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

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

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

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

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

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

"Tea Party" Redux

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

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

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

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

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

Of Wizardry and Wisdom

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

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

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

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

Trump fails to comply with campaign fundingn law

Browsing and Reflection on BREXIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Another Day - Another Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Centered Society and "Me-Itis"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French Lesson?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice for Trayvon Martin

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

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

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

Lipstick on a Pig, Once Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa Caucuses and the Road to Hell

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banking Lessons on Racism and Bigotry

Some people have a difficult time understanding the distinction between bigotry or discrimination and “racism.” The recently announced settlement regarding Bank of America and its subsidiary, Countrywide Mortgage, provides a helpful concrete example and its implications. Racial bigotry is the prejudgmental attitude or belief regarding someone different from one’s own racial or ethnic group that is based neither on fact nor experience. It may or may not be acted upon by word or deed. When that bigotry is acted upon, it is discrimination that serves to accord certain advantage or privilege to a member or members of one group over another based upon race or ethnicity. The race or ethnicity may be real or perceived, in that one may discriminate against another believing the recipient of the discrimination to be of a certain race even if the person is not of that race or ethnicity. In contrast, racism is the operation of institutional and systemic power to privilege and accord advantage to one dominant group and to disadvantage a subordinate group because of race or ethnicity. Racism is dependent upon systemic power where bigotry is not.

In the case of Countrywide Mortgage, purchased by Bank of America with the indirect benefit of TARP bailout funds from taxpayers, the company engaged in a systematic course of discrimination against people of color seeking home mortgages. It extended loans at higher interests than mortgages offered to whites and systematically steered people of color to loans that were riskier and which contained traps of ballooning interest rates. These differences were strategic and systematic, and as a government official described: “the cost and quality of loan that you received from Countrywide depended upon the color of your skin.”

Looking to the implications of the difference, we can see how racism can be more insidious in a society. When an individual engages in acts of bigoted discrimination, the individual may be held accountable for such actions, up to and including criminal prosecution for hate crimes. Let us look, however, at the consequences of institutional racism. Not one individual was terminated or disciplined from bank of America or Countrywide specifically because of the strategic and concerted policy and practice of discrimination against tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals solely on the basis of race or ethnicity. The evidence is that the borrowers of color were equally qualified for the superior quality and lower cost loans offered to white customers. Bank of America has agreed to a “settlement” following the investigation demonstrating the practice, which was not termed a penalty or fine and so can be written off as a business expense – which the taxpayers ultimately bear as a cost. That settlement of approximately $353 million represents about 5% of ONE QUARTER’S profit for Bank of America.

What we see is the deliberate and strategic use of institutional power, aided and abetted by the government, to disadvantage certain customers and privilege others solely upon the basis of race and ethnicity. The white controlled and operated bank of America has direct economic power and the support of governmental power in the effectuation of this systematic discrimination. That is the essence of racism. Some talk about reciprocal or “reverse” racism which is a fallacy and a misconception in the United States. The simple reason is that the power and the ability to exercise that power does not rest in the hands of the people of color affected. If the large national institution like bank of America were owned and operated by people of color and engaged in a practice of discriminating in lending in favor of people of color and against whites, it would be racism. But it would not be “reverse” racism. The notion of “reverse” is appended to the false term precisely because it occurs in practice only by whites against people of color. In other words, we have only experienced white operant racism and so there is a desire to look for a term to describe an occurrence when systemic discrimination is used against a target that is not the norm or the expected target.

One final point in this argument relates to the methodology. The corporate and institutional nature of racism serves to aid its operation and to shield it against consequences. An individual can be deprived of property or liberty as a consequence of personal and individual acts of bigotry and discriminatory conduct. It is conceivable that an individual bigot may experience remorse and alter his or her behavior in the future. A corporation is not a person, despite the pronouncement of the US Supreme Court. As a result there is no individual that will feel the loss or pain from any consequences that might result from a determination of wrongful damage based upon racist practices. There is really no person to learn from a mistake and no way to imprison a corporation that is unrepentant. That same corporation, directly or through reformation of a new corporate entity under another name, can continue and repeat the practice of racial discrimination knowing that the government and judicial system will not be able to do much about it.

Only if the financial cost exacted from the corporate or institutional racist is so high as to preclude it from operating or reformation s a new entity can anything approaching effective regulation of such behavior occur. Obviously, 5% of profits [not operating revenues – net profits] from one quarter is not the kind of consequence that is likely to deter recurrence of the racist practices. Indeed, the settlement is more likely to be read as confirmation that the “authorities” cannot or will not do anything to stop the racism. More subtlety and deception may be employed in order to avoid the nuisance of the payment of small settlement amounts and further increase profits. The message to the racist corporation is mainly that they were too blatant in the discrimination.

Somebody Hail the Chief!

At this crucial time in the history of jurisprudence, it is not a good sign that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States appears to be missing in action. The Court announces that it will take up arguments and deliberation on the Heath Care Reform legislation that has garnered mixed results in the lower courts. Perhaps a watershed case in connection with the 2012 Presidential Election. The same day, two Justices of the Court not known for their "discretion" slip out and attend a fund raising dinner for an organization lobbying against the law[and incidentally are paid generous speaker fees]. Now we can all accept that the Supreme Court is an elite club. And these guys were just out doing their usual grifting for pocket money from fat cat organizations supporting corporate interests. The engagement was probably pre-booked.

But even elite clubs are supposed to have some basic rules of decorum and behavior. Since it is the highest court of the land, it is not unreasonable that the Judicial Code of Ethics might be expected to apply, at a minimum, to the Justices of the club. After all, every other judge in the land is subject to those basic rules of behavior. They are really not that hard to follow either. Honest! Most people heard them at home when they were children: Don’t lie, cheat or steal! That can be expanded to: don’t solicit or accept bribes from parties in interest or regarding issues that you have to sit and decide, supposedly as an impartial judge. That would not seem too onerous.

HOWEVER, consider the following news report:
A few hours after the Supreme Court justices met last Thursday, November 10, to consider hearing challenges to the national health care overhaul, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the honored speakers at a fundraiser for a conservative legal group that was sponsored in part by health care reform opponents involved in the litigation.

For goodness sakes, where is the club President Roberts? Is he sleeping on the job? Has he lost the cell phone numbers of Thomas and Scalia? Didn’t he warn them that they should keep a low profile and not be “out on the take” in the run up to perhaps the biggest decision the Court has to make since the decision to sell out the country to corporations in the Citizen’s United decision? Now it is not secret how Scalia will vote. Thomas only has to hope that Antonin and Ginny can agree on what will be most profitable personally for the Thomas family so he can be told how to vote. He has no time to bother with looking up the law and stuff like that, he never understood too much of it anyway. He was more inclined to take the word of “cute” female law clerks that laughed at his raunchy and lame jokes.

But it is going to be difficult at club meetings when you have a couple of rogue members who choose to completely disregard the ethical rules and do so in public meetings. The old wink and nod ratio decidendi of be as corrupt as you want as long as you do it in private parties seems to have slipped the minds of Antonin and Clarence. Or perhaps they have decided that the power elite have reached total victory and they simply don’t care about appearances any more. In any event, someone should put in a call to the Chief Justice to see if he cannot round up the boys and give them a stern finger shaking and talking to. [p.s., if they offer to split their take with him…he should decline]

Poor Cain; is he Able?

Herman Cain has gotten very testy and combative with the media lately over persistent questions about allegations of sexual improprieties when he was head of the Restaurant Association lobby back in the 1990's. He has changed his story so many times that it would take an accountant to keep track. He tries to put a stop to questions and to direct what the media will ask and what he chooses to answer.

We may recall that other "so-called" candidates thought that they could control or muzzle the media, and that they could choose what was reported. Christine O'Donnell walked off an interview because she could not pick and choose the interview questions. Palin blamed the "lame-stream" media for her being characterized as uninformed and vapid [history suggests that the characterization was more accurate than not]. Now Cain calls the media "nit picky" because it demands details of allegations pertaining to his past conduct and character.

Gloria Allred now announces that she has a client who was harassed by Cain and is willing to come forward, in light of Cain's declarations that he "never" harassed any female subordinate. That was a dangerous public proclamation by someone who knew that there were at least two settlement agreements to buy silence of women who had made formal and specific allegations against him. It is true that Allred is a "self-promoter" but we cannot forget that Cain is one as well. No amount of deflection [that Allred contributed to Democratic candidates] can erase the factual testimony of witnesses. If Allred's client is credible, and the fact that she is one of multiple independent accusers suggests that she probably is, then Cain has to face up to the events and explain why they do not disqualify him for office requiring public trust.

The deflection toward Democrat supporters when Cain has already taken the public position that the leak came from the Perry [GOP] campaign is inconsistent and makes Cain look desperate. The so-called "advisor" [who is white, by the way] that called the current situation a "high tech lynching" certainly did Cain no favors. He should be fired immediately. While race is an issue in some aspects of Cain's candidacy, and he has made it so by denigrating Black folk as "brainwashed" because they don't support his candidacy, these allegations of sexual impropriety have little to do with race. They are no more racial than the allegations against Clinton, Spitzer or Wilbur Mills and a host of other male politicians of all colors and political stripes.

My grandfather used to remind me that: "when you step up to start a fight, don't forget that you have to bring your own nose along. And it might just get bloodied too!" Cain wants to be treated as a serious candidate. He had better wise up and learn that he is playing on a bigger stage than he has ever tried before. The stakes and the risks are all much higher. If he does not have the character, stomach, skills and staff to handle the challenge, he should sit down and shut up.

[Pawlenty and Palin have vanished to obscurity. The same should go for Bachman, but some people are not bright enough to realize when they have lost.]

Farm Produce and Sound Bites

BIRMINGHAM | Jerry Spencer had an idea after Alabama's tough new law against illegal immigration scared Hispanic workers out of the tomato fields northeast of Birmingham: Recruit unemployed U.S. citizens to do the work, give them free transportation and pay them to pick the fruit and clean the fields.

After two weeks, Spencer said Monday, the experiment is a failure. Jobless resident Americans lack the physical stamina and the mental toughness to see the job through, he said, and there's not much of a chance a new state program to fill the jobs will fare better.

Gov. Robert Bentley has called such claims "almost insulting" to Alabamians.

Facile sound bites and slogans about "illegal" Mexican immigrants [who have been invited by local businesses and hired by them] taking jobs away from citizens during a period of high unemployment were used to fuel passage of a racist anti-immigrant bill aimed at undocumented workers of color and their families living in Alabama. There were claims about how these illegals were hurting the economy by using resources like schools and hospitals.

Last week the news story showed a schools Superintendent pleading with Hispanic parents to bring their children back to the schools after hundreds in the Tuscaloosa area and thousands across the state have left the system when the law went into effect. Schools lose funding when their student population level drops. This week the above article appeared showing how local farm businesses across the state are losing tens of thousands of dollars, and that the supposed "unemployed" laborers are not showing up or willing to do the work abandoned by the Hispanic workers after the Nazi-like law went into effect. As in Georgia, not even Alabama parolees or inmates are eager to take the jobs and the Constitution probably would not allow the state to force them back into the "chain gangs" of old.

The problem with sound bites, political slogans and jingoism to advance a cause rather than hard evidence is that the problems ultimately come to light. Research, including the experience in Georgia, showed that the labor shortage was predictable. “Ghost-like” images are used to incite and create irrational fears, like claims that Hispanics were taking jobs away from citizens eager to fill them. When light is shed on these claims, they disappear from lack of substance, just like shadows and ghosts. All that is left exposed is the irrational hatred and bigotry and ignorance. There is also dishonesty. How many of those who have posted callous replies attacking welfare recipients would line up the next day for tomato picking jobs if they were laid off tomorrow. What if they were told, no unemployment benefits if you refuse to work in the fields or a chicken processing plant? I suspect there would be a very different attitude about “entitlements” in that case, assuming basic intelligence.

The reason Gov. Bentley had to qualify his comment to say "almost" insulting is that the facts show that Alabamians are not willing to take the jobs left open when the Hispanics were driven out. Many ignorant and bigoted Alabamians have responded that people on welfare and the sick should be trucked to the fields and forced to perform the jobs. This ignores that fact that the unemployment statistics about the labor force used to support the legislation are not made up of people on welfare. It consists primarily of able bodied people out of work and who have not yet given up on finding employment. They are the ones that comprise the 9.9% unemployment rate. And they have not come forward to take the farm labor jobs abandoned in fear by the hispanic workers.

In For a Penny, In For a Pound

The idea or question has been bouncing around in my head for a while. The huge push to corporatize public education in this country has been damaging to the overall quality of education as well as to the profession. But perhaps part of the damage has been a lack of resolve, dues to a half hearted effort. After all, if you are going for ideological dogmatism, why not go all the way.

First we would need to have a public offering and see how many investors would pony up significant cash to run a business with a steady stream of raw material of variable quality and a constant demand for high quality output, regardless of the revenues. The apparent first managerial decision would have to be to reduce output and drive up the unit price using the supply and demand market based theory. If far fewer people graduated from public education, then the amount that employers would be willing to pay for such “skilled” workers would increase and the willingness to invest in the enterprise should also rise.

Second, the employers would need individuals who were adept at critical thinking and problem solving. These would be the valued output criteria for the select few who would graduate. As a result, standardized testing would be shelved and the emphasis would shift to professional teachers who demonstrated high skills and talent for producing students with initiative, creativity and ingenuity. These teachers would be highly paid in line with maximizing production of the proper students.
Finally, the basic corporate principle of profit and efficiency would prevail, and schools that were unable to efficiently produce adequate product with available resources and expertise would simply have to close. If the schools were not adequately funded by investors, they would be shut down or “mothballed.”

Memphis, Tennessee has taken a page from this manifesto. The school district has decided that if it does not have the necessary resources from the city to operate the school district; it simply will not open schools. The school year has been delayed indefinitely. More school districts should seriously consider this practical option. If the state and local government do not wish to fund the operation of public education, then schools should simply close their doors until the funding is made available. Instead, school districts routinely open schools with grossly inadequate staffing and resources which means that the chances of producing students that meet the desired quality outputs are negligible. Would any responsible capitalist invest in losing money in order to produce a product that is below standards of accept ability in the market? Of course many parents would be very unhappy to see the great majority of schools closed, and especially if their children do not gain admission to the few remaining “profitable” schools.

If a corporatized educational system is what is really desired, then as the saying goes: “in for a penny, in for a pound!”

SWEET HOME ALABAMA

A recent news article about the recent enactment of legislation called the most restrictive anti-immigration law in the nation showed a group of elderly white males, including Gov. Bentley, standing around in the Capitol congratulating each other. Only from a limited and rather myopic perspective can the enactment of such a law be considered a good thing. Here are a couple of snippets from local news stories regarding what the law entails:

The Alabama law would force schools to ascertain if their students were here legally, make it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride — even to a hospital in an emergency — and provide for individuals to report people they think might be in the county illegally to law enforcement agencies.

The new law gives local law enforcement agencies the right to detain suspected illegal immigrants without bail until their status is determined, which could lead to even more strain for the legal system.

Sheriffs of Alabama met with officials of the US Department of Justice [DOJ] seeking an indication or commitment whether the federal law enforcement agency would file suit to challenge the Alabama law. Portions of a similar and less onerous law in Arizona have been challenged and partially invalidated. The Alabama law even requires that a person who believes a law enforcement officer is not responsibly enforcing the law has a duty to report that law enforcement personnel to authorities. It is not a great overstatement to say that such mandates seek to create a public atmosphere similar to Nazi Germany, in which average citizens were obligated to “inform” on anyone suspected of harboring or not persecuting Jews. In the case of Alabama, the anti-immigration law is a pretext for discrimination and persecution of persons of color and Latinos in particular. The sheriffs are very concerned about the way in which the law encourages, if not mandates, racial and ethnic profiling.

While the sheriffs in Alabama and other states facing similar mandates are understandably concerned about the harm such legislation does to law enforcement programs and relationships, and how the necessary training stresses current budgets which are already underfunded, immediate help from the US DOJ is not likely for practical reasons. Unfortunately, it is more advantageous from a legal standpoint to observe how the law is actually implemented in order to have evidence with which to challenge it. In the case of Alabama, there will undoubtedly be case examples in which civil rights are abused or in which it can be shown that local law enforcement agencies are failing and refusing to enforce the law as written because of concerns about Constitutional violations. So the DOJ is likely to let the drama play out a while longer before intervening.

In the interim, what happens to the social and cultural climate of Alabama? Some would argue that the legislation simply demonstrates that the moral psyche of most people of Alabama has not really changed and when the opportunity to roll back civil rights protections against racial and ethnic persecution arose, the good citizens simply claimed a victory for the “Old Southern Resistance.” That is perhaps too cynical, but the virulence of the bigotry that lies beneath the law cannot be easily ignored or justified. Arguments in support of the law as a labor or public service bill have been shown to be false and disingenuous. The asserted “threats” against which the law is purportedly erected are illusory at best and are not effectively addressed by the law in any event.

Study after study by bipartisan researchers show that undocumented immigrants actually contribute more net funding to the income tax and public welfare systems than do poor citizens. They do not obtain tax refunds for withheld wages and are not eligible for grants or tax earned income credits. Many are less likely to use emergency medical services for fear of revealing their status. Moreover, the “jobs” that undocumented immigrants have traditionally taken are jobs that go unfilled when they are removed from the labor market. Georgia farmers are clamoring for a guest worker program to be implemented after legislation against undocumented immigrants removed field workers; and crops lie rotting in the field causing millions of dollars in losses. There is no demonstrable evidence that undocumented Latino immigrants present any greater threat of crime or challenge to national security than citizens.

The argument that the law is "just" simply because the persons are in the country “illegally” is a valid but shallow argument. In this country, there have been many laws that create illegal status that history has shown to be unjust and immoral. Teaching a Black man to read, marriage between a white person and a person of color [miscegenation], having an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman and other conditions have resulted in “illegal” status in the past. Virtually every expert who has weighed in on the subject acknowledges that the immigration system is flawed and broken, resulting in many injustices and impractical classifications. Under current law an infant who is a US citizen can be orphaned or left destitute by deportation of one or both of her parents. The fear mongering that supported enactment of the law has been exposed as false and pretextual.

Because the law impacts not only persons who are undocumented immigrants, but also people who may be mistaken for undocumented immigrants, the law casts a pall over public behaviors and social relationships. Any person of color may be suspected of being an immigrant despite the fact that his or her great grandparents were born in the US. White persons even if illegally in the US from Canada, Europe or some other countries are not likely to be noticed or impacted by the law. The law also has an indirect damaging impact because it causes whites to be presumptively suspect of racism [supportive of official discrimination] by people of color and required in some ways to justify their opposition to the law. Since it was a law passed by the white dominated legislature elected by the white dominated electorate, it is presumptively the “will” of the people of Alabama. The law justifiably establishes an imprint regarding the moral character of the state. Where mean spirited legislation is enacted that fails to substantively serve any public purpose, and that law encourages the persecution and criminalization of persons because of their ethnicity or color of their skin, the law of the state brands Alabama and its leadership as racist. The implementation of official power of the state to disadvantage a group of people because of their ethnicity through institutionalization of discriminatory forces and pressures is the definition of racism.

Failing invalidation of the law by federal intervention, only a similarly forceful consensus of citizens of Alabama in opposition to the law can bring about countervailing balance and suggest that the majority of Alabama citizens are not in accord with the anti-immigration law as it is written. Moreover, being forced to abandon the measure by the courts will not eliminate the moral taint that attaches to the state because such intervention can be seen as a constraint upon what remains the “will” of the good people of Alabama. How odd that in over 50 years and two generations since the enactment of Civil Right laws the state of Alabama has made so little progress in evolution toward an understanding of social justice, even in the face of an increasingly pluralistic and multicultural world. Sweet home Alabama, indeed.

Bin Laden is Dead?

We heard news that a discrete mission based upon months and years of quiet and professional investigative work resulted in tracking down and killing Osama Bin Laden. This was a successful team effort that brought a criminal to justice. Everyone should feel good that a murderer has been brought to justice.

The histrionics of "war on terror" and stoking of religious bigotry, however, must recede and be put into more realistic perspective. The focus has to be on individuals who commit and seek to commit acts of murder and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, NOT on the basis of some religious affiliation. Stupid and simple minded people on any and all sides want to turn this into an excuse for their own religious bigotry. The leader of Hamas is a prime example, just as many of the postings we have seen on sites like this from anti-Muslim bigots. More importantly, adherence to dogma of any kind instead of looking at the facts only serves to create more extremists. This mission was done well and was successful. However, there have been other US efforts that have resulted in killing innocent civilians and given fuel to the demagogues who claim that the US is an oppressor. When the Hamas leader says that the US engages in oppression, there is some truth to that, even though his respect and affection for Bin Laden is badly misplaced. We must be willing to look honestly at BOTH and hold ourselves accountable for when we screw up as well as high five when we succeed. That is what real justice means.

We forget that when Bin laden is lionized, we give him too much credit. Somewhat like the Unabomber, he was a craven criminal who spent the last ten years hiding out in caves and backwoods holes. To give him more credit than that just to feel good and do chest beating is unwise and unproductive.

Finally, Osama Bin Laden has been found and brought down. However, we must remember that his legacy actually lives on and we experience it every time we try to take a flight. Alive or dead, Bin Laden as a symbol has robbed and continues to rob every traveler of dignity and freedom, we have lost fundamental rights more because of the political exploitation of fear by politicians like Bush and Cheney than because of anything Bin laden could have accomplished directly. GOP and Democrat politicians alike have continued to exploit that fear.

Solution? I would gradually drop down this omnipresent publicity stunt of an "Orange Alert" and reduce many of the so-called "security" measures that have been shown to do nothing to actually enhance security. I am not saying to do so immediately, that would send a wrong message, but this could be done over the course of 6 months to a year. Many TSA workers admit that most of their procedures are for show and to create a public impression rather than actually catch terrorists. The idea that Americans "agree and understand" that these intrusions are necessary is BS. I would also revise the so-called "Patriot Act" and restore many of the civil liberties taken away from American people.

At the same time, I would not reduce one iota the efforts or reduce funding support of specialized and coordinated national and international intelligence and crime investigation units. These are the people who actually get the job of tracking down criminals and suspected terrorists done, quietly and effectively. Gasbags and torturers like Cheney create more terrorists than they capture, they create more risk than they solve. But the professionals who go about the business of detecting and arresting actual criminals goes on outside the spotlights and political speeches. They do not ask us to give up our Constitutional rights for political gain. Thy just do their jobs.

President Obama states that this is a victory because of who Americans are and what they can do. It is time to take a hard look at what Americans have become and start to reassert and re-establish some fundamental values and principles that have been forgotten. We need to reject the fear mongering for political gain and start actually looking out for each other, ALL of us, instead of divisive politics and class warfare. President Kennedy was on the right track when he stated that we should ask what each of us can do for our country, our fellow citizens, instead of asking what's in it for ourselves as individuals. That individualistic egotism is what has us fearful of our neighbors and against efforts to seek the welfare of children, seniors and others most vulnerable in our society. It also is what makes us vulnerable to terrorism. "Divide and conquer."

The Libyan Dilemma

The current situation in Libya raises the dilemma that some international critics raised about the US intervention in Iraq, and how it has damaged US credibility in foreign affairs. Bush claimed that the US was attacking to prosecute the "war on terror" and to defend against the campaign of Al Qaida. The US bombed and demolished towns, caused many civilian casualties, including women and children. We now know that Bush was lying [See Downing Street Memos] and that he knew that Bin Ladin had nothing to do with Iraq. That duplicitous action undercut any moral authority of the US regarding foreign interventions. The same holds true about any US complaints against the use of torture, now that it has become official US sanctioned policy. The US has no moral standing to accuse other countries of misconduct in the use of torture against prisoners, or even innocent civilians, since the US has done both with approval of its highest leaders.

Now, Ghadafi claims that his military is responding to the threat of Al Qaida against his cities and government, even though he knows [along with the rest of the world] that it is not true. Ghadafi is bombing cities and killing civilians. Yet his direct response to the US is that he is protecting against an Al Qaida invasion of Libya. He sent a message to President Obama stating that Al Qaida was attacking its cities with force of arms, "what would you do?"

There is a larger picture here. The US has lost moral authority in international affairs, and the US public is in disarray regarding what constitutes a legitimate exercise of force in the international arena to uphold standards of international law and human rights. Bush appealed to the baser instincts and the immorality of segments of the populace for support of his intervention in Iraq. In so doing, he depleted the US economic reserves and has stretched this the available military resources to respond in necessary situations. Now the US public questions whether it should be involved in the humanitarian mission on two grounds. First, there is a question whether the US should get involved in another foreign mission when the economy is weak and the moral obligation is unclear. Second, that baser segment of the population whose racist, religious and ethnic prejudice has been empowered by Bush argue that the brown and Muslim people of that area should simply be allowed, if not encouraged, to kill themselves without any foreign intervention. This is the level of ethical ambivalence and moral decay that has come to typify the US populace in the wake of policies and actions in the Iraq adventure.

By failing to hold Bush accountable and by continuing to prosecute the mistaken Iraq intervention, Obama has effectively ratified the actions of Bush and Cheney. Whether or not Obama would have taken the same action as Bush [which is doubtful] his protection of Bush after the fact claims the actions of Bush as the standing policy of the USA. The US will not begin to recapture its standing until a US leader steps up and says, "we are better, stronger and more ethically clear than the US behaved under the George W. Bush Administration. Mistakes were made and the US rejects those mistakes as misguided and morally unsound. In the future, the US will do better, BE better."

The "chickens have come home to roost." Ghadafi has cleverly turned the US strategy in Iraq, and the failure of the rest of the world to hold the US accountable for it, directly against the US regarding its participation in the UN Resolution. The current intervention in Libya is justified. the current action is "doing the right thing" despite the fact that we have no moral authority to take the action. The US still needs to own up to the fact that its international standing as a respected power will not be re-established until it deals honestly and directly with the actions of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld which were criminal by standards of international law and humanitarian decency. Only then will the US be able to walk into any international forum and advocate for action on the basis of international law and human rights with integrity and a sense of moral authority.

The US may never be mature enough to accept responsibility for those actions, but it will never deserve full respect until it does. We teach our children that a person of character admits his or her mistakes and accepts responsibility. Yet we do not hold our national leaders to the same ethical standards.