Senator Robert Byrd passed away this weekend and the passage merits acknowledgment. At the age of 92, Byrd was the longest serving senator in Congress. As such he has both seen and experienced the changes in US society and values that have transpired during his long years of service.
It is not without irony that Senator Byrd has been one of the strongest defenders of civil rights in the last decade. Yet it is Senator Byrd who teamed with Senator Strom Thurmond in 1964 to insert an amendment to cover discrimination against females into the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they believed that the amendment would kill the Civil Rights legislation completely. Now more than 35 years later, Senator Byrd would argue that some aspects of the legislation have not been forceful enough to remove vestiges of slavery based discrimination in US society, culture and business.
Racist tinged GOP strategies cloaked in pseudo-patriotic jargon, with the support and proxy help of extremist Tea Party zealots would roll the clock back and reduce or eliminate egalitarian and remedial measures that the government tries to impose to create a more participatory democracy and to encourage the growth of social justice. Sadly, as was recognized when the Civil rights Acts were passed, the protections provided by such legislation goes beyond race gender and religion to protect fundamental freedoms purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution. These freedoms have been seriously eroded in recent decades by a craven and fearful mentality that makes every neighbor a potential threat and every person who is not "alike" a potential enemy. Intolerance among cultures and ethnicities is rising to levels not seen since the days when the civil rights Acts were first passed. Psychological and political warfare between social classes is increasing and threatens to erupt into physical warfare if not checked.
The growth and evolution of Senator Byrd from a champion of racist and exclusionary policies into a true statesman who championed a pluralistic and participatory society in which every American citizen had at least the opportunity to participate according to his or her talents and willingness to work and sacrifice is a lesson to us all. People can change, and in the process of that change they can influence change toward a better society and a better tomorrow. In contrast to the current conventional wisdom that even the most honorable of men will fall to corruption and venal servitude to their own egos and powerful corporate lobbyists, Senator Byrd's example suggests that a man may indeed grow in character and respect for the true duties of his position while in the service of country in the US senate.
In addition, Senator Byrd's long years of service made him a procedural expert and strategist. Thus, he was able to give wise counsel not only on what should be done, but on how to steer legislation through Congress even against determined obstructionist
Yet for every transformation toward social justice, there arise multiple objectors and obstructionists who would revert to a discriminatory and exclusionary alternative in the name of "Conservatism." These defenders of privilege, including privileges that they themselves may not enjoy [yes, they are employed as proxies and stooges], in order to maintain an imbalance between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. They would defend the right of capitalist enterprises to destroy the environment in pursuit of profit without regard to the consequences for "we the people."
We can only hope, with bated breath, that some few members of Congress will recognize the true loss that the people and the country have sustained in the death of Senator Byrd. And with that realization, that a few will put aside their pettiness and egos in favor of a bona fide effort to be the public servants that the country and the people deserve.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
How Stupid …. Part ???
Like the “Rocky” franchise, this saga of US government insanity seems to have innumerable sequels. The term “stupid” is used intentionally and advisedly. Ignorance is the lack of information or understanding. Stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant or choosing to ignore basic common sense and understanding and electing the irrational option. So the following example falls in the category of stupidity on the part of the US government by acting with knowledge and information in a manner that is both illogical and against the interests of the citizens of the USA. The alternative characterization is almost too cynical to consider, as discussed below.
Witness the recently released report regarding Pakistan funding and support of the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The report issued by the London School of Economics is based upon sources in Pakistan and present and former Taliban officials in Afghanistan. [See -http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e8f6f5c-76b4-11df-ba79-00144feabdc0.html] The report also confirms previous reports within the US military command that indicated belief of complicity by the Pakistan government with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Thus, it is fair to say that the US government had reason to believe Pakistani involvement and has further confirmation of that charge.
Her lies the stupidity. The US government spends billions of dollars in aid to prop up the Pakistani government. At least some of these funds are being used to supply intelligence, munitions and supplies to the Taliban to wage its insurgency in Afghanistan. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent by the US government to wage a fight against Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. These funds and the soldiers they support are being “expended” in a deadly war to prevent Taliban insurgency from taking control of Afghanistan. In simple terms, the US is funding a government effort by Pakistan to undermine and defeat the US mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban – waging a war against itself. Consider the role of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in firing top security officials in his government because they were too aggressive in their pursuit of Taliban leadership. The only beneficiaries of this lethal game of duplicity are the government officials in Islamabad and Kabul who are building multi-million dollar palaces with US government funding siphoned off through corruption and venality.
Pakistan has nuclear capability and is banking [literally] on the US unwillingness to withdraw financial support due to fear that the country might switch alliances. In reality, this is an empty threat because the alternative alliances could not and would not fund the corruption that currently exists. Karzai is playing a duplicitous role by taking US funding to defeat the Taliban while handicapping his subordinates who truly attempt to eliminate the Taliban capacity to threaten the government. Karzai relies upon support in Taliban controlled areas to stay in office. The Taliban see a sweet irony in taking US funding to wage a campaign to defeat a US backed effort to oust them from control of areas in Afghanistan and from seeking to take control of the Afghan government.
My grandfather used to tell me about a saying on the “street” regarding treatment of foolish attempts to get involved in a game that one does not understand and is not savvy enough to play. “Catch a sucker, bump his head!” The meaning is fairly clear in this case. Any street hustler would spot the game immediately, and Obama’s experience in Chicago community organizing should make him wise enough to spot it as well. The government “leadership” of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban in the supposed “conflict” are capitalizing on the ideological blindness and naivety of the US and bilking US taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars while also exploiting the people of Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of this military gamesmanship. The advantage that these hustlers have is that the game will never end as long as there is so-called “strategic” territory to fight over and people living in the area.
The Losers are the US taxpayers who are funding this scam with dollars that could be better spent alleviating the suffering caused by the Bush recession and reviving the struggling US economy. In addition, continued involvement in this game feeds Anti-US propaganda being used in the Islamic world to recruit extremists who in turn support non-religious criminal terrorism activities. There is virtually no way that continuation can be rationalized as in the long term interest of the US citizenry. The cynical view referenced above relates to the other potential beneficiary in this scam, weapons manufacturers. No matter what the political landscape may be, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex urge continuance because that means greater sales of more weapons to wage lethal conflict. Since the US government funding is actually supporting the purchase of weapons for the Taliban as well as the Afghan military, the weapons makers profit as long as the conflict continues. Isn’t that too cynical to be true?
Witness the recently released report regarding Pakistan funding and support of the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The report issued by the London School of Economics is based upon sources in Pakistan and present and former Taliban officials in Afghanistan. [See -http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e8f6f5c-76b4-11df-ba79-00144feabdc0.html] The report also confirms previous reports within the US military command that indicated belief of complicity by the Pakistan government with the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. Thus, it is fair to say that the US government had reason to believe Pakistani involvement and has further confirmation of that charge.
Her lies the stupidity. The US government spends billions of dollars in aid to prop up the Pakistani government. At least some of these funds are being used to supply intelligence, munitions and supplies to the Taliban to wage its insurgency in Afghanistan. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent by the US government to wage a fight against Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. These funds and the soldiers they support are being “expended” in a deadly war to prevent Taliban insurgency from taking control of Afghanistan. In simple terms, the US is funding a government effort by Pakistan to undermine and defeat the US mission in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban – waging a war against itself. Consider the role of Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, in firing top security officials in his government because they were too aggressive in their pursuit of Taliban leadership. The only beneficiaries of this lethal game of duplicity are the government officials in Islamabad and Kabul who are building multi-million dollar palaces with US government funding siphoned off through corruption and venality.
Pakistan has nuclear capability and is banking [literally] on the US unwillingness to withdraw financial support due to fear that the country might switch alliances. In reality, this is an empty threat because the alternative alliances could not and would not fund the corruption that currently exists. Karzai is playing a duplicitous role by taking US funding to defeat the Taliban while handicapping his subordinates who truly attempt to eliminate the Taliban capacity to threaten the government. Karzai relies upon support in Taliban controlled areas to stay in office. The Taliban see a sweet irony in taking US funding to wage a campaign to defeat a US backed effort to oust them from control of areas in Afghanistan and from seeking to take control of the Afghan government.
My grandfather used to tell me about a saying on the “street” regarding treatment of foolish attempts to get involved in a game that one does not understand and is not savvy enough to play. “Catch a sucker, bump his head!” The meaning is fairly clear in this case. Any street hustler would spot the game immediately, and Obama’s experience in Chicago community organizing should make him wise enough to spot it as well. The government “leadership” of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban in the supposed “conflict” are capitalizing on the ideological blindness and naivety of the US and bilking US taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars while also exploiting the people of Afghanistan who are caught in the middle of this military gamesmanship. The advantage that these hustlers have is that the game will never end as long as there is so-called “strategic” territory to fight over and people living in the area.
The Losers are the US taxpayers who are funding this scam with dollars that could be better spent alleviating the suffering caused by the Bush recession and reviving the struggling US economy. In addition, continued involvement in this game feeds Anti-US propaganda being used in the Islamic world to recruit extremists who in turn support non-religious criminal terrorism activities. There is virtually no way that continuation can be rationalized as in the long term interest of the US citizenry. The cynical view referenced above relates to the other potential beneficiary in this scam, weapons manufacturers. No matter what the political landscape may be, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex urge continuance because that means greater sales of more weapons to wage lethal conflict. Since the US government funding is actually supporting the purchase of weapons for the Taliban as well as the Afghan military, the weapons makers profit as long as the conflict continues. Isn’t that too cynical to be true?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Feedback Loop
In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.
That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.
Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.
The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.
When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.
Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.
To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.
The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.
In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.
That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.
http://www.truthout.org/obamas-missing-moral-narrative59968
Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.
The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.
When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.
Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.
To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.
The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Politicians: Listen up! CAREFULLY
While the incoherent rants of the extremist Wing Nuts seem to capture the limited and warped attention span of the mainstream media, the voices of the populace seem to get little more attention than a cry in the wilderness. The proper role of the media is to inform the people and reflect the pulse and sentiment of the general public. Yet an increasingly corporate controlled and market driven media has all but eliminated the traditional line between the “newsroom” and the Board room. The responsibility of the former used to be objectivity and credibility, while the latter was motivated by profit. Just as a judge cannot function as a just and neutral arbiter of the law when there is an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, the news media cannot function in its proper role when the information it presents is developed and edited through the filter of corporate agendas with a primary goal of “infotainment” and is supported exclusively by unnamed and unidentified “anonymous” sources. This transition is of no small moment in a society where collusion, corruption and abuse of the official functions of government and commerce threaten permanent destruction of the ecosystem and the global economy. Democracy can only survive in the context of a reasonably informed and educated electorate. But when the nightmare of Orwell’s 1984 type of media is becoming more of a reality than fiction, the ability of the public to function independently and intelligently is undermined. Democracy is neither conquered by an “evil empire” nor threatened by “terrorists,” rather it simply rots from within.
Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]
The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.
In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?
Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:
This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.
The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.
Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]
The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.
In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?
Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:
Why? Because the government doesn't run things here; corporations do, and it wouldn't do to upset the capitalistic apple cart now, would it?! Just a bit of history; there has been thirty years of administrations, beginning with Reagan, that have downsized, defunded, and detoothed our regulatory departments whose job it is to watchdog industry on behalf of the citizens of this country. Next time they call for LESS government remember that that's what they intend to do. What they mean is: we will have money and you will have NO representation. Taxes come down, only for the wealthy, the military-industrial complex, and the corporations. Collection of wealth goes to the top 1% and wages for the lower and middle classes are stagnant.... oh and we get to pay the lion's share of taxes. We reap what apathy has sown.
BP will end up exonerated just like the financial Banksters, Our government is run by politicians who were raised by and with corporate interests. They will never see the harm to this country because they are too busy mining [sic] their own interests.
"Why hasn't the government launched a criminal investigation into BP?"
Because our neoliberal President, who always favors, and kisses the ass of, Big Business, and promotes Corporate-Based Law Making -- measuring all things in market terms with neoliberal market lingo -- is in their pockets. He's one of them.
BP must be investigated, following whistleblower testimony that BP upper management gave the order for a highly risky series of events, despite advice to the contrary, that culminated in the explosion. If the government does not investigate BP for criminal negligence/recklessness, it is abrogating its responsibility to those who pay their salaries, the taxpayer, and we must get them out of office as fast as possible.
This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.
The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Education Has Clearly Failed Us
The push is on from US Congress and the Obama Administration to develop and implement “national standards” for academic competency and performance as a way to raise the quality of public education in the country. This initiative would presumably seek to establish a floor or minimum standard for what is deemed a "well educated person" in the country. Sometimes, however, well meaning policy initiatives expose embarrassing facts when run through the sausage mill of the legislative process. The education initiative is no exception.
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has joined with leaders seeking $23 Billion in emergency funding from Congress. The funding is needed to avoid as many as 300,000 teacher layoffs as a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic recession. One might think that these distinguished members of Congress would recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of the educational system (i.e., teachers) if there is any hope of reaching the goal of implementing national performance standards. That conclusion is not exactly (pardon the expression) rocket science. Yet members of Congress appear to be balking in their support of the funding request. The reasons given are a need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the expenditure, and that such funding would be a “bailout” of education.
(Pause a moment for the laughter to subside.)
Now let us address reality for just a moment. The same Congress has authorized over $700 Billion in taxpayer funds to bail out financial institutions, and it looks like the public will never see even a small fraction of those dollars in tangible benefit. We are told that the expense was worth it because of the damage that might have occurred if the money had not been given away to huge banks and investment firms. The same Congress has authorized the expenditure of more than 50 times the amount requested for education to be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The experts may have been right in their speculation that failure to bail out the financial institutions might have worsened the economic collapse. The cost of such speculation was enormous, and the failure of those institutions to expand lending and increase flexibility in mortgage foreclosure as a result of the bailout – the payback the public was supposed to get from the decision to risk their tax dollars on the bank bailout- renders the wisdom of the bailout questionable at best. Yet it is a near certainty that failure to provide emergency funding relief to education: a) will damage the quality of instruction to the nation’s children, b) will have immediate negative impact on the functioning of the educational system by increasing class sizes significantly and c) will set the goal of raising performance toward national standards back several years. And the cost of a “risky” bailout of education amounts to the mere fraction of the interest that would be earned on the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. A person who cannot reason through such an alternative and conclude that the choice to support education in the short and long term interests of the country is a “no-brainer” may well be, in fact, a person lacking a functioning brain. Simple logic and the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of public service would demand immediate aid to education.
It is apparent that these Congressional representatives could not pass any proposed national education standards in math, economics, reading, history or social studies. This is even greater reason why Congress should hasten to support the request for emergency support to education. If our current system produces leadership of such caliber, there is cause for despair unless urgent measures are undertaken to improve the quality of instruction in the country. Imagine a new crop of leaders who are less educated than the current crop....
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has joined with leaders seeking $23 Billion in emergency funding from Congress. The funding is needed to avoid as many as 300,000 teacher layoffs as a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic recession. One might think that these distinguished members of Congress would recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of the educational system (i.e., teachers) if there is any hope of reaching the goal of implementing national performance standards. That conclusion is not exactly (pardon the expression) rocket science. Yet members of Congress appear to be balking in their support of the funding request. The reasons given are a need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the expenditure, and that such funding would be a “bailout” of education.
(Pause a moment for the laughter to subside.)
Now let us address reality for just a moment. The same Congress has authorized over $700 Billion in taxpayer funds to bail out financial institutions, and it looks like the public will never see even a small fraction of those dollars in tangible benefit. We are told that the expense was worth it because of the damage that might have occurred if the money had not been given away to huge banks and investment firms. The same Congress has authorized the expenditure of more than 50 times the amount requested for education to be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The experts may have been right in their speculation that failure to bail out the financial institutions might have worsened the economic collapse. The cost of such speculation was enormous, and the failure of those institutions to expand lending and increase flexibility in mortgage foreclosure as a result of the bailout – the payback the public was supposed to get from the decision to risk their tax dollars on the bank bailout- renders the wisdom of the bailout questionable at best. Yet it is a near certainty that failure to provide emergency funding relief to education: a) will damage the quality of instruction to the nation’s children, b) will have immediate negative impact on the functioning of the educational system by increasing class sizes significantly and c) will set the goal of raising performance toward national standards back several years. And the cost of a “risky” bailout of education amounts to the mere fraction of the interest that would be earned on the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. A person who cannot reason through such an alternative and conclude that the choice to support education in the short and long term interests of the country is a “no-brainer” may well be, in fact, a person lacking a functioning brain. Simple logic and the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of public service would demand immediate aid to education.
It is apparent that these Congressional representatives could not pass any proposed national education standards in math, economics, reading, history or social studies. This is even greater reason why Congress should hasten to support the request for emergency support to education. If our current system produces leadership of such caliber, there is cause for despair unless urgent measures are undertaken to improve the quality of instruction in the country. Imagine a new crop of leaders who are less educated than the current crop....
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
No More..No Less
Politicians, pundits and pusillanimous pontificators have all been pondering the next step in campaign finance in the USA electoral process. They puzzle the impact of the Roberts Court decision to allow corporation the same [or more] rights as natural persons in the arena of citizenship relating to the electoral process. Congress, the Supreme Court decreed, had placed unconstitutional constraints and burdens on the free speech rights of corporate citizens. Such restraints, the Court reasoned, are unfair and unjust when such limitations could not constitutionally be imposed upon natural persons.
Considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the electoral process, at least in any shape of form intended by the Founders, has obscured practical thinking. Suggestions have been made that a constitutional amendment is necessary to overturn the ruling. But that ignores the sad reality that the current Congress is so deadlocked that it could not even readily pass a simple measure to extend jobless benefits, making a so controversial a measure as a constitutional amendment little more than a pipe dream. Others suggest that Congress pass requirements that force greater disclosure of the origin and funding source of corporate poetical speech. That suggestion is far from a level playing field because corporations are so adept at the shell game. For example, the media is focusing attention on BP petroleum because of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while the BP executives accurately respond that neither the rig, the operation of the equipment that exploded nor the installation that was probably faulty was done by BP. All these tasks were done by various different contractors and sub-contractors. So much for tracking responsibility or transparency!
A humble suggestion is to focus not on limiting the corporations, but rather upon empowering the individual “natural” citizen. Corporations can and will undoubtedly spend billions of dollars on lobbying and political speech to influence elections; their contributions are deducted from their profits in the form of business expenses. This creates an actual “inequality” that effectively gives corporations greater rights than the natural citizen in the expression of political speech and participation in the electoral process. The more appropriate response is to pass legislation that equalizes this situation by giving individual taxpayers a deduction for every dollar that they expend on political speech or to make their views known in the political process. If I use my phone to discuss the election or candidate views, then part of my phone bill should be deductible. If I use my computer and the internet to comment or express my political view in favor or against a candidate or to address an issue subject to referendum, then part of those expenses must be made deductible as well. It goes, without saying, that every cent that I contribute to any candidate or political cause must be deductible from my taxable income.
Instead of worrying about giving corporations equal free speech rights as natural citizens, the Congress should be focused upon making sure that natural citizens have no less right to participate in the political process than do corporations under the Roberts Court ruling. Won’t that approach severely deplete the taxable revenue, you ask? Perhaps it would. But if that happened, it is only the necessary logical consequence of the decision and interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding citizenship under the US Constitution. Maybe the consequence of actually equalizing rights will demonstrate how absurd the reasoning and judgment of the Court was in the first place. It will not be the first time that the wisdom of experience has caused the Supreme Court to reverse itself. And the survival of the electoral process envisioned by the Founders requires…No more…No less.
Considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the electoral process, at least in any shape of form intended by the Founders, has obscured practical thinking. Suggestions have been made that a constitutional amendment is necessary to overturn the ruling. But that ignores the sad reality that the current Congress is so deadlocked that it could not even readily pass a simple measure to extend jobless benefits, making a so controversial a measure as a constitutional amendment little more than a pipe dream. Others suggest that Congress pass requirements that force greater disclosure of the origin and funding source of corporate poetical speech. That suggestion is far from a level playing field because corporations are so adept at the shell game. For example, the media is focusing attention on BP petroleum because of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while the BP executives accurately respond that neither the rig, the operation of the equipment that exploded nor the installation that was probably faulty was done by BP. All these tasks were done by various different contractors and sub-contractors. So much for tracking responsibility or transparency!
A humble suggestion is to focus not on limiting the corporations, but rather upon empowering the individual “natural” citizen. Corporations can and will undoubtedly spend billions of dollars on lobbying and political speech to influence elections; their contributions are deducted from their profits in the form of business expenses. This creates an actual “inequality” that effectively gives corporations greater rights than the natural citizen in the expression of political speech and participation in the electoral process. The more appropriate response is to pass legislation that equalizes this situation by giving individual taxpayers a deduction for every dollar that they expend on political speech or to make their views known in the political process. If I use my phone to discuss the election or candidate views, then part of my phone bill should be deductible. If I use my computer and the internet to comment or express my political view in favor or against a candidate or to address an issue subject to referendum, then part of those expenses must be made deductible as well. It goes, without saying, that every cent that I contribute to any candidate or political cause must be deductible from my taxable income.
Instead of worrying about giving corporations equal free speech rights as natural citizens, the Congress should be focused upon making sure that natural citizens have no less right to participate in the political process than do corporations under the Roberts Court ruling. Won’t that approach severely deplete the taxable revenue, you ask? Perhaps it would. But if that happened, it is only the necessary logical consequence of the decision and interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding citizenship under the US Constitution. Maybe the consequence of actually equalizing rights will demonstrate how absurd the reasoning and judgment of the Court was in the first place. It will not be the first time that the wisdom of experience has caused the Supreme Court to reverse itself. And the survival of the electoral process envisioned by the Founders requires…No more…No less.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
A Pig With Lipstick
The pundits and politicians have responded with amazing alacrity to the negative public response to the Arizona Immigration Enforcement Act that frees local law enforcement officials to target, harass and arrest any person that they “suspect” may be an undocumented foreigner. Since the act of walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant is all that is required to entail potential felony liability, the State of Arizona has entrusted the determination of “probable cause” to the subjective judgment and prejudice of each local cop. The Governor, upon signing the law admitted that she had no idea how to fairly enforce the law or to constrain the ethnic biases of the police officers entrusted to apply it. Honestly, how many blond haired and blue eyed pale complexion people do you think will be detained? Given this sweeping detention authority and the inability of top State officials to explicate any rational assurance that it is even possible to enforce it in a Constitutional and non-discriminatory manner, it is logical that protesters would suggest that it would be prudent to avoid traveling in Arizona as long as the law is on the books. Now the politicians come forward to argue that a Boycott would be unfair and ineffective. They even argue that the Boycott would harm those it seeks to support. These arguments are both facile and false. They are akin to trying to “put lipstick on a pig.”
Those that argue that the Boycott would be counterproductive seek to deflect the core issue and stand it on its head. They argue that a Boycott would be “unfair” and (if you can believe it) “discriminatory.” For any rational person who seeks to avoid mistreatment and harassment, it would seem entirely fair and just to avoid a State which has endorsed an open license to harass individuals based upon skin color or any other predilection the police officer may use to justify “suspicion” of illegal status. If this were an action or policy of a single business or establishment, consumers and the public could simply avoid visiting the enterprise or using its products. But in the present case, the ENTIRE STATE of Arizona has adopted this odious policy and practice. If Arizona citizens believe that the consequence of the law their duly elected representative and Governor have approved, then the remedy they should seek is to communicate to those officials that they disapprove of the policy. But to cry foul to those who would be discriminatorily subjected to the law is absurd. Do not blame the victim. As the quote attributed to Edmund Burke says: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If you believe it is wrong, then fix it and stop squealing.
The argument that the Boycott would hurt Latinos because the shift of conventions and business away from Arizona will reduce employment in industries like hotels, restaurants and convention centers is even more misguided. This is indeed a twist of sophistry. First, we have to assume that the workers in those industries are legal employees and have the right to vote. If they are not, then it would be hypocrisy for Arizona not to be focused upon the employers who hire undocumented workers, rather than individuals on the street. Yet we know of the hypocrisy in Arizona of politicians who decry illegal immigrants while taking campaign contributions from businesses that profit from underpaying the illegals they employ. But more to the point, the victims of the law and the target of support the Boycott aims to support is virtually every citizen, and especially citizens who are of color. It is by no means clear or logical how advocating Boycott of a state that openly discriminates against brown skinned people would be against their interests, or the interests of all people who hold some genuine belief in equality and non-discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Former Presidential candidate, John McCain advances the argument that the issue of Arizona’s refusal to adopt a holiday for Martin Luther King, as virtually every other state had done, is different from the present situation and that a Boycott is unjustified. Let us set aside for a moment whether McCain was in favor of, or against, the King Holiday Boycott. Many who would try this argument are the same people who fervently opposed honoring the slain Civil Rights leader. The truth is that the issues are not, at the core, different. The State of Arizona has given voice and sinew to the underlying racial prejudice and ethnic bias held by the apparent majority of citizens and voters of that State. That was the message from the people of Arizona two decades ago, and it apparently has not changed despite the passage of time or even the national election of a President of color. McCain would distort the issue and claim that the Boycott is in support of illegal immigration status, as compared to a fallen hero who fought for justice and equality. While it is true that many supporters of the proposed Boycott would like to see due process and fair administration of justice applied to ALL, they do not advocate that immigration restrictions be abandoned. Those who support the Boycott want the same respect for all, regardless of the color of their skin, as did Dr. Martin Luther King. Any law that blatantly defies and violates that basic principle of humanity and social justice should be opposed. And it is the State of Arizona, the home of Sen. McCain that has adopted such a measure.
Finally, there is the question of impact. The politicians and the heads of tourism for Arizona are concerned that the Boycott relating to the King Holiday cost the city of Phoenix alone almost $200 Million. It took considerable time to recover that loss in revenue even after the State reversed course. That impact certainly affected jobs, and some such jobs were held by Latinos and people of color. Yet the facts tell us that Arizona has been experiencing a loss of workers for several years, since the inception of the public campaign against brown skinned people. One report cited concerns by Arizona manufacturing companies that were losing experienced craftsmen and supervisors, who happened to be Hispanic and had legal status, because those workers were moving to Nevada and other places to avoid racism. If the law is to be a permanent fixture instead of a public relations gimmick for political gain, then anyone living in Arizona should be able to plan their life and future around the social and political environment of that State. It would be foolish to think that the Arizona legislature will voluntarily repeal that measure, and the court system is slow and uncertain as a remedy. Indeed the current US Supreme Court seems to provide no great hope for relief in matters of racial and ethnic justice or due process for the individual against corporate driven political interests. So a shift of workers of color from the State of Arizona is a sad but logical and direct consequence of the legislative measure. The removal of professional sports franchises should, but will not likely, be another consequence of the measure. Many athletes, their friends, families and the multitude of fans that are of color do not deserve to be treated with disrespect. And it certainly is not beyond logic to assume that local police would try to use a sporting event that draws many thousands of people to a central location as a tool for conducting a “sweep” to detain and harass “suspected” undocumented persons. When is the last time you took your passport to a sporting event?
Just as the legislators who pushed for and adopted the law should have thought about the logical and inevitable consequences [short and long term] of enacting the law, the organizers of the Boycott should also assume and plan for short and long term impact. Contact with employers outside Arizona should be coordinated so that those areas can take advantage of the potential recruiting opportunity to lure experienced workers to their states and companies. Neighboring states like California, Nevada and New Mexico could benefit from a shift of investment and increase in production capability. While it may sound cynical, even bigots can benefit from the proposed Boycott. An exodus from the State would cause a further drop in the price of homes and make it easier for those who harbor the same prejudice as the supporters of the law to afford homes. Many experienced workers, from laborers to managers, would welcome the offer to move themselves and their families to a different state where the collective voice of the people has declared: “Show us your papers; we don’t want you here!”
Those that argue that the Boycott would be counterproductive seek to deflect the core issue and stand it on its head. They argue that a Boycott would be “unfair” and (if you can believe it) “discriminatory.” For any rational person who seeks to avoid mistreatment and harassment, it would seem entirely fair and just to avoid a State which has endorsed an open license to harass individuals based upon skin color or any other predilection the police officer may use to justify “suspicion” of illegal status. If this were an action or policy of a single business or establishment, consumers and the public could simply avoid visiting the enterprise or using its products. But in the present case, the ENTIRE STATE of Arizona has adopted this odious policy and practice. If Arizona citizens believe that the consequence of the law their duly elected representative and Governor have approved, then the remedy they should seek is to communicate to those officials that they disapprove of the policy. But to cry foul to those who would be discriminatorily subjected to the law is absurd. Do not blame the victim. As the quote attributed to Edmund Burke says: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If you believe it is wrong, then fix it and stop squealing.
The argument that the Boycott would hurt Latinos because the shift of conventions and business away from Arizona will reduce employment in industries like hotels, restaurants and convention centers is even more misguided. This is indeed a twist of sophistry. First, we have to assume that the workers in those industries are legal employees and have the right to vote. If they are not, then it would be hypocrisy for Arizona not to be focused upon the employers who hire undocumented workers, rather than individuals on the street. Yet we know of the hypocrisy in Arizona of politicians who decry illegal immigrants while taking campaign contributions from businesses that profit from underpaying the illegals they employ. But more to the point, the victims of the law and the target of support the Boycott aims to support is virtually every citizen, and especially citizens who are of color. It is by no means clear or logical how advocating Boycott of a state that openly discriminates against brown skinned people would be against their interests, or the interests of all people who hold some genuine belief in equality and non-discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Former Presidential candidate, John McCain advances the argument that the issue of Arizona’s refusal to adopt a holiday for Martin Luther King, as virtually every other state had done, is different from the present situation and that a Boycott is unjustified. Let us set aside for a moment whether McCain was in favor of, or against, the King Holiday Boycott. Many who would try this argument are the same people who fervently opposed honoring the slain Civil Rights leader. The truth is that the issues are not, at the core, different. The State of Arizona has given voice and sinew to the underlying racial prejudice and ethnic bias held by the apparent majority of citizens and voters of that State. That was the message from the people of Arizona two decades ago, and it apparently has not changed despite the passage of time or even the national election of a President of color. McCain would distort the issue and claim that the Boycott is in support of illegal immigration status, as compared to a fallen hero who fought for justice and equality. While it is true that many supporters of the proposed Boycott would like to see due process and fair administration of justice applied to ALL, they do not advocate that immigration restrictions be abandoned. Those who support the Boycott want the same respect for all, regardless of the color of their skin, as did Dr. Martin Luther King. Any law that blatantly defies and violates that basic principle of humanity and social justice should be opposed. And it is the State of Arizona, the home of Sen. McCain that has adopted such a measure.
Finally, there is the question of impact. The politicians and the heads of tourism for Arizona are concerned that the Boycott relating to the King Holiday cost the city of Phoenix alone almost $200 Million. It took considerable time to recover that loss in revenue even after the State reversed course. That impact certainly affected jobs, and some such jobs were held by Latinos and people of color. Yet the facts tell us that Arizona has been experiencing a loss of workers for several years, since the inception of the public campaign against brown skinned people. One report cited concerns by Arizona manufacturing companies that were losing experienced craftsmen and supervisors, who happened to be Hispanic and had legal status, because those workers were moving to Nevada and other places to avoid racism. If the law is to be a permanent fixture instead of a public relations gimmick for political gain, then anyone living in Arizona should be able to plan their life and future around the social and political environment of that State. It would be foolish to think that the Arizona legislature will voluntarily repeal that measure, and the court system is slow and uncertain as a remedy. Indeed the current US Supreme Court seems to provide no great hope for relief in matters of racial and ethnic justice or due process for the individual against corporate driven political interests. So a shift of workers of color from the State of Arizona is a sad but logical and direct consequence of the legislative measure. The removal of professional sports franchises should, but will not likely, be another consequence of the measure. Many athletes, their friends, families and the multitude of fans that are of color do not deserve to be treated with disrespect. And it certainly is not beyond logic to assume that local police would try to use a sporting event that draws many thousands of people to a central location as a tool for conducting a “sweep” to detain and harass “suspected” undocumented persons. When is the last time you took your passport to a sporting event?
Just as the legislators who pushed for and adopted the law should have thought about the logical and inevitable consequences [short and long term] of enacting the law, the organizers of the Boycott should also assume and plan for short and long term impact. Contact with employers outside Arizona should be coordinated so that those areas can take advantage of the potential recruiting opportunity to lure experienced workers to their states and companies. Neighboring states like California, Nevada and New Mexico could benefit from a shift of investment and increase in production capability. While it may sound cynical, even bigots can benefit from the proposed Boycott. An exodus from the State would cause a further drop in the price of homes and make it easier for those who harbor the same prejudice as the supporters of the law to afford homes. Many experienced workers, from laborers to managers, would welcome the offer to move themselves and their families to a different state where the collective voice of the people has declared: “Show us your papers; we don’t want you here!”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Travel Advisory!
People of “a certain age” (myself included) remember when it was common knowledge that persons whose skin was darker than a very mild tan should take care in traveling in territories of the USA south of Nebraska or Maryland and in areas less populated than major cities. I personally recall traveling by car with my grandfather to Louisiana, to visit relatives, and having to sleep in the car because even third rate hotels and motels would not rent a room to two respectable and reasonably well dressed persons [one a child and the other a middle aged gentleman] driving a Cadillac. In the early 1960’s, this was considered “normal” social behavior for white folks and something to be accepted by people of color “or else.”
One would think that the sacrifice and struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the deaths of Rev. King, Bobby Kennedy, three little Black girls in Alabama and many others might have awakened a sense of morality and elevated social decency in the US populace at large. Some people rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, a person of color, as US President. They apparently believed that the election was a watershed moment in which the US had put behind the virulent racism that motivated social and political policies of the past. Much to their dismay, these optimists may be terribly wrong.
The State of Arizona has enacted an authoritarian, at best, [perhaps Nazi is more apt] system that enables and encourages police to stop and question any person who does not look “American” [substitute “Aryan”] to require that they prove their US citizenship. Anyone who actually believes that the Arizona police will be detaining white folks under the law is hopelessly naïve or simply self deluded. The so-called “probable cause” the Arizona cops will be looking for will be skin color and physical features that suggest Hispanic ethnicity. Virtually every published statement by Arizona authorities makes reference to “illegal aliens” and equates the term with Mexican or Hispanic origin. Now there are many US citizens who happen to be of Hispanic ancestry, just as there are of Asian, Eastern European and Southern European and just about every other background. So how do you profile a non-citizen on sight? An equally mystical question is how the State of Alabama plans to “train” its law enforcement officials to spot illegal immigrants, as opposed to simply targeting brown skinned folks who do not appear to be upper middle class.
One commentator provided cogent documentation and historical analysis that suggests that racism is only the tip of the cynical iceberg in official Arizona politics. The current Arizona governor, when Secretary of State, improperly kicked many thousands from the voter rolls; and a very substantial portion of those removed were persons with Hispanic surnames. Then when these people sought to re-register to vote, many experienced rejection of their application, despite ability to establish citizenship. This history suggests that the broader agenda is to intimidate and keep Hispanic citizens from voting. After all, who wants to be harassed by police, even when trying to exercise legitimate rights of citizenship? Now it is probably true that the right wing Gestapo-like tactics and the hate mongering by right wing fringers [egged on by GOP leaders and spokespersons] have not endeared the GOP to many Hispanic potential voters. So preventing them from voting probably favors GOP candidates. But at some point there needs to be a choice whether the US Constitution still means anything of substance, or whether it is simply cute wallpaper suitable for framing, but little else.
If the State of Arizona were honest and sincere about a legal measure to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants, it could have used existing laws to systematically inspect and monitor every business establishment that has employees. The existing law requires employers to check I-9 documentation respecting persons that are employed. In that circumstance, EVERY person of any race, religion or walk of life would be monitored to confirm legal status and authorization to work in the US. The penalty would properly fall upon companies that encourage and support illegal immigration.
But the business community that survives and thrives from the employment of non-documented immigrants has not and would not stand for such enforcement measures. It is easier and more profitable to support the racist blowhards and hate mongers while quietly employing illegal immigrants at substandard wages and disingenuously proclaiming “patriotism.” Green, after all, is the only color that they respect.
For now, however, anyone [non-Aryan] considering traveling to or even passing through Arizona should be forewarned. The summer brings tourist season and travel. There are 49 other US states in which a citizen is not required to produce a birth certificate or a passport to prove citizenship simply to walk on the sidewalk or drive a car. A prudent traveler would do very well to plan accordingly and avoid Arizona at all costs. The government of Mexico has already issued an advisory to its citizens that travel to Arizona should be avoided, and all other Latin American nations would do well to follow that prudent example. Indeed the US Department of State should issue a similar advisory to its own citizens inside the USA, as it does to citizens in other countries, to avoid trouble areas in which USA citizens may be subject to inconvenience and potential law enforcement harassment.
One would think that the sacrifice and struggles of the Civil Rights Movement, the deaths of Rev. King, Bobby Kennedy, three little Black girls in Alabama and many others might have awakened a sense of morality and elevated social decency in the US populace at large. Some people rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, a person of color, as US President. They apparently believed that the election was a watershed moment in which the US had put behind the virulent racism that motivated social and political policies of the past. Much to their dismay, these optimists may be terribly wrong.
The State of Arizona has enacted an authoritarian, at best, [perhaps Nazi is more apt] system that enables and encourages police to stop and question any person who does not look “American” [substitute “Aryan”] to require that they prove their US citizenship. Anyone who actually believes that the Arizona police will be detaining white folks under the law is hopelessly naïve or simply self deluded. The so-called “probable cause” the Arizona cops will be looking for will be skin color and physical features that suggest Hispanic ethnicity. Virtually every published statement by Arizona authorities makes reference to “illegal aliens” and equates the term with Mexican or Hispanic origin. Now there are many US citizens who happen to be of Hispanic ancestry, just as there are of Asian, Eastern European and Southern European and just about every other background. So how do you profile a non-citizen on sight? An equally mystical question is how the State of Alabama plans to “train” its law enforcement officials to spot illegal immigrants, as opposed to simply targeting brown skinned folks who do not appear to be upper middle class.
One commentator provided cogent documentation and historical analysis that suggests that racism is only the tip of the cynical iceberg in official Arizona politics. The current Arizona governor, when Secretary of State, improperly kicked many thousands from the voter rolls; and a very substantial portion of those removed were persons with Hispanic surnames. Then when these people sought to re-register to vote, many experienced rejection of their application, despite ability to establish citizenship. This history suggests that the broader agenda is to intimidate and keep Hispanic citizens from voting. After all, who wants to be harassed by police, even when trying to exercise legitimate rights of citizenship? Now it is probably true that the right wing Gestapo-like tactics and the hate mongering by right wing fringers [egged on by GOP leaders and spokespersons] have not endeared the GOP to many Hispanic potential voters. So preventing them from voting probably favors GOP candidates. But at some point there needs to be a choice whether the US Constitution still means anything of substance, or whether it is simply cute wallpaper suitable for framing, but little else.
If the State of Arizona were honest and sincere about a legal measure to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants, it could have used existing laws to systematically inspect and monitor every business establishment that has employees. The existing law requires employers to check I-9 documentation respecting persons that are employed. In that circumstance, EVERY person of any race, religion or walk of life would be monitored to confirm legal status and authorization to work in the US. The penalty would properly fall upon companies that encourage and support illegal immigration.
But the business community that survives and thrives from the employment of non-documented immigrants has not and would not stand for such enforcement measures. It is easier and more profitable to support the racist blowhards and hate mongers while quietly employing illegal immigrants at substandard wages and disingenuously proclaiming “patriotism.” Green, after all, is the only color that they respect.
For now, however, anyone [non-Aryan] considering traveling to or even passing through Arizona should be forewarned. The summer brings tourist season and travel. There are 49 other US states in which a citizen is not required to produce a birth certificate or a passport to prove citizenship simply to walk on the sidewalk or drive a car. A prudent traveler would do very well to plan accordingly and avoid Arizona at all costs. The government of Mexico has already issued an advisory to its citizens that travel to Arizona should be avoided, and all other Latin American nations would do well to follow that prudent example. Indeed the US Department of State should issue a similar advisory to its own citizens inside the USA, as it does to citizens in other countries, to avoid trouble areas in which USA citizens may be subject to inconvenience and potential law enforcement harassment.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Link Posting- Tea Party / Black Tea?
My son graciously sent me the following posting that I think is important to share with you. I did not write it, Tim Wise wrote the piece. But it deserves to be forwarded, read, discussed an thought about as widely as possible.
It has been said that a greater threat to democracy than those who do evil, are those of good will who see and recognize evil and yet say nothing and do nothing. Wherever you are, speak out!
"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Game Over.
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html
The Skinny on Plus Size Advertising
It would seem to the objective observer that Media Network Management, ABC [Disney] and FOX in particular, have gotten so deep in denial that they simply cannot recognize truth, reality or reason. The latest flap comes over the refusal of the networks to air commercials for lingerie sold by Lane Bryant, the seller of “plus sized” clothing for women. The lingerie ads come at a time when the airwaves are inundated with sexually implicit and physically explicit ads hawking perfumes and intimate wear in advance of Mother’s Day consumerism. Lane Bryant accuses the networks of rejecting, demanding edits and delaying broadcast of ads because the Executives do not consider plus sized women to be appropriate images of “beauty” or “sexiness” that should be shown to the public. Network Executives deny the allegation and claim that they applied the same standards as to all other advertising.
Hold the phone! Do these network mavens not realize that anyone with an IQ above 50 can simply take a look at the Lane Bryant ads and the other fare currently being freely aired (for example the ads for J’Adore or Irresistible perfumes & Victoria Secret)? Even a moment’s viewing will expose the patent discrepancy and hypocrisy in the network’s claim. If the models are wafer thin, they are considered sexy and beautiful. But if the model is normal sized [let’s be honest, most women are not sized 0-4 like the Victoria Secret and perfume ad models], the exposure of the same sexy format is deemed too salacious or indecent to televise.
A couple of years ago, the fashion industry running the show in Barcelona attempted to back away from the destructive ideology of “women’s fashion” by requiring that exhibitors could not use models unless they had a body mass index that was not emaciated or anorexic. While this effort failed to gain industry acceptance around the globe, it was at least a clear admission of the unspoken strategy to make women feel insecure and inadequate with their normal weight and size. This recent action by the ABC and FOX network executives only completes the admission. Their message is simple: If you are thin, you can be beautiful, but If you wear a size 10 or up, the display of your body is not only unsexy, but indecent.
The ultimate question, however, is whether women of all shapes and sizes will recognize this insult and assault on their collective self esteem. Will women object to the double standard and discriminatory filtering on publicly aired television? Or will they meekly accept the “status quo” and self-deprecatory message that the networks are broadcasting? Will they declare their outrage over the mistreatment, covered up by outright lies and dissembling justifications? Or will they go buy more diet pills, cellulite reducing creams and spend more time in the gym trying to look like the skinny models they see on TV, but whose shape they will never attain? It was not always thus, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield and Raquel Welch were not size 2 women, and they were some of the most iconic beauties of their time.
Can we really blame the media for this destructive campaign if the women who are targeted by it quietly accept the mistreatment? After all, if the image and message sells products to women, it is doing its intended job. Whether or not it is moral or healthy matters little to profit oriented Executives when even the most deleterious actions actually work. As soon as women collectively decide not to accept this open and public denigration, the networks will have no choice but to change. I will be marching with them in protest, though they won’t need my help. For it is about women defining who they are and not what men want or how Ad Men would define them. And as to female Executives and apologists for the ABC and FOX [note how they cynically put women out front to explain and defend their actions], we can only say: “shame on you!”
Hold the phone! Do these network mavens not realize that anyone with an IQ above 50 can simply take a look at the Lane Bryant ads and the other fare currently being freely aired (for example the ads for J’Adore or Irresistible perfumes & Victoria Secret)? Even a moment’s viewing will expose the patent discrepancy and hypocrisy in the network’s claim. If the models are wafer thin, they are considered sexy and beautiful. But if the model is normal sized [let’s be honest, most women are not sized 0-4 like the Victoria Secret and perfume ad models], the exposure of the same sexy format is deemed too salacious or indecent to televise.
A couple of years ago, the fashion industry running the show in Barcelona attempted to back away from the destructive ideology of “women’s fashion” by requiring that exhibitors could not use models unless they had a body mass index that was not emaciated or anorexic. While this effort failed to gain industry acceptance around the globe, it was at least a clear admission of the unspoken strategy to make women feel insecure and inadequate with their normal weight and size. This recent action by the ABC and FOX network executives only completes the admission. Their message is simple: If you are thin, you can be beautiful, but If you wear a size 10 or up, the display of your body is not only unsexy, but indecent.
The ultimate question, however, is whether women of all shapes and sizes will recognize this insult and assault on their collective self esteem. Will women object to the double standard and discriminatory filtering on publicly aired television? Or will they meekly accept the “status quo” and self-deprecatory message that the networks are broadcasting? Will they declare their outrage over the mistreatment, covered up by outright lies and dissembling justifications? Or will they go buy more diet pills, cellulite reducing creams and spend more time in the gym trying to look like the skinny models they see on TV, but whose shape they will never attain? It was not always thus, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield and Raquel Welch were not size 2 women, and they were some of the most iconic beauties of their time.
Can we really blame the media for this destructive campaign if the women who are targeted by it quietly accept the mistreatment? After all, if the image and message sells products to women, it is doing its intended job. Whether or not it is moral or healthy matters little to profit oriented Executives when even the most deleterious actions actually work. As soon as women collectively decide not to accept this open and public denigration, the networks will have no choice but to change. I will be marching with them in protest, though they won’t need my help. For it is about women defining who they are and not what men want or how Ad Men would define them. And as to female Executives and apologists for the ABC and FOX [note how they cynically put women out front to explain and defend their actions], we can only say: “shame on you!”
Monday, April 05, 2010
The “Blind Side” and the Plebiscite
Both the movie going public and Hollywood seem to have embraced the recent picture starring Sandra Bullock, “The Blind Side” but both seem to have failed to look beneath the surface to the more important lessons to be learned from the entertaining experience of the movie. In times of challenge and strife, the US public loves to embrace “feel good” movies that represent some of the better values to which the public might aspire. In the movie, a White suburban wife challenges her family to take in a young Black man, Michael Oher, who literally has no place else to go. The young man is able to reach his potential and the wealthy White family both learns and grows from the experience. Based upon a true events [with liberal Hollywood artistic license taken] the story is about, but ultimately transcends race. The heroine, played by Bullock neither loses sight of her humanity, nor is she willing to be bullied or persuaded by her peer group to ignore that humanity. One might argue that the hero is the young Black man who takes what life has given him and never really gives up a belief that something good will come of life, no matter how unlikely that may seem. And one may also argue that the true hero of the story is the young son of the family who befriends Michael Oher without artifice or guile and never seems to see race as an issue. Michael goes on to become a successful student and athlete who is ultimately drafted by the NFL and plays pro football.
But beneath the surface of the movie lie more significant messages and questions. If Michael had not been a rare physical specimen with athletic potential, would any of the Whites reached out to him to help a child survive and succeed in that society? Why was the Sandra Bullock character set in a wealthy suburb with a multimillion dollar home? Would any White private “Christian” school today really take a chance on a homeless and destitute Black child like Michael unless he had the likely potential to excel in sports? And most important, what does the movie say about the hundreds of thousands of young Black, Hispanic, Asian and White children in similar circumstances to those faced by Michael? Is the movie a representation of real hope in US society, or simply a cruel Hollywood hoax?
The reality in US society today seems quite different from the ethic depicted in the movie. Millions of children are homeless in the USA today and without their most basic needs of survival and care being met. Until passage of the recent Health Care Reform legislation, those children did not even have hope of access to basic medical care that they would likely need as a result of their destitution and living conditions. Yet instead of reaching out to those children, adults organized in unruly mobs to shout racial slurs and epithets at the legislators who voted to extend at least some measure of basic support to those children. The media pundits and prognosticators are treating such rabble as a “political movement” likely to challenge sitting Congressmen in the Fall 2010 elections, rather than as a small and insular group of mindless hooligans making fools of themselves. Some pundits tout the group as symbolic of the voice of the “average American.” Sandra Bullock, the star actress who won the Oscar for her portrayal of the wife who took in Michael, has no children of her own and is being challenged for not really being the “perfect wife” in the tabloids because of the infidelity of her husband. The media loves to tear down anything and the public appetite for such destruction seems endless.
Now it must be noted, in fairness, that the corporate control of media requires reservation before adopting its line as a true representation of the public spirit and the public will. The same media pundits seriously doubted that the US public would ever really vote to elect a non White President. The same media has spared no expense in attacking President Obama, perhaps in an effort to show that it was on the right side of the issue and the public should not have elected a Black or non White President. This media would claim that the average American is now gathering in the shadow of the Capitol to yell “Nigger” and “Faggot” at duly elected Congressmen going to vote in favor of legislation that would not only help millions of children like Michael Oher, but also provide benefits to these same protesters if they should happen to fall seriously ill or lose health insurance through their job. That conduct is a far cry from the selfless humanity portrayed by Bullock in the movie, and it does not even approach enlightened self interest – the American value supposed to undergird the democratic process.
The real question and the true plebiscite presented for the Fall elections is whether the media and the pundits are correct in proclaiming that the Tea Party and protesters like those who gathered on the Capitol, and the 14 Attorneys General who have sued to overturn the law actually do represent the current spirit and character of the “American People.” Each voter should ask him or herself, when entering the voting booth, whether their personal values, ethics and character are better represented by the family in “The Blind Side” movie or by the group of mean spirited and hate filled hooligans who gathered outside the Capitol. Would you rather be like the Sandra Bullock character or like Sarah Palin? Given what is at stake in the recovery of the country, economically and morally, this is no simple Hollywood poll.
It may prove true that “Average Americans” have become a mean spirited and hate filled mob that is more interested in being against something than in favor of anything representing the common welfare, for that is the rhetoric and agenda of the Tea Party and the leadership it appears to follow, even to the point of speeches advocating armed violence against elected officials who disagree with them. This is becoming a question that defines a divided Nation in which major social legislation must be passed without a single vote of bipartisan support. It has been said in times of prior division and heated public discourse in the USA that: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Which of these two visions does the American voting public truly hold? The question goes to the very heart of what the United States of American really is at present and whether it ever hopes to return to the values of fairness, opportunity and justice upon which it proclaimed freedom and strove to be a beacon of liberty.
But beneath the surface of the movie lie more significant messages and questions. If Michael had not been a rare physical specimen with athletic potential, would any of the Whites reached out to him to help a child survive and succeed in that society? Why was the Sandra Bullock character set in a wealthy suburb with a multimillion dollar home? Would any White private “Christian” school today really take a chance on a homeless and destitute Black child like Michael unless he had the likely potential to excel in sports? And most important, what does the movie say about the hundreds of thousands of young Black, Hispanic, Asian and White children in similar circumstances to those faced by Michael? Is the movie a representation of real hope in US society, or simply a cruel Hollywood hoax?
The reality in US society today seems quite different from the ethic depicted in the movie. Millions of children are homeless in the USA today and without their most basic needs of survival and care being met. Until passage of the recent Health Care Reform legislation, those children did not even have hope of access to basic medical care that they would likely need as a result of their destitution and living conditions. Yet instead of reaching out to those children, adults organized in unruly mobs to shout racial slurs and epithets at the legislators who voted to extend at least some measure of basic support to those children. The media pundits and prognosticators are treating such rabble as a “political movement” likely to challenge sitting Congressmen in the Fall 2010 elections, rather than as a small and insular group of mindless hooligans making fools of themselves. Some pundits tout the group as symbolic of the voice of the “average American.” Sandra Bullock, the star actress who won the Oscar for her portrayal of the wife who took in Michael, has no children of her own and is being challenged for not really being the “perfect wife” in the tabloids because of the infidelity of her husband. The media loves to tear down anything and the public appetite for such destruction seems endless.
Now it must be noted, in fairness, that the corporate control of media requires reservation before adopting its line as a true representation of the public spirit and the public will. The same media pundits seriously doubted that the US public would ever really vote to elect a non White President. The same media has spared no expense in attacking President Obama, perhaps in an effort to show that it was on the right side of the issue and the public should not have elected a Black or non White President. This media would claim that the average American is now gathering in the shadow of the Capitol to yell “Nigger” and “Faggot” at duly elected Congressmen going to vote in favor of legislation that would not only help millions of children like Michael Oher, but also provide benefits to these same protesters if they should happen to fall seriously ill or lose health insurance through their job. That conduct is a far cry from the selfless humanity portrayed by Bullock in the movie, and it does not even approach enlightened self interest – the American value supposed to undergird the democratic process.
The real question and the true plebiscite presented for the Fall elections is whether the media and the pundits are correct in proclaiming that the Tea Party and protesters like those who gathered on the Capitol, and the 14 Attorneys General who have sued to overturn the law actually do represent the current spirit and character of the “American People.” Each voter should ask him or herself, when entering the voting booth, whether their personal values, ethics and character are better represented by the family in “The Blind Side” movie or by the group of mean spirited and hate filled hooligans who gathered outside the Capitol. Would you rather be like the Sandra Bullock character or like Sarah Palin? Given what is at stake in the recovery of the country, economically and morally, this is no simple Hollywood poll.
It may prove true that “Average Americans” have become a mean spirited and hate filled mob that is more interested in being against something than in favor of anything representing the common welfare, for that is the rhetoric and agenda of the Tea Party and the leadership it appears to follow, even to the point of speeches advocating armed violence against elected officials who disagree with them. This is becoming a question that defines a divided Nation in which major social legislation must be passed without a single vote of bipartisan support. It has been said in times of prior division and heated public discourse in the USA that: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Which of these two visions does the American voting public truly hold? The question goes to the very heart of what the United States of American really is at present and whether it ever hopes to return to the values of fairness, opportunity and justice upon which it proclaimed freedom and strove to be a beacon of liberty.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Through The Looking Glass Darkly
Looking in the mirror can sometimes be a painful act. For those with courage, a pause at the looking glass provides a vision of public discourse in the United States and what divisive Right Wing politics hath wrought. As elected representatives of the US Congress tried to cross streets of Capitol Hill to their offices, the following scenes unfolded.
Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred."It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn't frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. "He said it reminded him of another time."
Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said a protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is black. Clyburn, who led fellow black students in integrating South Carolina's public facilities a half century ago, called the behavior "absolutely shocking." "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus," Clyburn told reporters.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said protesters shouted "abusive things" to him as he walked from the Longworth building to the Rayburn building. "
Whether this type of activity is rejected or actually supported by the unified GOP leadership and caucus who have been rallying this type of constituency in opposition to Health Care Reform legislation is evidenced by the fact that the news report yielded not one statement of condemnation by the GOP leaders. In their eyes, this must seem like fair minded public debate, despite the fact that some of the overt actions by the crowd may border on hate crimes under existing legislation. The police apparently contained the boisterous crowd and used restraint in dealing with the more aggressive protesters.
While race and affectional preference have absolutely nothing to do with the substantive elements of the proposed legislation, the resort to hateful personal attacks on the legislators based upon race and sexual preference show the low minded and desperate nature of the protesters. It also suggests the emptiness of their arguments in opposition to the legislation. The opposition, grounded primarily upon resistance to ANY progressive legislation proposed by President Obama, has caused a regression in the character and quality of public discourse to a time reminiscent of the Pre-Civil Rights era. It exposes the dark and ugly underbelly of the Republican Party and its agenda. Whether such racist attitudes lie at the core of the GOP agenda, or if the GOP simply sees fit to stoop to the low level of using these sordid mobs as surrogates, the result makes little difference.
The state of affairs is indeed deplorable when major legislation that affects the fundamental well being of millions of US citizens and is focused upon the question of the role of the federal government as an active agent in attempting to address the common welfare faces a stone wall of opposition from GOP legislators. The fact that not a single GOP legislator is willing to exercise free will and the courage to support the legislation on its merits suggests that the GOP has abandoned any guise of acting as responsible representatives in the best interests of the public. If this were a true philosophical debate, there would be a plurality of positions in the GOP caucus, with the majority lining up in opposition. But unequivocal resistance and blind opposition strongly suggest that the vote turns on an agenda other than the merits of health care reform.
It is indeed a sad commentary that both parties have allowed the country to sink so low. Whether the country can ever again return to a level of debate and public service ethics, when representatives were more interested in the common good derived from fair and open minded debate than in the status of their campaign treasuries and relations with lobbyists who would stuff those accounts with cash, is a question that the clouded mirror does not allow us to see. But what is certain is that the current corrupt and morally depleted system will likely continue until the electorate demands better. Yet it will certainly take a more intelligent and more civil electorate that those protesting at the Capitol to bring about such improvements.
[Footnote: GOP leader, Rep Boehner, today -Sunday Mar. 21- effectively endorsed the tactics of the racist mobs on Capitol Hill claiming that they represented confirmation of his party's conviction that "the people" of the US do not want Health care reform legislation to pass.]
Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred."It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn't frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. "He said it reminded him of another time."
Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said a protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is black. Clyburn, who led fellow black students in integrating South Carolina's public facilities a half century ago, called the behavior "absolutely shocking." "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus," Clyburn told reporters.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said protesters shouted "abusive things" to him as he walked from the Longworth building to the Rayburn building. "
Whether this type of activity is rejected or actually supported by the unified GOP leadership and caucus who have been rallying this type of constituency in opposition to Health Care Reform legislation is evidenced by the fact that the news report yielded not one statement of condemnation by the GOP leaders. In their eyes, this must seem like fair minded public debate, despite the fact that some of the overt actions by the crowd may border on hate crimes under existing legislation. The police apparently contained the boisterous crowd and used restraint in dealing with the more aggressive protesters.
While race and affectional preference have absolutely nothing to do with the substantive elements of the proposed legislation, the resort to hateful personal attacks on the legislators based upon race and sexual preference show the low minded and desperate nature of the protesters. It also suggests the emptiness of their arguments in opposition to the legislation. The opposition, grounded primarily upon resistance to ANY progressive legislation proposed by President Obama, has caused a regression in the character and quality of public discourse to a time reminiscent of the Pre-Civil Rights era. It exposes the dark and ugly underbelly of the Republican Party and its agenda. Whether such racist attitudes lie at the core of the GOP agenda, or if the GOP simply sees fit to stoop to the low level of using these sordid mobs as surrogates, the result makes little difference.
The state of affairs is indeed deplorable when major legislation that affects the fundamental well being of millions of US citizens and is focused upon the question of the role of the federal government as an active agent in attempting to address the common welfare faces a stone wall of opposition from GOP legislators. The fact that not a single GOP legislator is willing to exercise free will and the courage to support the legislation on its merits suggests that the GOP has abandoned any guise of acting as responsible representatives in the best interests of the public. If this were a true philosophical debate, there would be a plurality of positions in the GOP caucus, with the majority lining up in opposition. But unequivocal resistance and blind opposition strongly suggest that the vote turns on an agenda other than the merits of health care reform.
It is indeed a sad commentary that both parties have allowed the country to sink so low. Whether the country can ever again return to a level of debate and public service ethics, when representatives were more interested in the common good derived from fair and open minded debate than in the status of their campaign treasuries and relations with lobbyists who would stuff those accounts with cash, is a question that the clouded mirror does not allow us to see. But what is certain is that the current corrupt and morally depleted system will likely continue until the electorate demands better. Yet it will certainly take a more intelligent and more civil electorate that those protesting at the Capitol to bring about such improvements.
[Footnote: GOP leader, Rep Boehner, today -Sunday Mar. 21- effectively endorsed the tactics of the racist mobs on Capitol Hill claiming that they represented confirmation of his party's conviction that "the people" of the US do not want Health care reform legislation to pass.]
Throwing The Bath Out With The Baby.
The current negotiations with so-called Conservative Democrats to get sufficient votes to pass the Health Care reform legislation reminds one of the verity of the following adage: “There are two things you do not want to watch being made, sausage and legislation.” The process is ugly and we would rather not be exposed to the ugly and sometime disgusting steps in the process.
Rep. Stupak is apparently trying to hold the legislation and potential health care benefits for millions of US citizens hostage over language that MIGHT allow some insured to obtain a pregnancy termination procedure that is covered or partly covered by insurance premiums that MAY OR MAY NOT be subsidized by federal funds. As such, Stupak’s position is not about principles, not about health and welfare of his constituents or the public and not really even about abortion. First of all EXISTING US policy prevents the expenditure of federal funds for abortion procedures, so the posturing by Stupak is unnecessary. The Catholic Church, which opposes abortion on doctrinal or dogmatic grounds, has not declared opposition to legislation that will insure 30 million more people and save millions of lives.
His position is simply about public posturing on a controversial issue to bring attention to himself. The patients who may get federal support for a medical procedure that should be a personal choice will be denied that option if Stupak is successful. At the same time, the clumsy nature of legislation will also deprive many women of health care whether or not they arrive at the decision to seek to terminate a pregnancy, by choice or of necessity. To comply with the type of restrictions Stupak is demanding, insurance companies will be required to impose blanket exclusions for pregnancy related care. Health care providers fearing sanctions or loss of reimbursement will decline to see or treat women at the prenatal stage in order to assure that they do not get involved in a pregnancy termination. Arguments that the providers could review procedure records after the fact and then deny reimbursement are naïve and unrealistic. Stupak is seeking not only to deny funding, but to insure that no pregnancy termination procedures occur under the aegis of federally subsidized insurance coverage.
The problem with these tactics and grandstanding is that such measures have never had any real impact on the availability or performance of abortion procedures. Nor have they even attempted to address the social and medical issues that lead up to a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion. Let us set aside the very real question whether including the types of provisions that Stupak seeks are unconstitutional attempts to “establish religion” through federal statutes. The more practical question is why the entire legislation should be held hostage to the inclusion of language that is ineffectual even for the purported reason it is advanced. Millions of children will be denied preventive as well as remedial health care because Stupak wants to make a personal political statement. That makes no sense, logically, ethically, politically or morally. Were his objections based upon the cost of the legislation, that it fails to contain measures that would effectively deliver what it promises, or even that the government should not be in the business of providing health insurance subsidies his opposition could be rationalized as legislative discretion. But holding legislation hostage over a point that will not be achieved even if his demands are met is irresponsible.
The greater question is why the Democratic leadership feels the need to negotiate with this type of political or legislative terrorist? The label may seem harsh, but what else would you call someone who seeks deliberately to cause the death and denial of necessary health services to millions of innocent people simply to make a political statement? Other Representatives who either support the right of women to make personal decisions about medical procedures with the aid of their physicians, and others who recognize that the demands of Stupak are pointless from a practical standpoint, ought simply to say that THEY will oppose the legislation IF the Stupak demands are appeased. They should also state quite clearly that the reason for their position and the potential failure of the legislation must be laid directly at the feet of Stupak. If this Representative thinks he is playing to his constituency, then let him explain why the majority of them lack health care insurance because of his grandstanding and ego.
Rep. Stupak is apparently trying to hold the legislation and potential health care benefits for millions of US citizens hostage over language that MIGHT allow some insured to obtain a pregnancy termination procedure that is covered or partly covered by insurance premiums that MAY OR MAY NOT be subsidized by federal funds. As such, Stupak’s position is not about principles, not about health and welfare of his constituents or the public and not really even about abortion. First of all EXISTING US policy prevents the expenditure of federal funds for abortion procedures, so the posturing by Stupak is unnecessary. The Catholic Church, which opposes abortion on doctrinal or dogmatic grounds, has not declared opposition to legislation that will insure 30 million more people and save millions of lives.
His position is simply about public posturing on a controversial issue to bring attention to himself. The patients who may get federal support for a medical procedure that should be a personal choice will be denied that option if Stupak is successful. At the same time, the clumsy nature of legislation will also deprive many women of health care whether or not they arrive at the decision to seek to terminate a pregnancy, by choice or of necessity. To comply with the type of restrictions Stupak is demanding, insurance companies will be required to impose blanket exclusions for pregnancy related care. Health care providers fearing sanctions or loss of reimbursement will decline to see or treat women at the prenatal stage in order to assure that they do not get involved in a pregnancy termination. Arguments that the providers could review procedure records after the fact and then deny reimbursement are naïve and unrealistic. Stupak is seeking not only to deny funding, but to insure that no pregnancy termination procedures occur under the aegis of federally subsidized insurance coverage.
The problem with these tactics and grandstanding is that such measures have never had any real impact on the availability or performance of abortion procedures. Nor have they even attempted to address the social and medical issues that lead up to a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion. Let us set aside the very real question whether including the types of provisions that Stupak seeks are unconstitutional attempts to “establish religion” through federal statutes. The more practical question is why the entire legislation should be held hostage to the inclusion of language that is ineffectual even for the purported reason it is advanced. Millions of children will be denied preventive as well as remedial health care because Stupak wants to make a personal political statement. That makes no sense, logically, ethically, politically or morally. Were his objections based upon the cost of the legislation, that it fails to contain measures that would effectively deliver what it promises, or even that the government should not be in the business of providing health insurance subsidies his opposition could be rationalized as legislative discretion. But holding legislation hostage over a point that will not be achieved even if his demands are met is irresponsible.
The greater question is why the Democratic leadership feels the need to negotiate with this type of political or legislative terrorist? The label may seem harsh, but what else would you call someone who seeks deliberately to cause the death and denial of necessary health services to millions of innocent people simply to make a political statement? Other Representatives who either support the right of women to make personal decisions about medical procedures with the aid of their physicians, and others who recognize that the demands of Stupak are pointless from a practical standpoint, ought simply to say that THEY will oppose the legislation IF the Stupak demands are appeased. They should also state quite clearly that the reason for their position and the potential failure of the legislation must be laid directly at the feet of Stupak. If this Representative thinks he is playing to his constituency, then let him explain why the majority of them lack health care insurance because of his grandstanding and ego.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Dear Mr. President: Educate Yourself
In several recent articles, President Obama has been reported to offer tough talk about his plans for the reauthorization of NCLB [No Child Left Behind] legislation. That law, a holdover from prior administrations and corrupted by the Bush regime, purports to hold schools accountable for raising the academic competence and performance of students. However well-intended the law may have been initially, it has generally been proven a failure in meeting the desired goals. Illogical provisions that punish and remove funding from schools that are not performing well, often because of a lack of funding in the first place, are hallmarks of the law. Now Obama states that he plans to raise the performance standards by requiring states to sign on to an agreement to establish and implement “college readiness” curricula in the schools.
To his credit, the Obama Administration has taken steps toward the carrot rather than the stick approach to gaining support and cooperation at the state and local level. Rather than threatening to take over control of under performing school districts, as Bush had done, Obama places the responsibility on the school districts and states to adopt reforms in exchange for funding incentives. No reform, no additional funding. But states that adopt new measures, embrace greater flexibility and charter schools can receive significant help from the Federal government to help implement those reforms. This can be a bit illusory in a context of a failing economy that has stretched education budgets so thin that accepting reform is a survival imperative rather than a progressive option.
But Obama’s call to require all states to adopt curricula that prepare students for college and careers may suffer from an elitist fallacy. The idyllic “American Dream” may look like sending the kids to college to become doctors and lawyers, a house in the suburbs and 2.5 children. To be sure, an education that prepares students capable of and who seek that path should be available. The reality, however, is that not all students are suited to or desire college education. A crude analogy is played out in the US medical system. Currently, there are too many surgeons and specialists and not enough General Practitioners and primary care physicians. The point is that gearing a system that trains every student to be a career professional is neither necessary nor necessarily a wise application of resources.
I am not suggesting that the curriculum be “dumbed down” or should be let off the hook in any way. At minimum every school system must prepare every one of its students with a comprehensive set of basic skills to function in society productively and in a self sustaining manner. No less effort is worthy of such a great nation as a responsibility and goal for its people. But in the process of “raising the sights,” our aim at the appropriate target has been lost and damage may ensue. If we state that going to college is the minimum requirement, then do we not also implicitly declare that any student who is not college ready is a failure? While technology is advancing at a rapid pace, there are still jobs and occupations that are very respectable and capable of sustaining families that do not require a college degree. As a K-12 teacher, I strive to maximize the potential and dreams of each and every student I am entrusted with. But not every one of my students aspires to or performs at the academic level to be successful in a liberal arts or technical college. I am loath to label these students a failure.
Perhaps this is simply a matter of semantics, but I don’t think so. For Presidential decrees and initiatives carry a heavy pressure. When former President Kennedy announced a fitness initiative, millions of US citizens took to the jogging path and bicycles. In addition, huge industries of “natural foods” products, diet pills and weight control programs were spawned. And the public began to develop an antipathy for people who were not deemed “fit.” People who were overweight though no fault of their own were discriminated against. Fashion turned even more toward anorexic models with the resulting damage to the psyches of millions of young women. So I would be reluctant to pass this off as mere semantics.
The pendulum swings back and forth. A capitalist education that was designed to simply prepare students to work in factories is hopefully a thing of the past. The age of technology has shown the way to developing students that are capable of nearly incredible new discoveries. However, in a modern society there must be room for a democratic education that leaves room and supports [not simply tolerates] persons who either lack the academic acumen or the honest desire to pursue a professional career. Those who do seek that path to higher education must be encouraged and supported. But those who do not should not be condemned or labeled as failures.
We are also learning more and more about emotional and intellectual development. More and more people are “late bloomers” who return to the educational system with a purpose and a vengeance to develop their skills and competencies. It seems wrong to impose upon them the handicap of having to overcome a stigma of being labeled a failure because they did not have the desire, vision or readiness to enter college right after high school. Mr. President, I know that it is difficult for someone whose life has been marked by an insatiable drive for self-improvement and high achievement to envision the aspirations of someone who really dreams to become a fine auto mechanic or perhaps a plumber or metalworker. Those jobs may conceivably disappear or be overtaken by technology, but it is unlikely that this will happen completely for several generations. If a student wants to pursue such a path and does not need academic performance at a level that would garner college admission, why would you want to crush that student with the stigma of failing to meet your standards?
To his credit, the Obama Administration has taken steps toward the carrot rather than the stick approach to gaining support and cooperation at the state and local level. Rather than threatening to take over control of under performing school districts, as Bush had done, Obama places the responsibility on the school districts and states to adopt reforms in exchange for funding incentives. No reform, no additional funding. But states that adopt new measures, embrace greater flexibility and charter schools can receive significant help from the Federal government to help implement those reforms. This can be a bit illusory in a context of a failing economy that has stretched education budgets so thin that accepting reform is a survival imperative rather than a progressive option.
But Obama’s call to require all states to adopt curricula that prepare students for college and careers may suffer from an elitist fallacy. The idyllic “American Dream” may look like sending the kids to college to become doctors and lawyers, a house in the suburbs and 2.5 children. To be sure, an education that prepares students capable of and who seek that path should be available. The reality, however, is that not all students are suited to or desire college education. A crude analogy is played out in the US medical system. Currently, there are too many surgeons and specialists and not enough General Practitioners and primary care physicians. The point is that gearing a system that trains every student to be a career professional is neither necessary nor necessarily a wise application of resources.
I am not suggesting that the curriculum be “dumbed down” or should be let off the hook in any way. At minimum every school system must prepare every one of its students with a comprehensive set of basic skills to function in society productively and in a self sustaining manner. No less effort is worthy of such a great nation as a responsibility and goal for its people. But in the process of “raising the sights,” our aim at the appropriate target has been lost and damage may ensue. If we state that going to college is the minimum requirement, then do we not also implicitly declare that any student who is not college ready is a failure? While technology is advancing at a rapid pace, there are still jobs and occupations that are very respectable and capable of sustaining families that do not require a college degree. As a K-12 teacher, I strive to maximize the potential and dreams of each and every student I am entrusted with. But not every one of my students aspires to or performs at the academic level to be successful in a liberal arts or technical college. I am loath to label these students a failure.
Perhaps this is simply a matter of semantics, but I don’t think so. For Presidential decrees and initiatives carry a heavy pressure. When former President Kennedy announced a fitness initiative, millions of US citizens took to the jogging path and bicycles. In addition, huge industries of “natural foods” products, diet pills and weight control programs were spawned. And the public began to develop an antipathy for people who were not deemed “fit.” People who were overweight though no fault of their own were discriminated against. Fashion turned even more toward anorexic models with the resulting damage to the psyches of millions of young women. So I would be reluctant to pass this off as mere semantics.
The pendulum swings back and forth. A capitalist education that was designed to simply prepare students to work in factories is hopefully a thing of the past. The age of technology has shown the way to developing students that are capable of nearly incredible new discoveries. However, in a modern society there must be room for a democratic education that leaves room and supports [not simply tolerates] persons who either lack the academic acumen or the honest desire to pursue a professional career. Those who do seek that path to higher education must be encouraged and supported. But those who do not should not be condemned or labeled as failures.
We are also learning more and more about emotional and intellectual development. More and more people are “late bloomers” who return to the educational system with a purpose and a vengeance to develop their skills and competencies. It seems wrong to impose upon them the handicap of having to overcome a stigma of being labeled a failure because they did not have the desire, vision or readiness to enter college right after high school. Mr. President, I know that it is difficult for someone whose life has been marked by an insatiable drive for self-improvement and high achievement to envision the aspirations of someone who really dreams to become a fine auto mechanic or perhaps a plumber or metalworker. Those jobs may conceivably disappear or be overtaken by technology, but it is unlikely that this will happen completely for several generations. If a student wants to pursue such a path and does not need academic performance at a level that would garner college admission, why would you want to crush that student with the stigma of failing to meet your standards?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The “WAITING GAME”
Democrats in Congress showed what resembles a spine in connection with their responsibility to govern when they met to discuss possible strategies for passing legislation without GOP support. The public impatience toward Congress because of the continuing economic slump and anemic recovery demands action. The technical requirement of a super-majority of 60 votes in the Senate to move legislation forward is little understood by the average voter who maintains a simplistic idea of democracy, thinking that "majority rules." In light of the GOP resistance to any constructive measure, and rebuff of any sincere attempt to work out compromises, the Democratic leadership has begun exploring strategic ways to get some legislation passed without relying upon GOP legislators to "cross the aisle."
For all the blather about “bipartisanship” in the media, the reality is that the GOP leadership has issued a clear and unequivocal directive to its members of obstruction and obfuscation toward any initiative that relates to public spending for the benefit of the poor and average US citizen. Witness the GOP wrath directed at the rookie Senator Brown of Massachusetts for voting in support of cloture [precluding a filibuster] on a major jobs bill so that it could be voted on by the full Senate. [You may recall that I previously opined that the GOP would expect Brown to be their lap dog and follow the "party line."]
Measures like true health care reform and jobs or unemployment benefits support are prime targets. Yet the scope of the opposition is made clearer when one looks at the recent report of more than 275 legislative measures passed by the House of Representatives that are stalled in the Senate. Some measures are earmarks and pork for specialized local constituencies that deserve to wither and die, but the majority of bills are broader measures directed to helping the country recover from the years of profligacy and ineptitude of the Bush Administration and to provide immediate relief to pressing public needs. Given this “stonewalling” approach to governance by the GOP, the only logical and sensible approach for the Democrats is to proceed with the country’s business as best they can in spite of the GOP, instead of waiting for some miracle of conscience or compassion to cause a change in GOP strategy.
Consider an interesting comment by Senate Majority leader McConnell regarding the Blair House health Care Summit. He declared that there was no point in attending a Summit on health care reform sponsored by the President because the Democrats were preparing to try to pass legislation without GOP votes. Now keep in mind that the reason the Democratic strategy may be necessary is the obdurate obstructionism by the GOP and a complete unwillingness by the GOP to put forward any constructive proposal. In essence, he was saying that the GOP need not attend a meeting in which they were invited to present and responsibly discuss constructive legislation to address the health care crisis because the GOP is going to oppose any reform legislation and the democrats are preparing to circumvent that obstruction. McConnell made no mention of an intention to offer any constructive approach to health care reform.
The GOP strategy is a form of waiting game. With an inability to lead or come up with constructive ideas, Republicans are hoping to curry favor with the public in two ways. First, by obstructing any useful broad based legislation proposed by the Democratic majority, they hope to portray the Democratic leadership as ineffective in the eyes of the public. Since the public tends to hold a negative view of politicians generally and Congress in particular, the GOP believes that the public wrath can be directed toward the party in the majority. They trust that the public is too stupid to realize that the REASON for the inaction on important matters affecting the public is the GOP obstruction. In this regard, ignorance and stupidity of the electorate, recent history has proven them right. The delay tactic is positioning for the midterm elections.
Second, the GOP hopes to stall any legislation that might have a real positive impact upon the economy and the jobless rate for as long as possible. The purpose of this delay is to strengthen the argument that the responsibility for the economic crisis the country faces lies in the lap of Obama instead of the Bush Administration. This too is an effective, if cynical, ploy to manipulate public opinion. The further we are from Bush’s departure from office, the more plausible it is that people will forget the true genesis of the economic misery they are facing. The sitting President is a much more likely target for the weak minded and those with limited attention spans. And yet a failure of the current President to devise a strategy for overcoming the deliberate obstruction DOES represent a failure of leadership. It is not how good government is supposed to work, but it does indicate the depths to which the US government and the game of politics have fallen.
While this gamesmanship continues, the jobless rate remains unnecessarily and unreasonably high. The blockage of financial reform means that small businesses remain starved for credit and capital they need to revitalize the economy. Millions of families without health care insurance, joined by more families losing such benefits in the worsening economy, are threatened each day that the Congress fails to pass effective health care reform. The GOP is playing the “waiting game” in hopes that the US voters will get angrier as they stew in their misery. They are betting that the public will blame the party in the majority for failure to help, instead of the party who has obstructed every effort to help. Unless the electorate wakes up and smartens up, the GOP strategy will succeed. And we will all be the worse for it.
For all the blather about “bipartisanship” in the media, the reality is that the GOP leadership has issued a clear and unequivocal directive to its members of obstruction and obfuscation toward any initiative that relates to public spending for the benefit of the poor and average US citizen. Witness the GOP wrath directed at the rookie Senator Brown of Massachusetts for voting in support of cloture [precluding a filibuster] on a major jobs bill so that it could be voted on by the full Senate. [You may recall that I previously opined that the GOP would expect Brown to be their lap dog and follow the "party line."]
Measures like true health care reform and jobs or unemployment benefits support are prime targets. Yet the scope of the opposition is made clearer when one looks at the recent report of more than 275 legislative measures passed by the House of Representatives that are stalled in the Senate. Some measures are earmarks and pork for specialized local constituencies that deserve to wither and die, but the majority of bills are broader measures directed to helping the country recover from the years of profligacy and ineptitude of the Bush Administration and to provide immediate relief to pressing public needs. Given this “stonewalling” approach to governance by the GOP, the only logical and sensible approach for the Democrats is to proceed with the country’s business as best they can in spite of the GOP, instead of waiting for some miracle of conscience or compassion to cause a change in GOP strategy.
Consider an interesting comment by Senate Majority leader McConnell regarding the Blair House health Care Summit. He declared that there was no point in attending a Summit on health care reform sponsored by the President because the Democrats were preparing to try to pass legislation without GOP votes. Now keep in mind that the reason the Democratic strategy may be necessary is the obdurate obstructionism by the GOP and a complete unwillingness by the GOP to put forward any constructive proposal. In essence, he was saying that the GOP need not attend a meeting in which they were invited to present and responsibly discuss constructive legislation to address the health care crisis because the GOP is going to oppose any reform legislation and the democrats are preparing to circumvent that obstruction. McConnell made no mention of an intention to offer any constructive approach to health care reform.
The GOP strategy is a form of waiting game. With an inability to lead or come up with constructive ideas, Republicans are hoping to curry favor with the public in two ways. First, by obstructing any useful broad based legislation proposed by the Democratic majority, they hope to portray the Democratic leadership as ineffective in the eyes of the public. Since the public tends to hold a negative view of politicians generally and Congress in particular, the GOP believes that the public wrath can be directed toward the party in the majority. They trust that the public is too stupid to realize that the REASON for the inaction on important matters affecting the public is the GOP obstruction. In this regard, ignorance and stupidity of the electorate, recent history has proven them right. The delay tactic is positioning for the midterm elections.
Second, the GOP hopes to stall any legislation that might have a real positive impact upon the economy and the jobless rate for as long as possible. The purpose of this delay is to strengthen the argument that the responsibility for the economic crisis the country faces lies in the lap of Obama instead of the Bush Administration. This too is an effective, if cynical, ploy to manipulate public opinion. The further we are from Bush’s departure from office, the more plausible it is that people will forget the true genesis of the economic misery they are facing. The sitting President is a much more likely target for the weak minded and those with limited attention spans. And yet a failure of the current President to devise a strategy for overcoming the deliberate obstruction DOES represent a failure of leadership. It is not how good government is supposed to work, but it does indicate the depths to which the US government and the game of politics have fallen.
While this gamesmanship continues, the jobless rate remains unnecessarily and unreasonably high. The blockage of financial reform means that small businesses remain starved for credit and capital they need to revitalize the economy. Millions of families without health care insurance, joined by more families losing such benefits in the worsening economy, are threatened each day that the Congress fails to pass effective health care reform. The GOP is playing the “waiting game” in hopes that the US voters will get angrier as they stew in their misery. They are betting that the public will blame the party in the majority for failure to help, instead of the party who has obstructed every effort to help. Unless the electorate wakes up and smartens up, the GOP strategy will succeed. And we will all be the worse for it.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Mental Illness and Health Care Reform
In 2009, health care spending grew by 5.7 percent, now reaching $2.5 trillion. It is the largest increase since the federal government began tracking these figures in 1960, according to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Health care costs also made up 17.3 percent of the US's gross domestic product (GDP), which was 1.1 percent higher than in 2008. CMS's 2009-2019 projections indicate that health expenditures will continue to grow "increasingly faster," at an annual rate of 6.1 percent - 1.7 percentage points faster than annual GDP growth - and climb to $4.5 trillion.
With the loss of the Democratic 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, it seems likely that the Health Care Reform legislation passed by both houses of Congress and scheduled for Conference Committee deliberation is on terminal life support. While the legislation produced to date is a weak excuse for real reform of the industry stranglehold on the economy and well being of the public, it was a step in the right direction. Even if the Conference Committee could craft a compromise that satisfied a perceived majority and was in the best interests of the public, that compromise would have to pass both houses. The new configuration provides the GOP their coveted procedural tool of blocking any form of public oriented legislation. The lobbyists for Insurance Industry groups and major health care conglomerates like WellPoint, Humana and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, that hold legislators in their thrall [if not by their scrota] will not allow any reform to pass that might challenge their irrational profit scheme.
In an environment of recession, economic meltdown and sacrifices that have destroyed not only economic stability but even the hope of many families and households in the country, these so-called “health care industry” agents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve increasing revenues that outstrip the economy by approximately 200%. But that is not the true problem that the country and the people face.
In light of this seeming irrational imbalance of power in which the health care industry is figuratively raping the populace and at the same time excluding more and more families from basic health care, the voters are following, like a herd of lemmings, the clarion call of the Right Wing leadership to advance a campaign to block any real effort to try to restore a modicum of balance. Brown was elected as a new GOP Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy with the express purpose of defeating health care reform. Using fear mongering tactics about "government expense" and taxes associated with health care reform, they conveniently ignore the fact that, according to the CMS Report: “Without the passage of a health care reform bill, currently stalled in the House, public spending will comprise more than 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2012.”
Ironically, major factors in the inexorable climb of health care costs and public spending for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid are: a) the amount of per patient usage and b) the rising unemployment rate from a worsening economy. In the first instance, the health care industry has managed to induce US customers to spend more than twice the average per capita amount spent by developed nations for health care, although the impact and level of overall health derived from such expense places the USA below average among the same developed nations. In the second instance, the Health Care industry has managed to profit from the disadvantage of millions of people in the US resulting from the failing economy.
Behaving as though it is experiencing a psychotic break, the public is being exhorted to get behind right wing demagogues in an effort to prevent any development or passage of legislation that might actually benefit the average citizen and which might both limit the increase in health care costs and provide basic health care coverage to all families in the country. It is only a few steps removed from the mass insanity that led the group in Jonestown to drink the lethal kool aid punch. As long as the public can be driven to mass delusional behavior, believing in actions directly contrary to their own future physical and economic health, then the health care industry will be able to exploit this public mental illness to their economic advantage. And why not? Can you name a single health care executive who does not have the best health care services available 24 hours a day for his family? How fortunate that the very people being exploited can be duped into attacking the ones seeking to help them, rather than the ones profiting from their misery.
With the loss of the Democratic 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, it seems likely that the Health Care Reform legislation passed by both houses of Congress and scheduled for Conference Committee deliberation is on terminal life support. While the legislation produced to date is a weak excuse for real reform of the industry stranglehold on the economy and well being of the public, it was a step in the right direction. Even if the Conference Committee could craft a compromise that satisfied a perceived majority and was in the best interests of the public, that compromise would have to pass both houses. The new configuration provides the GOP their coveted procedural tool of blocking any form of public oriented legislation. The lobbyists for Insurance Industry groups and major health care conglomerates like WellPoint, Humana and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, that hold legislators in their thrall [if not by their scrota] will not allow any reform to pass that might challenge their irrational profit scheme.
In an environment of recession, economic meltdown and sacrifices that have destroyed not only economic stability but even the hope of many families and households in the country, these so-called “health care industry” agents have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve increasing revenues that outstrip the economy by approximately 200%. But that is not the true problem that the country and the people face.
In light of this seeming irrational imbalance of power in which the health care industry is figuratively raping the populace and at the same time excluding more and more families from basic health care, the voters are following, like a herd of lemmings, the clarion call of the Right Wing leadership to advance a campaign to block any real effort to try to restore a modicum of balance. Brown was elected as a new GOP Senator from Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy with the express purpose of defeating health care reform. Using fear mongering tactics about "government expense" and taxes associated with health care reform, they conveniently ignore the fact that, according to the CMS Report: “Without the passage of a health care reform bill, currently stalled in the House, public spending will comprise more than 50 percent of all national health expenditures by 2012.”
Ironically, major factors in the inexorable climb of health care costs and public spending for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid are: a) the amount of per patient usage and b) the rising unemployment rate from a worsening economy. In the first instance, the health care industry has managed to induce US customers to spend more than twice the average per capita amount spent by developed nations for health care, although the impact and level of overall health derived from such expense places the USA below average among the same developed nations. In the second instance, the Health Care industry has managed to profit from the disadvantage of millions of people in the US resulting from the failing economy.
Behaving as though it is experiencing a psychotic break, the public is being exhorted to get behind right wing demagogues in an effort to prevent any development or passage of legislation that might actually benefit the average citizen and which might both limit the increase in health care costs and provide basic health care coverage to all families in the country. It is only a few steps removed from the mass insanity that led the group in Jonestown to drink the lethal kool aid punch. As long as the public can be driven to mass delusional behavior, believing in actions directly contrary to their own future physical and economic health, then the health care industry will be able to exploit this public mental illness to their economic advantage. And why not? Can you name a single health care executive who does not have the best health care services available 24 hours a day for his family? How fortunate that the very people being exploited can be duped into attacking the ones seeking to help them, rather than the ones profiting from their misery.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The P. Diddy School of Business – “Bling Academy”
I read a news article, or actually an “infotainment” article yesterday that made me laugh. In the article, it describes a plan by P. Diddy to form a business school for “young entrepreneurs.” Now, don’t get me wrong, I am no hater. I won’t even get down on the source of much of the entertainer’s wealth, the promotion of misogyny and violence. He does own other more “mainstream” enterprises that manufacture and sell consumer goods. If anyone wants to establish an enterprise to promote educational opportunity, I am usually one of the first in line to support such efforts. Considering the wealth that P. Diddy has gained from his entertainment career and enterprises, the benevolent idea that he may want to give something back to the community by helping inspire and support nascent Black entrepreneurs is heartwarming. So, why the chuckle, you ask?
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Earlier in the week, I also read an “infotainment” article about the very same P. Diddy spending over $360,000 to buy a car for his 16 year old son. Yes, this astute businessman who would want to establish a school to communicate his ideas, values and methods to a new generation of entrepreneurs apparently has the sensibilities and the sensitivity to spend well over a third of a million dollars on one vehicle to be driven by an inexperienced 16 year old boy. The purchase was announced at the same time that millions of Haitians are homeless and starving and well over 100,000 have been confirmed dead. I can understand the deep wellsprings of a father’s love for his son. But what lesson is P. Diddy teaching his son by spending in such a profligate and irresponsible way just to demonstrate “Bling” or perhaps to buy the affection of his child. Remember that this child to whom the car is entrusted is in the highest risk rating category of all drivers. Will it be necessary to hire a bevy of bodyguards to surround the child whenever he wants to drive his new toy, in order to prevent damage to the expensive vehicle?
But more to the point, would it not have shown better judgment and parenting to buy the kid a moderately priced, say BMW or Mercedes, car and make a donation of a quarter of a million dollars to Haitian relief in his son’s name with the leftover cash? That would have done more to advance the formation of the son’s character than having the boy walking around bragging that he owns one of the most expensive cars in the world. As a proposed educator, what values and lessons can P. Diddy be expected to teach others that are less dear to him, if that is the caliber of teaching he demonstrates to his son?
Perhaps P. Diddy lives in a different world that the rest of us and has no need for regular values of honesty, compassion for fellow human beings or hard work. Considered judgment and careful planning may be outdated values in the world of P. Diddy entrepreneurs. Unreasonable risk, reckless spending and disregard of humanitarian concerns may be the touchstones of this new “school of business” that P. Diddy wants to establish. Unfortunately, the throng of wanna-be rappers, street hustlers and pseudo gangsters that emulate the image P. Diddy cultivates to promote his career and enterprises would probably be waiting in line to sign up for his business school. And if P. Diddy is true to form, he would charge them high tuition and give them nothing but smoke, in true Barnum & Bailey flim-flam style.
P. Diddy certainly has learned some lessons that his progenitors, like M.C. Hammer, failed to learn when they rose to the top of a somewhat peculiar market of entertainment. But along the way, he appears to have never learned or lost sight of some basic values that generally apply to humanity and those seeking a worthwhile role as contributors to society. There are, to be sure, people who have struck it rich by scamming and deceiving others, selling nothing for something and getting people eager to throw money to purchase that valueless “thing.” Bernie Madoff is a good example, and current heads of Wall Street concerns like Bank of America who are walking off with millions of bonus dollars essentially from scamming public taxpayers are too numerous. The DIFFERENCE is that none of these latter gentlemen are offering the pretense that they have anything to share or teach to budding entrepreneurs. They understand that their wealth and success derives from unwholesome greed and deception, from taking advantage of a defective system. Their money does not come from exceptional hard work or even superior talent. Their revenues are wholly disproportionate to the value of their service. So they have nothing of value to “teach” without exposing the chimera that has enabled them to get over.
I am not suggesting that P. Diddy is a crook like Madoff. I am suggesting that if he believes, for even a moment, that he has something of true value to provide as an educator to aspiring young business people he should think again. The judgment that allowed him to spend a third of a million dollars on a car for a 16 year old amply demonstrates his inability to guide the formation of business leaders of the future.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Two Steps Back.....
"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) statement introducing legislation to counter the High Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that effectively guts the McCain-Feingold Act which regulates campaign practices and funding in federal elections. A lower court had ruled that the broadcast of a corporate funded attack campaign advertisement against Hillary Clinton within the 30 day window preceding a federal election violated the McCain-Feingold Act. Two issues were at stake in the case.
First, and probably most important, was the question whether corporations have the same free speech rights as human citizens in the context of campaign funding. Opponents, including legal scholars, argue that corporations are fictitious “persons” or “citizens” whose rights are a creation of statute and not derived from any Constitutional principle. The limited rights created were for the purpose of allowing corporations to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the entity instead of in the name of a regular person representing the interests of the organization. In addition, corporate persons could go into a court of law to enforce those legal agreements. From its inception, the corporation acts were never intended to grant these fictitious persons the “natural rights” deemed inalienable under the Founders’ concept of government and society.
There is good reason for the distinction. Corporations were created to permit the aggregation of wealth and economic power that individuals typically could not muster. When the purpose was limited to the commercial sphere, this “accommodation” in the form of a fictitious person or entity enabled the investment of private capital to be employed for economic growth and expansion. This salutary purpose is, however, the precise reason why corporations should not be given unbridled license in the sphere of electoral politics. The ability to amass huge amounts of capital to influence or even “buy” elections distorts the electoral process and takes it out of the realm of democracy. Individuals simply cannot compete with these aggregated economic giants in trying to communicate a message relating to candidates or elections.
And there is currently a more insidious level in the communication process. The individual seeking to get his or her opinion or message to the public has to purchase airtime from the media. Aside from the obvious disadvantage in competing with corporation budgets in attempting to bid for that airtime, the media is owned and controlled by corporations. This incestuous relationship of corporate campaign funding through corporate owned media conglomerates further excludes the individual citizen from the democratic electoral process.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” President Barack Obama
The Supreme Court ruled that corporate speech could be regulated through “disclaimer and disclosure” requirements, but could not be precluded altogether. The Court did not squarely address how such disclosure requirements, such as the name of the organization sponsoring the advertisement, would counter the damage or imbalance when the corporate speech is effectively the only message broadcast.
Ironically, those Justices who rant most audibly against judicial legislation and in favor of “strict construction” or “original intent” look like the most shallow hypocrites by turning their backs on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution in order to accommodate the interests of the corporate elite.
The second issue in the case relates to the window of 30 days prior to elections in which certain types of advertisement are banned under the McCain-Feingold Act. Logically, if Corporations are free to spend as much as they like on campaign ads, then we can expect a barrage of attack ads up to the opening of polls in future elections. Since there will be virtually no time to investigate blatantly false, misleading and even fraudulent ads until after the election has been held and the damage done, the Supreme Court can reasonably be said to have sold and subverted the democratic electoral process. On its face, this is not a partisan issue because progressive messages could be broadcast as easily as right wing advertisements. However, experience tells us that corporations nearly always favor deregulation, reduction of protections for average citizens and government interference only for the purpose of granting corporate subsidies.
The idea that corporate funding in elections would go to support candidates who favor environmental controls, fair trade regulation, restrictions on Wall Street and Investment practices, universal health care, additional public support for education of our children or any other concept directed to public well-being is fanciful at best and more aptly described as delusional. Corporations have no ethics, conscience or moral constraints as natural citizens are believed to have. Corporations only have economic interests. This is no more a condemnation than is the assertion that cars have no emotions, it is simply a fact due to the inherent nature of the thing.
That is why cases like the Ford Pinto case, deadly drug recalls, Bhopal, Black lung cases, Asbestos Cases, Exxon-Valdiz and a host of other remedial lawsuits have been necessary. Corporations act to increase and protect corporate profits, even if it means the death or destruction of thousands of human lives. A Corporation cannot be subjected to the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty for acts of intentional murder. A corporation cannot even be effectively put to death to prevent future crimes or reckless behavior. Its shareholders simply incorporate or “reincarnate” the entity and continue on with business as usual.
Congress was designed to provide a House of Representatives to balance lawmaking with the voice of individual citizens. Perhaps a third House of Congress needs to be established to channel the voice and representation of corporations. Then corporate funding would have to be directed only to election of representatives speaking and acting in behalf of these “corporate citizens.” Without some form of alteration, however, the current electoral process has just been destroyed and sold to the highest corporate bidder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)