaintance of the opposite sex [or same sex if any participant were gay]. The innocuous business lunch [involving no actual touching] could potentially come back to destroy a career, if recalled differently even years later. Such events would be extremely rare, and this assertion would inevitably be criticized as overreaction,but the point is that any encounter would entail unreasonable risk. Thus, avoidance would be prudent. The presumptive way to establish trust would be to preclude any interaction that could be interpreted as sexually inappropriate. We have seen dystopian movies reflecting such environments.

The human comedy is replete with stories and foibles about misunderstandings, misaligned expectations and other mishaps as couples attempt to establish relationships and navigate the arena of sexual politics. One suggestion would be to return to Victorian standards where touching is mostly forbidden. The problem with such regression is that there was sexual impropriety then as well. And current accusations of "feeling humiliated" do not require touching. At present, however, the best we may be able to do is to shift culture for any business related encounter that directly involves or might lead to employment opportunity to a totally asexual standard of behavior.

Speaking of irony instead of comedy, consider hostile attitudes displayed in this country toward Muslims and the traditional garb expected of its adherents. The burka or hijab worn to conceal indication of femininity is considered extreme. Yet adopting such a standard of dress, along with a requirement that men's bodies be fully clothed in robes at all times in the presence of women would begin to address the current crisis. Alternatives are also unpalatable. Recall that allegations of sexual misconduct toward Congressional pages led to elimination of that program, and the blanket loss of  opportunities for thousands of interns [male and female] over the subsequent years. Could the current discourse backfire by encouraging discrimination in hiring to limit potential for sex harassment claims in the work environment? [Think of "the old boys network" amplified] Clearly that is not what most people ultimately want to see. But unless there is a willingness for more critical engagement and discussion surrounding the role of sexuality in the workplace, including open and accountable talk from all perspectives, then draconian type measures may be the only resolution.

Profiles in Courage?- The President and the Gold Star Widow

The continuing public squabble between the White House on one side, and the Gold Star widow and Florida Congresswoman on the other is unseemly and could benefit from some perspective. This is not a "he said; she said" dispute, although it appears to have devolved to a playground style shouting match. . In reality, it does reflect, in my view, a test of character, a profile of the substance and quality of leadership of the Nation. PUTHOP ["Person Unfortunately and Technically Holding Office of President"] made a phone call to the wife of US soldier, Sgt. La David T. Johnson, killed in action as she awaited return of the soldier's body at the airport. With her in the car were Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and other relatives of the soldier. By the virtually identical accounts of PUTHOP's own words witnessed by others, because both ends of the call were on speaker phone, he was inept in handling a sensitive conversation. That he apparently did not even know the name of the slain soldier reflects a lack of preparation and command of detailed facts PUTHOP has consistently displayed. That he referred to the slain soldier as "your guy" instead of "your husband" when speaking to the widow showed lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless, PUTHOP did actually make a call, this is a difficult but "leadership" responsibility of the Commander in Chief.

Now for "perspective" and assessment of character. It is fair to argue that a man of substance and character has strength and courage to admit failings when brought to his attention. We all make mistakes, but character is displayed by owning our shortcomings, making apologies when called for, and committing to do better in the future. As we would say in my culture, "a grown a$$ man" would have acknowledged: "you know, I just am not good at empathy and offering condolences, but I AM sorry for your loss." [Even if he did not have such reflective talents, his Aides should have guided his response.] His ineptitude would likely have been given a pass because he made the effort, and the matter would have faded away. After all, a man who has cultivated fame based upon insensitivity by threatening and bullying people in a "reality TV" show could be expected to lack capacity for sincerity and empathy.

However, instead of showing humility, character and sincerity, PUTHOP chose to defensively "counter-punch" against criticism. Instead of seeking to downplay a very sensitive exchange involving a grieving widow, he opted to make himself the center of attention, needlessly and for all the wrong reasons. Unable to admit his shortcomings displayed in the call, he chose instead to publicly attack [yet again] a Gold Star family, and accuse the widow and the Congresswoman of fabricating the account of the communication. He even chose to drag Gen. Kelly into the fray, despite a well known desire by the General NOT to discuss or politicize the death of his son, also a US soldier killed in action. PUTHOP also claimed that prior Presidents did not make condolence communications with families of the fallen, a claim that was easily and almost immediately proven false. And the squabble has continued with further false attack claims made against the Congresswoman.

Gen Kelly does not get a pass on this either. Given the opportunity to display courage and leadership rather than boot-licking, he chose to try to defend PUTHOP's indefensible conduct [which he should have intervened,as Chief of Staff, to prevent]. In that "defense" he actually confirmed and validated the widow's version of the call's substance, and debated the interpretation of what PUTHOP "meant to convey." Again, if true, this explanation would have come more credibly from PUTHOP's own mouth rather than as "clean up" by one of his lackeys.

Ultimately what is media circus and underlying events have displayed is a person in a position of high office and great responsibility who lacks sensitivity, candor, courage and sound judgment required of that office. The treatment of Gold Star families is a serious and weighty responsibility for an Administration, and must be handled with greater skill and sensitivity. This was bungled, even under the most charitable description. In addition, however, the handling of a matter involving a soldier killed in action is poignant when it indicates the potential for rash, insensitive, ill-prepared, factually ungrounded and knee-jerk decision making that could cost many MORE lives of US military personnel and others. The test of character has been failed, and PUTHOP once again shown to be unfit for the office and duties of President. The profile of PUTHOP, through his own behavior and decisions, is one of incompetence that brings shame on himself and the Office of the Presidency.

A New Hundred Flowers Campaign

Reflecting on current anti-intellectual discourse in this country and the world, I am thrown back into lessons from the history of Modern Chinese intellectualism. The ever changing world calls us to meet continuing challenges with courage or fear.

In 1956 China, the first Hundred Flowers Campaign was launched. It was based upon a belief that critical exploration and debate could lead to advances in science and society. "Let one hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend." That movement led to criticism of the governing regime, and was crushed in a backlash of anti-intellectual "cultural revolution."

Yet in 1986, resilience was shown as Zhu Houze called for a revived Hundred Flowers Campaign, stating: "Only through the comparison and contention of different viewpoints and ideas can people gradually arrive at truthful understanding...." By 1989, we witnessed Tiananmen Square and brutal response to the free and open debate the Hundred Flowers Movement called forth.

While the attacks on freedom of speech, intellectualism and open debate are somewhat less physically violent in the US (unless you happen to be a Black youth), the cudgel of the demagogue still seeks to beat down critical inquiry and debate. It is a hollow crusade by hollow men. As T.S. Eliot suggested, the world may end "not with a bang but a whimper." As Orwell predicted, the passing will occur without our even bothering to look up from our respective and isolated screens, telling us the "truth" we crave to believe.

Perhaps it is time to revive a Hundred Flowers Movement. Perhaps we need to roust ourselves from the comfort of our wired connections, in which we may speak our views, but often fail to truly listen to other points of view. If we are prepared to not only allow, but encourage the hundred schools of thought to be aired and debated, there may yet be hope for us all.

Continuing the cycle of repression, we have seen even if we refuse to accept, does not kill thought and sanity. It merely drives it underground. Wherefrom it awaits conditions of great need and sprouts forth. May we have the wisdom to let the flowers bloom!

"Be Careful Out there!"

I have just reviewed a number of video posts reflecting police attacks on Black folks who posed no viable threat and almost all of whom were unarmed. [Remember that many states have "concealed carry" laws that permit and protect possession of a registered firearm in public [unless, as a practical matter, you happen to be a person of color].

A gentle reminder to young Black folks from someone with a legal background and experience as a person of color. The SCOTUS and lower federal courts have affirmed that it is a Constitutional RIGHT to film police in public action, as long as one does not physically interfere with conduct of legally prescribed duties. Some police departments even have rules requiring the police to use dashcams or body cams to record police activity. Yet the number of times such devices "malfunction" or are not turned on is remarkable. While a person has the right to record evidence of police activity, including misconduct and apparent abuse of force and authority, that right will not physically protect you from harm. It MAY provide a basis for a claim of damages, if you survive.

If observing police action, it is understandable that one would want, as a civic duty, to record police actions. HOWEVER, a paper document of less than 30 pages [i.e., a copy of the Constitution] will not protect you against an unleashed and unrestrained police attack dog, or from a brutal and lawless police officer or a bullet fired by such an officer. Neither will an IPhone or a camera save your life. You have only to search YouTube for too many examples of videos of police harassment of Black folk, too many times resulting in death of the Black "suspect." Philando Castile's death is but one of a multitude. There are others in which white police officers are beating "suspects" who are on the ground, and not resisting. Often, the police will try to [illegally] confiscate the video device recording their actions, perhaps to destroy evidence of their misconduct.

The point here is not a general polemic against police. There ARE responsible and law abiding police officers. However, when an encounter with a person of color is involved, it may be foolhardy and possibly lethal to presume that an officer is law abiding. Even when not actively engaging in such misconduct, police culture almost demands that other officers act unlawfully to cover up misconduct of their colleagues. This helps explain why police officers, including those of color, can be seen cooperating or failing to intervene when a fellow police officer is engaging in misconduct. Only by exposing such conduct and culture might the police themselves make an effort to change. There is little incentive for renegades in police departments, and the culture that protects them, to change in an environment where the US Attorney General calls for review and suppression of consent orders and similar measures put in place to examine and reduce incidents of police misconduct, claiming that such inquiries and reforms hurt "police morale." The message is to be vigilant, but also be mindful and cautious.

The quoted phrase, "Be careful out there," comes from Phil, the desk sergeant from the TV series "Hill Street Blues." He gives the admonition to officers at the beginning of their shift to be mindful and cautious in performance of their duties. Today, that same admonition applies perhaps even more forcefully to members of the public of color if and when they may encounter any police officer.

Unjustifiable Attacks on Democracy

Let us be respectful, sober, sanguine and balanced. The attack this morning on members of the GOP caucus in Congress, which resulted in injury to a congressman, a Congressional aide and a lobbyist, is inexcusable. It also resulted in the injury to Capitol Police and death to the assailant. All needless loss; it was wrong, unjustifiable and unproductive in virtually any conceivable sense.

In a true democracy, and in a representative democracy, disputes and dissent should be resolved through reasoned debate, not physical violence as a way of silencing voices. The peaceful resolution of disputes and non-violent negotiation and transfer of power are the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. Gun violence is heinous and indefensible, as is the support of conditions that foster it.

What can be said, in fairness and critique, is that the actions of an extremist assailant in the attack are a symptom of the current sickness and degradation of our so called union. We must be mindful that it took the shooting injury - apparent assassination attempt - against a member of his party before the current President made the first statement calling for unity since his election. He has falsely claimed that some level of unity exists, typically proclaiming support for himself or his actions that objective facts do not support. But he has not actually taken any steps to bridge the divide he has been steadfast in creating and exacerbating.

In a similar vein, members of the House of Representatives who are saddened and claim to be aggrieved by the attack all live in a protective bubble that isolates and estranges them from the real consequences of their actions. Members of that body, particularly GOP members, bemoan and are shocked by the incursion of gun violence against their members during a leisurely recreational activity. Yet those same individuals would neither bat an eye nor think twice about adopting measures to send armed police into neighborhoods of color to shoot down and terrorize the inhabitants. They cheer and exhort gestapo tactics to terrorize Latino families and tear families apart. They have no sense of the violence and terror that accompanies actions to strip poor families of health care protections that they and their families enjoy as a matter of entitlement. They are eager to relieve restraints on companies that engage in predatory lending and other practices, as well as companies that pollute the environment to enhance profit. Such practices are "acceptable" primarily because none of the members of Congress bears the burden of the effect the practices have on average people they are supposed to represent. Democrats in elected positions are willing to abandon Constitutional duty and principles, in exchange for large campaign donations, by condoning and rationalizing such policies and acts of violence advanced by the majority party. When bandying about the term of what “the people” want, these elected officials have no sense of how alien those words sound when ringing in the ears of those who live outside their protective bubble.  It is nearly impossible to comprehend who they are referring to, for the recipients of the violence in their words and deeds.

Malcolm X attracted controversy when he made the astute observation that: “chickens come home to roost.”  We should not be shocked or surprised when violence perpetrated on the most vulnerable, accompanied by attempts to disenfranchise and suppress their voices in protest, results in a return of that violence in some form. The extreme use/abuse of power of elective office  to oppress, without willingness to listen to fact and reason or the protests of those affected by such actions fosters conditions for extreme responses. This is not stated in any way to condone such reprisals. Indeed the very point is that neither that which is sown nor that which is reaped is defensible or justified. Both are unjustifiable attacks on democracy.

If this horrible attack is to yield any lesson of value, it is that serious attempts must be made to heal and to bring back reasoned debate into our representative democracy. Those with power, regardless of party designation, must begin to think of the nation and all of its people FIRST. The principles of the Constitution must be read repeatedly and honored. The duty of elected officials is to preserve and defend the nation and the “common good.” Power of elective office is not a value unto itself or to preserve itself. It is of true value only to the extent that it can be exercised for the benefit of the common good, to raise the circumstances and opportunities for all. Those who use it otherwise, are not fit to hold or exercise it. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawmaker-steve-scalise-injured-in-gop-baseball-shooting-suspect-james-t-hodgkinson-dies-after-shootout/ar-BBCFi8H?li=BBnb7Kz

The James Comey "Fire" - a Spark or Conflagration?

President Drumpf has surprised many by his action to fire FBI Director James Comey, based in part on a recommendation from Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. The reasons for the action, as with many actions by the sitting President are convoluted and contradictory. The Assistant Attorney General stated in a letter that the firing was justified by Comey's mishandling of the Clinton "E-mail Investigation" in which Russian agents hacked the email accounts of Clinton's campaign and released information. Specifically, the allegations point to his public discussion of the status of the FBI investigation, and an alleged "find" of thousands of e-mails for further inquiry. Oddly, at the time, this action was sharply criticized for multiple reasons. First, it violated FBI policy of not publicly commenting on investigations. Second, the announcement was made when the FBI had not even reviewed the e-mails to determine whether they were any different from those previously reviewed, and upon which a decision to close the investigation had been made. The timing of this "bombshell" about reopening the investigation indisputably affected the election, even if no one can say precisely to what degree. That conduct probably justified removal of Comey at the time, but President Obama chose not to do so, probably fearing further disruption and interference with the national electoral process. President Drumpf certainly had the opportunity to replace Comey immediately upon taking office, if he actually believed that Comey's removal was justified for that stated reason. Such a move would have provided positive political optics for Drumpf, claiming to root out bureaucratic misconduct (even if it helped him), but he was too busy being defensive about losing the popular vote to see the larger political landscape. Instead, Drumpf publicly praised Comey who, in both fact and perception, contributed to intentional disruption and influenced the election.

The  current "firestorm" is not really about whether Comey was justifiably removed from office. The controversy, instead, rests in the timing and related circumstances surrounding the firing. It is a fair question whether the termination was based upon a desire to slow down, if not sabotage, the FBI investigation into communications, ties and potential collusion between the Drumpf Campaign and Russian agents related to influencing the election or establishment of inappropriate connections with the Drumpf business organizations and Drumpf's Administration. That is a far more credible explanation than a termination for arbitrarily announcing an investigation on the eve of election, an announcement that helped Drumpf get elected. This gets complicated because the recommendation to discharge Comey was pressed by Sessions, who had to recuse himself because of dishonesty in failing to disclose his own dealings with Russian agents while an adviser to the Drumpf Campaign. The implicit motive for firing Comey is precisely the reason Sessions has to recuse himself. Moreover, it is very doubtful that any nominee to fill the FBI Director post, at this time, could establish or restore credibility that the FBI can conduct a thorough and objective investigation of Russian meddling in US elections.

Presently, because of an unfortunate choice by Democrats to remove the filibuster for most appointments, there is no significant obstacle to the President appointing anyone willing to do his bidding, or at least bend to his will (express or implied) regarding investigation into Russian interference. Pronouncements by GOP senators that any appointee will be "thoroughly vetted" is about as credible as the President's explanation for terminating Comey. It does not pass what some call the "snicker test." [When statement is made, can everyone in hearing range refrain from laughing]. Democrats have renewed calls for an independent investigation and prosecutor, but such calls are likely to be impotent because the GOP would seek to control the scope and pace of the investigation and tidy up after an uncontrollable and inept Drumpf Administration that continues with repeated and inexplicable gaffes. Thus, prospects for finding out the true extent of Russian interference and Drumpf Campaign collusion are likely to unfold only in history book recounts, if at all.

The closest analogy to this action would probably be the firing of Elliot Richardson by former President Nixon when he would not agree to sabotage the Watergate investigation. While some distinctions exist, they are not very substantial, particularly when evidence has surfaced about Russian connections with the election campaign related information hacking and release. There is a very substantial distinction between then and now, even though Drumpf is unpopular with many GOP in Congress as was Nixon.The resulting impeachment of Nixon was supported by GOP members of Congress who had the character and sense of responsibility to country and Constitution to stand up and refuse to allow Nixon to bully and intimidate the investigative process, to cover up his involvement in Watergate. The US public also had a higher respect for the nation and its citizens, and apparently believed that a standard of ethics should apply to holders of higher office. Those conditions may exist to some degree now, but their existence is not clearly manifest. Indeed, the number of citizens who would dissemble and rationalize the conduct of the current Administration, primarily because it holds power and not because its actions are logically or ethically defensible, is remarkable.

The Comey discharge is currently at best a spark, a potential catalyst. Whether that spark can become a flame that puts heat on the current Administration and ultimately sheds light on Russian directed or sponsored meddling in US elections. remains to be seen.

“Sterner Stuff”

I have been following a discussion and debate regarding Ivanka Trump and the “Grabyourwallet” resistance movement. The main point of the movement is to use that neoliberal economic tool exploited so well by the wealthy elite against one of its privileged progeny. In addition, it involves a political statement artfully flipping the Trump misogynistic comment about his penchant for sexual assault by grabbing women by their genitals, into an act of economic defiance and resistance. Ivanka Trump enters the picture, not just because of her genealogy, but also because of her role as active prop for her father, and as apologist for his statements, policies and actions. Her hypocrisy, which is part and parcel of that ethical construct, also shines a spotlight upon her sales of goods manufactured abroad while claiming to advocate “America First.” Numerous retail outlets have dropped her lines, and active support for her commercial enterprise may have led to conduct approaching impeachable offenses by her father, the POTUS.

Within the debate, however, a significant opportunity for critical reflection surfaces. Ivanka is not alone among children of the wealthy becoming famous for being famous off the platform of inherited wealth rather than individual talent or merit. Ivanka if different, however, because she has taken that role into politics and national policy areas. In general, when the children of the wealthy seek to trade on that background to enter the political arena, they are obliged to quickly demonstrate competence to remain viable. We have seen positive examples in the Kennedy family, from JFK to the most recent careers of Joe and Caroline. While all are superficially attractive persons, each has built a record of substantive accomplishment and competence, as well as social justice orientation to support their standing. In contrast, George W. and Jeb Bush have proven far less competent, their mediocrity and failings have been exposed by their forays into politics. Jesse Jackson, Jr. inherited substantial political, not financial, capital from his father, and squandered that asset through venal corruption.

Turning back to Ivanka, there is a different model involved. The class of individuals would include Paris Hilton and the Kardashians. They have built a following based upon public exposure and somewhat cynical exploitation of the willingness of event planners to pay then simply to appear at their events and somehow lend status. They have shown no apparent talent, intellect or engagement with social issues; and that avoidance of substance may be part of their public appeal. Since they appear to stand for nothing, there is little to disagree about regarding them. They have perpetuated wealth by the sale of perfumes and women’s apparel and accessories, none of which appear to have been created by them. Instead, they are the products of design and labor of obscure minions who are likely to be less photogenic and who lack personal inherited fortunes. For contrast, compare Donatella Versace. She is by no means a photogenic attraction and has sustained and expanded the economic base left to her by her father through hard work and her own design talent in a very competitive arena of high fashion.

The core issue here, however, is that the Ivanka controversy invites us reflect upon how we, as a society, are willing to be distracted and to waste considerable resources on purely superficial things rather than look to substance. We as less likely to value things of sterner stuff, whether goods or people. How does a perfume formulated in a laboratory become more appealing because Kim or Khloe Kardashian puts their name on it? Keep in mind that the namesake likely could not give a clue as to the ingredients or formulation. How does a handbag or pair of shoes designed by some anonymous person and manufactured in Viet Nam or Mexico become more attractive and expensive to buy because it has the name Ivanka Trump on the label for retail purposes? The #Grabyourwallet movement has resulted in the same goods being sold off at a fraction of their listed prices and Ivanka’s organization still claims to be profitable. If that is true, it reinforces the point of a lack of substance and value in the merchandise.

When those of the “superficial” class seek to engage in or associate with political matters, all that is attached to them becomes open for scrutiny. The POTUS failed to understand this when he ranted in an early morning tweet that his daughter was being treated unfairly when a major retailer dropper her merchandise from their retail outlets. This attempted crossover should awaken the public to look more carefully at what it is “buying” in the way of consumer goods. There is nothing wrong with purchasing famous label goods at a premium cost if the materials, construction and design are superior. Paying that premium to someone who is not the originator simply because of a superficial public image is foolish.

In a similar vein, scrutiny of politicians has become quite lax and subject to very superficial rhetoric. A typical politician today takes the photo opportunity to make a speech pledging to make America great, or to speak for the forgotten white working class, but then goes to his or her office and supports measures that cut benefits to those same people and transfers wealth to an elite group at the expense of investment in public initiatives that would have helped make the lives of those people better.  This is a con game similar to “selling” the public false products without value that the superficial class uses. As the #Grabyourwallet movement has shown, a rising collective consciousness spread through social media platforms can shatter the veneer. In a similar way, a parallel movement of #Grabyourballot could give rise to a public awakening that might counter the momentum and corruption of Citizens United and the mass distraction by politicians without substance. If that were to occur, the public might just see a tidal change in the 2018 elections that would hold elected officials to critical review and examination of their substance, as compared to their being elected based upon superficial slogans and jingoistic rhetoric. The political façade then becomes less significant compared to the substance. To demand that our elected representatives exhibit some measure of integrity and substance, the public must show that it is of sterner stuff, and display the courage to look behind the curtain.

Looking Back, and Looking Forward with Concern

There is important history that provides contrast for the current accusations by the sitting President of conduct he claims to be illegal [and which, if proved could be] against his predecessor. The current POTUS has tweeted allegations of wiretapping of his campaign and Trump Tower during the run up to the 2016 election. It is also important to note that the context of the alleged wiretapping was a putative investigation of inappropriate ties or espionage with Russian agents concerning the US Presidential election. This charge comes amid a stream of rants on social media, many of which have been dismissed as the ravings of an emotionally unstable and immature man of 70 years who cannot brook any form of criticism. Wild and demonstrably false claims have been tossed about in response to unfavorable media reports, even ones which most people would not consider worth responding to or crediting by refutation. Yet the allegations of illegal wiretapping hit a raw nerve both because of historical context and political ramifications. As such, they could not simply be passed off as the intemperate and ill-considered tantrum of a narcissist.

An initial point to consider is that the allegation, which was probably not well thought out, is a sort of double edged sword. If the allegation is at all true, it would certainly bespeak inappropriate interference by a sitting President in the process of election of a successor. However, because of the past problems and risks associated with Watergate [the incident to which the POTUS compares his allegations] any attempt by President Obama to engage in surveillance on US soil would have required prior approval by a FISA Court. Such approval would have required presentation of significant probative evidence to a judge to support probable cause to investigate illegal activity. For such matters, it would be the equivalent of a search warrant. By making the allegation, the POTUS implicitly concedes probable cause to believe that activities were taking place in Trump Tower and within the context of his campaign that involved improper and potentially illegal interference by foreign agents [in this case Russia]. By attempting to deflect attention, the POTUS has perhaps inadvertently shone the spotlight on himself regarding illegal activities. He is now obliged to back up the allegations with proof.

Turning, however, to the historical context of the allegations, it should be observed that it is atypical for sitting Presidents to initiate claims or charges of personal misconduct and illegal activities against a predecessor. It is not only viewed as unseemly bad character, it also degrades the Office of the Presidency, which may be viewed as a larger issue that the office holder. Criticisms have been launched broadly about implications of misguided policies of the prior administration, but personal attacks are very rare, even when the successive office holders harbor enmity towards each other. In contrast, President Obama could have precipitated formal investigations and criminal charges against his predecessor, but chose not to do so ostensibly for the aforementioned reasons. 

Documented and testimonial evidence of not only knowing about, but actually authorizing actions deemed international war crimes in violation of Geneva Conventions were available against Bush and Cheney. Cheney admitted to commissioning the legal memo purportedly justifying torture of prisoners, a memo then used to bootstrap justification for operations at GITMO and Black Sites.To be certain, there would have been international fallout from such prosecution, but an argument was advanced that America’s loss of standing and moral authority as a global leader might have been restored had the past actions been confronted and officially renounced. Yet if the trauma of Nixon’s Presidency is an emotional scar the nation carries, imagine how disturbing a conviction of international war crimes would be for the nation. Obama, after careful consideration, chose not to risk such damage.

The current allegations by the POTUS are quite different, in that they appear to have no similar basis in fact or supporting evidence. They are apparently based upon third or fourth hand speculation in a right wing blog. If a FISA order for surveillance exists, it should be readily discoverable, and should have been reviewed carefully by the POTUS prior to making such allegations. The Intelligence Community and the Justice Department, so far, have denied  existence of such an order or any operative surveillance.  As noted above, even after such review, making such allegations should have been carefully considered. Possession of strong and supportable evidence should have been a bedrock predicate for even suggesting such charges. The allegations put in play involve not only domestic scandal, but international diplomacy as well. To make such allegations is a very serious matter, with very significant implications. To do so without substantive proof would be irresponsible and unworthy of the Office or President. We may never know whether the current POTUS launched the serious allegations based upon a deliberate but misguided strategic plan, or simply gave in to dyspeptic pique and a temper tantrum. In either event, the action is one that bears careful scrutiny and thorough investigation. It bears upon the judgment capacity and the emotional stability of the person who occupies the Oval Office.

See: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-graham-ask-trump-for-evidence-of-wiretapping-claims/ar-AAnWJCp?li=BBnb7Kz

"Malaise" was what Carter called it, but this is somehow different

President Jimmy Carter referred to a pervasive sense of unease among the electorate during his campaign for the Oval Office. There had been difficult economic times and significant challenges to the standing of the US in the world. There are somewhat similar challenges faced in this nation today, but the general uneasiness I sense at this point, just prior to the 2016 general election is different in some ways.

In general objective terms, the economy is recovering at a steady, if not rapid enough for some, pace following the Great Recession bequeathed to us by former President George W. Bush. Yet the rhetorical theme that the economy is in bad shape seems to have gained remarkable traction. The US is now engaged in far more bilateral and multilateral relationships abroad than during the "with us or against us" vituperation of the Bush Administration. The current Administration has deported more persons than any of his recent predecessors, and yet the racist and xenophobic rhetoric against immigrants is loud and vitriolic. Claims of lost jobs, including blaming immigrants, are mainstays of political stump speeches. Despite the discursive atmospherics, the jobless rate has declined steadily and just recently fell below 5%, indicating substantial recovery. Of course, many good paying manufacturing jobs have departed to foreign countries and are unlikely to ever return; but that is in no way the fault of immigrants. Nonpartisan research indicates that immigrants are not taking jobs current citizens are eager to fill, and undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to local, state and federal economies. So the sense and the expressions, often fueled by demagoguery, is not based upon evidence. It is played out in fear and psychological triggers.

When Carter was running for office, the tone and content of the rhetoric was of a different quality. People were fearful of what would happen in the future, but they were not fearful in their hearts about the future of democracy. That is perhaps what makes the current disquiet so different and potentially alarming. When Carter was elected, people had a preference for candidates. However, the unease was not based upon a concern that the nation would be in substantial peril if EITHER candidate won. Today, we have a candidate who has openly declared that he may not respect the decision of the electorate, claiming it is "rigged." He has stoked anti-government sentiment and suggested [second amendment] armed violence in the event he should lose the popular vote. The opposing candidate has substantial experience in the halls of power, including roles as First Lady and as Secretary of State. Yet she has also shown a resistance to transparency and a lack of wise judgment in the use of a personal email server [although many others have also used this convenience]. This candidate, however, has demonstrated a solid understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law in our nation, as well as a respect for dissent.

This brings us to the current "unease." The fears expressed are deeper and more emotional that in the 1976 election cycle. The campaigns have revealed a deep divide in the electorate in which one campaign eschews the concept of a "common good" for a more self-centered inclination to blame "others" for the claimed troubles and anxiousness. As noted, much of the fear is factually ungrounded, but is stoked through emotional appeals. The other campaign appeals to a sense of "unity" in the auspices of a traditional neoliberal establishment that has not been particularly responsive to the needs and concerns of progressive liberals or the endangered middle class. The hallmark distinction, perhaps, is the absence of hope. If the "doomsayer" candidate wins, there is no hope of unifying an electorate that has been purposefully divided among factions within, as well as set against foreign threats. If the establishment candidate wins, there is little hope that the common plight currently faced will be markedly improved.

It is thus no great wonder that we are seeing a broad sense of disquiet, and even fear among the populace. The election may seem more like a question of avoiding disaster than a step toward a better future. We are, unfortunately at the mercy of a political system that has been corrupted in large measure by the license given in the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. The level of influence that unregulated corporate and super PAC funding exerts over the electoral process cannot be overstated. That influence has permeated the structure of governance and embedded practices that will make removal of its tentacles extremely difficult and time consuming. The designation of voting districts and measures that suppress voting are widely and deeply embedded. Politicians owe their incumbency [and loyalty]to such funding and not to their electorates. The emotionally expressed concern may actually be an organic and systemic reaction to an infirmity in the very foundation of our democratic experiment. The path to recovery of health lies not just in the selection of any immediate candidate, but far deeper and invasive interventions to fix the systemic toxins that have yielded such symptoms.

"Tea Party" Redux

The "conservative" faction, or whatever they would now call their dysfunctional alliance, once thought that their main stressor was the "Tea Party" movement that sowed insurrectionist annoyance in the House of Representatives. The self proclaimed adherents to that movement shut down the government and forced the removal of House Speaker John Boehner. But little did the GOP realize that it would wind up facing self destructive chaos from a quite different kind of Tea Party. In this case, the current head of the GOP ticket going into the US Presidential election resembles nothing so much as the Mad Hatter's gathering in "Through the Looking Glass." In that fictional escapade, all the rules of decorum were stood on end and the proceeding was led by a buffoon with a pretense of power who arbitrarily spouted nonsense and dictated the course of events without seeming grasp of reality or respect for the attendees, with especial rudeness to the female attendee, Alice. Those around him seemed caught between trying to comply with his erratic behavior and at the same time trying to figure out what in the heck he was doing and would do next. That appears to be strikingly similar to the current GOP "Tea Party."

In just the past week, the GOP Nominee [no longer "presumptive" and now just "presumptuous"] has danced with treason by suggesting that foreign powers should spy upon and meddle in US electoral politics, attacked a Gold Star family publicly, demeaned the value of Purple Hearts awarded to military honorees wounded in service, suggested that he has known "sacrifice" through his dealings that involved defrauding and failing to pay contractors and suppliers on his real estate projects and declaring bankruptcy so that he could be come wealthy at their expense, publicly snubbed the current Speaker of the House, suggested that everyone in the GOP may be idiots by blaming all criticism against his actions on his opponent -Hillary Clinton, when even the most simple minded can see that the trouble emanates from the GOP candidates own mouthy and actions. And that is just this WEEK!

Newt Gingrich, the GOP master of rhetorical legerdemain and dissembling apologia, acknowledged that the GOP Nominee had no chance of winning the general election pursuing the course he is on. No matter how "unacceptable" the GOP may try to paint Clinton, their candidate would seem to the public a worse option.

Balanced non-partisan observers have questioned the GOP Nominee's fitness and temperament for the Office of President, citing his remarkably thin skin and his seeming inability to withhold a knee jerk response when criticized or attacked.  That behavior is reminiscent of Marty McFly in the movie "Back to the Future" when he was challenged as "yellow" or potentially a coward. The response was invariably ill advised and led to far more trouble than if the slight had simply been ignored.

This might all be very entertaining, but for the very real consequences of seriously engaging in consideration of placing a mad person in the Oval Office. Just as the Hatter seemed to have no concept of civility, time or the workings of things -such as his watch- the GOP Nominee seems eerily similar in many respects. Then there is the veritable March Hare, in the guise of Paul Manafort who tries ineffectually to rationalize the madness. And rather than bother to clean up any mess the Hatter makes, the response is just to keep moving to the next place, where the rudeness, incivility and chaos continues to create additional messiness.

Of Wizardry and Wisdom

The Wizard of Oz proclaimed himself "great and powerful!" In fact, he was but a charlatan cloaked behind a curtain using bombast and pyrotechnics to wow the easily duped and intimidate the opposition. He created the impression that if people cleaved to his aura, they would share in his power or at least the largess. Just believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the Wizard's power and you can live a better life in the Emerald city.

The description applies in many respects to the presumptive GOP nominee for President, another pretender to great power. His nonsensical and overblown rhetoric used to confound and seduce the weak minded, and to pander to the cynical and racially and religiously biased. To those not easily duped, his rhetoric turns to ad hominem attacks, thinly veiled threats and demagoguery. His use of innuendo is both craven and masterful. Instead of making a direct accusation and having the courage to stand behind his claim, this "wizard" makes unsubstantiated assertions that he says "he heard" someone say. He says he simply cannot understand why anyone would disagree with his isolationist and combative trade policy plan, which nonpartisan economic experts project would throw the US into a major recession by 2019 if implemented as described. In a latest rant, he argues that leaders of his own party who fail to fall in line and endorse him should be "prohibited from ever running for public office" in the future. Like the "Great and Powerful Oz," this pretender brooks no dissent and seeks to humiliate any who may disagree, regardless of the logic or merit of hos positions.

In another late revelation, multiple instances of email solicitation of campaign contributions were made by Drumpf to foreign officials. Solicitation of contributions via email is now a common practice. However, accepting or even making solicitations for campaign funding to foreign officials is not only illegal, by may be criminal. In fairness, criminal prosecution is highly unlikely unless his own party goes after him. That is not the point here. What is more telling is that even at this stage of the campaign, after sewing up the GOP nomination after a long primary season, Drumpf still demonstrates an amazing lack of control over his campaign and subordinates and an astounding lack of understanding of the basic rules and practices of public office and governance.

The revelation is not that Drumpf may or should be exposed and prosecuted for violating campaign funding laws. The key point is that this very basic and fairly obvious restriction was not grasped by someone seeking the authority and power to control and decide the most significant and nuanced issues and crises that the nation will face. Moreover, and assuming that Drumpf may be as surprised as many of us are that he has succeeded in his candidacy, there has been a failure to take time and make effort to LEARN the rudiments of public service and governance. Like the Wizard of Oz, who believed that his prior success as a carnival showman qualified him to rule a kingdom, Drumpf believes that his experience as a CEO and reality show huckster qualifies him for the highest office in one of the most powerful nations in the world. Like the Wizard of Oz, he lacks the competence to develop reasoned policies, to deliver on promises he makes, and lacks the wisdom to know when not to promise what he cannot possibly deliver. That ignorance is beyond dangerous, it could very well become catastrophic if Presidential power were to devolve into his hands.

Trump fails to comply with campaign fundingn law

Browsing and Reflection on BREXIT

The most prolific topic in the current news cycle is the vote by the UK to leave the European Union (EU), also referred to as "Brexit." There is considerable confusion and consternation around the result, particularly when even those predicting a "close" vote thought that the UK would choose to remain. The idea was that the vote would be a strong symbolic statement about need for reform of the EU management and relations with member nations. The problem with setting formal processes in motion is that they result in REAL consequences. Now, there is loud dissatisfaction with the outcome, including a petition for another vote, a "redo" if you will, that has garnered well over 2.1 million signatures in less than two days. Scotland, which voted heavily to remain in the EU, has announced that it will seek renewal of the 2014 vote on whether to remain a part of the UK, in light of the change in material circumstances. Scotland was induced to remain part of the UK in that vote because of the benefits of being part of the EU membership. The result has caused David Cameron to step down as Prime Minister, and there is huge pressure on the leader of the Labour Party (who backed the "Leave" vote) to step down as well. Meanwhile, the UK stock market has tumbled and the Pound Stirling is at the lowest level in over 30 years following the vote to leave the EU.

Some have speculated that there are similarities between the voices and sentiment that fueled the UK vote to leave the EU and the current "outsider" disaffection in the USA. It is argued that much of the appeal of Donald Drumpf, the GOP presumptive nominee for President, is based upon that anger and resentment against a perceived political "establishment. While there are a great many distinctions to be made in the two situations, there are a few similarities. These similarities do not necessarily reflect well upon the "angry mob" or the Leave supporters. One example, whether based upon ignorance or naivete, is the comment from the Cornwall Council following the Brexit vote and the realization that departure from the EU would also mean the loss of significant investment in that area:

"The leader of Cornwall council said he was seeking 'urgent steps' to ensure the impoverished county in southwest England would be protected. 'We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60 million ($82 million, 73 million) per year over the last 10 years,' said John Pollard.

Simply put, the angry demand for the separation from perceived "oppression" from an "unresponsive" central governing body ignored the actual benefits from that source that the constituents, including the protesters, depend upon for survival. In the USA, there are similar uncritical (ignorant or naive) complaints against the Administration in Washington, DC. They are loud and strident until a disaster strikes and the region is in dire need of supportive response from the very Administration they say they want to reduce and remove from their lives. (Sadly, West Virginia is a most recent example.) But a crisis mode is not necessary to illustrate the misdirected hostility. Kentucky, whose leadership has vowed to obstruct the Obama Administration at every possible turn, has many counties in which more than 95% the populace are entirely dependent upon federal social welfare and other economic benefits.

But perhaps the blame needs to be shared by the leaders of the angry mob, who use fear and hatred to motivate the uninformed and gullible followers. An example of this is the announcement immediately after the Brexit vote by the leader of the "leave" movement, Nigel Farage, that the promise of funding to the national health service was an outright lie. This promise was used to induce voters to support the Leave campaign because their social benefits would be protected. It is an old ploy: blind them with hate and they will believe anything.

One more reflection points to irony. The supporters of the Leave campaign targeted their scorn on London and the Financial Markets - the "Fat Cats"- and the Westminster government who they said were unfairly profiting from the EU relationship while the less prosperous areas of the North were lagging. George Soros, the billionaire who profited over $1 Billion in 1992 betting upon the poor judgment of the British, has done it again. He made bearish investments based upon the hunch (actually an educated prediction) that the Pound would plummet if the UK voted to leave. No doubt we will find other investors in the London based financial groups who made similar hedge bets.  So the irony is that the vote against the "Fat Cats" in the form of the Leave campaign and the Brexit vote has actually resulted in MORE profit and wealth going to the rich at the expense and pain of the less prosperous folks in the UK. To add insult to injury, Soros publicly warned the Brits that if they voted to leave the EU, that which has occurred would happen.

No one can say what will happen in the next months and years as a result of the vote, except that there will be continued uncertainty and pain. It is likely, however, that the EU will offer the UK a better deal or more concessions than Cameron was able to obtain in the last round. This would not be specifically to "punish" the UK for the "divorce." The stance would be to send a message to remaining EU members and citizens of member nations that the choice to exit will have serious and painful consequences. There is already fear that nationalist and xenophobic right wing factions in some EU member nations are gearing up for their own votes whether to leave or remain in the EU. We can collectively hope that the pain of the UK will serve as a sobering event, and that those other angry mobs will recognize that, as one former British minister observed, they would be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces."

Just Another Day - Another Massacre

Once again the facts concerning the Orlando massacre at a nightclub frequented by gays leaving at least 50 dead and another 53 injured dribble out and tend to get suppressed or distorted. The father gives information about a specific incident when his son reacted angrily to seeing a same sex kiss in public that logically [albeit a bit irrationally) ties his son's behavior to the massacre - hate against the LGBT community. This gets downplayed in favor of "official" speculation that (because his name sounds "Muslim" despite being born and raised in the US) that his motivation MUST have been Islamic terrorism - i.e., the Islamophobic notion that anyone of Afghan descent has to be a terrorist, or they know another person of Afghan or Middle Eastern descent who may or may not be a terrorist, etc. etc.. Consider that there is no connection or logic that the killing would make any statement or advance the cause of ISIS, but there is a direct connection to his demonstrated hatred of gays and the massacre. As his father said, religion had nothing to do with it. Those seeking to hijack the deaths and maiming of those at the Orlando night club to support an anti-Muslim agenda are only displaying their religious and ethnic bigotry. The ONLY benefit ISIL could gain from the incident would be public bigoted reaction ascribing the cause to ISIL when the entity in fact knew nothing about it and was never actually involved. We need to mourn the senseless deaths and honor the loss of human life, not allow the tragedy to be hijacked as a xenophobic ploy. This incident is described as the worst massacre in recent history in the US. We need to pause and reflect upon the magnitude of the tragedy.

But all this speculation as to terrorism again deflects from a central issue. How might a recurrence be prevented? Do we just shake our heads and say the event was "regrettable, " but do nothing? Again, and all too often, the question of whether some reasonable regulation of lethal weapons might have made a difference. And once again hysteria will deflect rational debate, because "guns" is not a unitary concept. There is a difference between a starter pistol, a shotgun for duck hunting and an AR-15 automatic rifle with a maximum capacity magazine. Only the latter could have possibly caused the destruction seen in Orlando. Why do we still allow the threat to public safety these weapons pose?   

Mateen was a "law abiding gun owner," up to the very moment that he pulled the trigger and began the mass killing. As such, he had open and legal access to automatic weapons only designed and used for mass killing of humans. We now also learn that he had a history of violent mental instability and domestic abuse, in addition to homophobia. None of these factors was at all useful in denying him access to lethal weapons of mass destruction. We must at least consider, if not accept, that these conditions are OUR fault as well as the responsibility of the shooter. We condone profligate gun ownership and use, and a culture that says that the answer to gun violence is more guns!

We presume that an individual is entitled to lethal instruments (such as automatic assault weapons) until AFTER they have misused them and the carnage has occurred. Imagine if we gave car keys to every child and only took away their "right to drive" the dangerous instrumentalities only AFTER they had killed or maimed someone while operating the vehicle. Instead, we apply reasoned regulation. We allow children to use certain vehicles [bikes] and later allow them use of cars and trucks (with certain limitations as to class of vehicle) after they have had training and passed a test to show that they know how to operate the vehicle safely. Accidents still, happen, of course. But the result of reasoned restrictions is a lot safer than if the norm were that all of our streets looked like the sets of the "Fast and Furious" movies full of mayhem and destruction.

Until we can have an honest and rational discussion about reasoned limitations on gun sales and usage, and a willingness to hold those in the business of producing and selling weapons accountable, we must accept the fact that we are not only condoning, but are indeed complicit in, these mass shooting incidents.

Self-Centered Society and "Me-Itis"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French Lesson?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice for Trayvon Martin

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

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

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

Lipstick on a Pig, Once Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa Caucuses and the Road to Hell

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

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

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

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

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

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