Now that we have had some new regulations placed on credit card companies, they have had to make some changes, but believe me, the changes are minimal. I did appreciate the easier-to-read statement that included more specifics about interest costs and the length of time it will take to pay off the card paying only the minimum payment. Thanks a lot! Now, shall we talk about what the four and a half pages of tiny-tiny print say?
After they discuss--in only slightly less mysteriously obscure language—our Agreement Acceptance and Amendments, they toss in the caveats: “We have the right to change the terms of this Agreement for any reason, and in any respect, by adding, deleting or modifying any provision, including APRs, fees, the Minimum Payment and other terms.” Really? And this is supposed to make me feel all better because?
Another interesting proviso is the one under Credit Line. They tell us that the credit line is what they had called the credit limit. This is reform? Subtle changes in semantics? They add: “We may change or cancel your credit line without telling you ahead of time. If we do, it will not excuse you from your obligations to pay us.” Let me see: They can change the rules in the middle of the game, but we, the card-holder, are ordered to play the game by any rules they set down whenever they decide to do so? That’s like adding football rules to a basketball game at half-time. How does this make any sense at all unless one has fallen down the rabbit hole and is now hanging out in Wonderland? Actually, it’s more like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules as he or she goes along. It works out well for the child but not for anyone else playing.
Let’s face it. We cannot win in this battle. No one can function in the world today without a credit card. We cannot make a hotel reservation or book a flight without one. It actually hurts your credit rating if you only pay for everything in cash, and in some cases, it is even suspect. The credit card companies have us just where they want us, and it is evidently impossible to pass substantial reform in Congress as enough congressmen and women are in the pockets of Wall Street and Money in general. The moneyed interests have deep pockets and the bonuses to prove it.
A few years ago, I finally managed to pay off everyone and now have but my debit card and one credit card. I had held on to another that I never used because it had a higher credit line, just in case there were a huge emergency. A few months ago, that company wrote to me and discontinued my card because I had not used it in a year. It is not worth their time if I owe them nothing. Sad, isn’t it?
And then, just when I thought I had heard everything, I read about one credit card company’s plan to add a fee to users’ cards if they hadn’t used them that month. All of this just gives me a terrible headache. However, I had better not get sick enough that I need to use a credit card for a hospital expense, only to learn that they have changed my credit line without telling me since they can do that “without telling you ahead of time.” What happens then? My bet is that my interest rate would go up to one that would make Shylock blush, and I’d owe some kind of penalty as well. Is usury even a word anymore? Is there some significant difference between some lenders and loan sharks? Next thing you know, your Master Card or Visa provider will be sending out some thug to knee cap us, literally. Now they only do it figuratively.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Can the U. S. Be an “Experiment Going Right”?
I, like many here and around the world, have been mesmerized by the Winter Olympics. Although I am no athlete of any kind, I do appreciate the training, determination, and—yes—fearlessness that it takes to reach the levels of excellence that these men and women have achieved. Apolo Ono’s skill on the ice and grace off the ice are admirable. Shun White can do things on the halfpipe that defy gravity and every other law of physics. Some of our skiers make death-defying maneuvers that make me wonder, “Whatever made someone think to do that in the first place?” But what have we learned from the essence of the Olympics? That thing called the Olympic spirit?
The athletes themselves do have that spirit, and they have taken the Olympic oath to uphold its ideals: “We swear that we will take part in these Olympic Games in the true spirit of sportsmanship, and that we will respect and abide by the rules that govern them, for the glory of the sport and the honor of our country.”1 This oath was first sworn in 1920, after World War I, to begin the 7th Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium. Even though the war kicked off with the Kaiser’s armies invading Belgium, the Olympic host country promoted an ideal that asked athletes to compete with respect, adhere to the rules, and to behave in ways that would honor their countries. That oath continues to be taken at the beginning of each Olympics, in spite of wars too numerous to count having taken place since that war that was to end all wars.
As we watch athletes from countries across the globe, we are reminded of that ideal. Watching the opening ceremony with the athletes of nations marching by, holding their countries’ flags erect, we saw a demonstration of countries working together but competing apart. It was a very moving event, but there was something that occurred near the end of the opening ceremony of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, that struck me personally and profoundly, one about which I have heard very little mention. A slam (or spoken-word) poet, Shane Koyczan, recited his exaltation of Canada, his beloved homeland. He referred to Canada as “an experiment going right for a change” and noted, “We believe in generations beyond our own.” Both of these concepts are idealistic, and I know full well that Canada, too, has its problems. However, I wondered if we in the U. S. haven’t sometimes forgotten that we have always believed that of ourselves, or at least we used to. Has our fear of terrorism after 9/11 led us away from the experiment of creating a nation of laws, that City on the Hill? Have we lost ideals in favor of security at any cost? Ben Franklin warned us of this: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”2
America’s respect for the competitive spirit, our love for academic excellence, of team work and the game itself are an integral part of who we are. And yet, off the court or the field, competition may sometimes become competition for its own sake. Excellence and team work may be lost in playing the game. That is certainly true of Congress lately. Too many of our senators—yes, Democrats as well as Republicans—have forgotten that the game they are playing is not a game to those they represent. Members of Congress, like Olympic athletes, take an oath. Congress people take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are supposedly in Congress to represent all the people, not just the lobbyists who have purchased their loyalty. They are elected by their constituents to represent their constituents, not just the noisy ones—all of them. They won their seats to represent their state and the people who live in those states, not a political party only. And don’t these senators and representatives have an obligation to the country as a whole and to generations beyond their own? Perhaps they have been in office for so long that they have forgotten why they are there. Although one may run for the House of Representatives at age 25 and for the Senate at 30, we have a Congress that grows older and older because they work to keep the job they have rather than to make laws that benefit we, the people. The average age for a Senator today is 61.7 years of age and for Representatives, 56—both averages over twice the requisite age for getting the job. With age comes wisdom, supposedly. With the abuse of Senate Rules lately, I have to wonder if the minority party isn’t acting more childish than wise.
The GOP threatened the “nuclear option” when the Democrats were in the minority and held up a few appointments of some of Bush’s judicial nominees. Republicans were appalled at the abuse of the filibuster rule. They were outraged and indignant that the minority party could hold up the people’s business. Oh, but that was then. This is now.
Ezra Kline, of The Washington Post, interviewed Barbara Sinclair, a political scientist at UCLA and a student of Congress. Her most recent study about the use and abuse of the filibuster is most enlightening. “About 8% of major bills in the 1960s faced filibusters or filibuster threats, and 70% of bills in the current decade did the same.” She went on to explain that this escalation in the threat of filibuster, making every bill require a super-majority of 60 votes is part of the polarization evident since the Clinton years. But the most sinister reason she gave puts some of the onus on us, the voter. She saw this increase in the abuse of Senate Rule 22, which lays the ground rules for the filibuster, as “a strategic realization that the American people do not reward the majority if it fails to deliver on its promises, and the minority recognized it had the power to keep the majority from delivering on its promises.”3 If the minority party stops every bill dead in its tracks so that there can be no legislation passed, their hope is that we will not notice who’s at fault when nothing occurs. It is up to us to pay more attention, to read things for ourselves, to become a fully informed citizen. Sinclair went on to say: “When the Republicans were the Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. However, when President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining in the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994…. When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008”4 What are we to make of this sudden need to filibuster everything? Can a minority party be satisfied with just saying, “No!” to everything?
And saying no has become even more childish and contrarian. When John Kerry ran for president, he was accused of being a flip-flopper because he had been for a proposal until he decided he wasn’t. The Republican attack ads made hay of that. What then are we to make GOP Senators who once proposed cap and trade but are now against it because Obama is for it? Is this not a flip-flop? When some Republican senators proposed a bi-partisan committee to study ways to cut the deficit, Obama agreed to support it. Now it is a bad idea because Obama agrees with them? It reminds me of the stubborn child who disagrees just to disagree. Our Senators’ average age is over sixty-plus, but they are behaving more like six-year-olds.
The Senate was not designed to move as quickly as the House of Representatives. George Washington is reported to have said that he saw the Senate as a cooling saucer for proposed legislation. Nevertheless, I am certain that he and the Founding Fathers cannot have seen the Senate as a body ruled by only the minority. Had they wanted all legislation in the Senate to have required the approval of a super majority for every law’s passage, they would have said so. They did note specific times when more than a simple majority is required. It should then be assumed that they meant a simple majority is sufficient for all other instances. In its fledgling days, our leaders created the Articles of Confederation and thought that those laws would be a suitable framework for the new nation. That attempt failed. When the founders started anew, they were very careful when establishing the rules for law making. They had learned from experience that no country can govern if a super majority is required before any action can occur.
While the filibuster is never mentioned in Article I that sets up the powers of Congress, it is not un-Constitutional. The Senate does have a Constitutional right to make its own rules, a right clearly stated in Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules for its proceedings….” However, should the rules they create make legislation impossible? Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times column, noted research which puts the current Senate paralysis resultant from the continual threat of filibuster in these terms: “In the ‘60’s, only about 8 percent of major legislation was affected by the filibuster or the threat to filibuster. By the 1980’s, it was 27 percent. By 2007, 70 percent of all major legislation faced a major filibuster threat. That’s a quantitative change so big it’s a qualitative change.”
And so, I would ask our legislators to consider some of Shane Koyczan’s words as well as the words of the Olympic Oath. Please legislate for the “generations beyond our own,” not only for yourselves and your own political party. Make America, once again, “an experiment going right for a change.” Work with a spirit of fair play, guard against an abuse of the rules, and work for the glory and honor for this country. We are a great and powerful country, but this does not mean that we retain this status without the work and dedication it took to bring us to this level in the first place. Other nations are watching us now and making their own moves to harness clean energy, to provide health care, and to out produce us. If we have a legislative body content to win big politically by being and thinking small and only planning for the win of the moment, we will be out paced. Remember, there were other great powers in the history of the world: the Netherlands once ruled the seas; the sun once never set on the British Empire; the Romans ruled the known-world. Pride and complacency will be cold comfort for us if we do not prepare for the way the world and other nations change while we are squabbling and standing still. A good Olympic example would be to remember that the Soviet Union always won the gold in hockey, until it didn’t. In 1980, the U. S. beat them 4-3. It was called “The Miracle on Ice.” Bet no one, especially the Soviets, saw that one coming. Is that a lesson for all of us?
1. www.mapsofworld.com/olympictrivia/olympic-athletes-oath.htm
2. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html
3. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-lein/.html; December 26, 2009; 11:00 AM ET
4. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture
The athletes themselves do have that spirit, and they have taken the Olympic oath to uphold its ideals: “We swear that we will take part in these Olympic Games in the true spirit of sportsmanship, and that we will respect and abide by the rules that govern them, for the glory of the sport and the honor of our country.”1 This oath was first sworn in 1920, after World War I, to begin the 7th Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium. Even though the war kicked off with the Kaiser’s armies invading Belgium, the Olympic host country promoted an ideal that asked athletes to compete with respect, adhere to the rules, and to behave in ways that would honor their countries. That oath continues to be taken at the beginning of each Olympics, in spite of wars too numerous to count having taken place since that war that was to end all wars.
As we watch athletes from countries across the globe, we are reminded of that ideal. Watching the opening ceremony with the athletes of nations marching by, holding their countries’ flags erect, we saw a demonstration of countries working together but competing apart. It was a very moving event, but there was something that occurred near the end of the opening ceremony of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, that struck me personally and profoundly, one about which I have heard very little mention. A slam (or spoken-word) poet, Shane Koyczan, recited his exaltation of Canada, his beloved homeland. He referred to Canada as “an experiment going right for a change” and noted, “We believe in generations beyond our own.” Both of these concepts are idealistic, and I know full well that Canada, too, has its problems. However, I wondered if we in the U. S. haven’t sometimes forgotten that we have always believed that of ourselves, or at least we used to. Has our fear of terrorism after 9/11 led us away from the experiment of creating a nation of laws, that City on the Hill? Have we lost ideals in favor of security at any cost? Ben Franklin warned us of this: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”2
America’s respect for the competitive spirit, our love for academic excellence, of team work and the game itself are an integral part of who we are. And yet, off the court or the field, competition may sometimes become competition for its own sake. Excellence and team work may be lost in playing the game. That is certainly true of Congress lately. Too many of our senators—yes, Democrats as well as Republicans—have forgotten that the game they are playing is not a game to those they represent. Members of Congress, like Olympic athletes, take an oath. Congress people take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are supposedly in Congress to represent all the people, not just the lobbyists who have purchased their loyalty. They are elected by their constituents to represent their constituents, not just the noisy ones—all of them. They won their seats to represent their state and the people who live in those states, not a political party only. And don’t these senators and representatives have an obligation to the country as a whole and to generations beyond their own? Perhaps they have been in office for so long that they have forgotten why they are there. Although one may run for the House of Representatives at age 25 and for the Senate at 30, we have a Congress that grows older and older because they work to keep the job they have rather than to make laws that benefit we, the people. The average age for a Senator today is 61.7 years of age and for Representatives, 56—both averages over twice the requisite age for getting the job. With age comes wisdom, supposedly. With the abuse of Senate Rules lately, I have to wonder if the minority party isn’t acting more childish than wise.
The GOP threatened the “nuclear option” when the Democrats were in the minority and held up a few appointments of some of Bush’s judicial nominees. Republicans were appalled at the abuse of the filibuster rule. They were outraged and indignant that the minority party could hold up the people’s business. Oh, but that was then. This is now.
Ezra Kline, of The Washington Post, interviewed Barbara Sinclair, a political scientist at UCLA and a student of Congress. Her most recent study about the use and abuse of the filibuster is most enlightening. “About 8% of major bills in the 1960s faced filibusters or filibuster threats, and 70% of bills in the current decade did the same.” She went on to explain that this escalation in the threat of filibuster, making every bill require a super-majority of 60 votes is part of the polarization evident since the Clinton years. But the most sinister reason she gave puts some of the onus on us, the voter. She saw this increase in the abuse of Senate Rule 22, which lays the ground rules for the filibuster, as “a strategic realization that the American people do not reward the majority if it fails to deliver on its promises, and the minority recognized it had the power to keep the majority from delivering on its promises.”3 If the minority party stops every bill dead in its tracks so that there can be no legislation passed, their hope is that we will not notice who’s at fault when nothing occurs. It is up to us to pay more attention, to read things for ourselves, to become a fully informed citizen. Sinclair went on to say: “When the Republicans were the Senate minority in 1991-1992, there were 59 cloture filings. However, when President Clinton took office, with Republicans remaining in the minority in the Senate, that number shot up to 80 in 1993-1994…. When Democrats reclaimed the Senate majority in the 2006 elections, cloture filings shot up from 68 in 2005-2006 to a record 139 in 2007-2008”4 What are we to make of this sudden need to filibuster everything? Can a minority party be satisfied with just saying, “No!” to everything?
And saying no has become even more childish and contrarian. When John Kerry ran for president, he was accused of being a flip-flopper because he had been for a proposal until he decided he wasn’t. The Republican attack ads made hay of that. What then are we to make GOP Senators who once proposed cap and trade but are now against it because Obama is for it? Is this not a flip-flop? When some Republican senators proposed a bi-partisan committee to study ways to cut the deficit, Obama agreed to support it. Now it is a bad idea because Obama agrees with them? It reminds me of the stubborn child who disagrees just to disagree. Our Senators’ average age is over sixty-plus, but they are behaving more like six-year-olds.
The Senate was not designed to move as quickly as the House of Representatives. George Washington is reported to have said that he saw the Senate as a cooling saucer for proposed legislation. Nevertheless, I am certain that he and the Founding Fathers cannot have seen the Senate as a body ruled by only the minority. Had they wanted all legislation in the Senate to have required the approval of a super majority for every law’s passage, they would have said so. They did note specific times when more than a simple majority is required. It should then be assumed that they meant a simple majority is sufficient for all other instances. In its fledgling days, our leaders created the Articles of Confederation and thought that those laws would be a suitable framework for the new nation. That attempt failed. When the founders started anew, they were very careful when establishing the rules for law making. They had learned from experience that no country can govern if a super majority is required before any action can occur.
While the filibuster is never mentioned in Article I that sets up the powers of Congress, it is not un-Constitutional. The Senate does have a Constitutional right to make its own rules, a right clearly stated in Article I, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules for its proceedings….” However, should the rules they create make legislation impossible? Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times column, noted research which puts the current Senate paralysis resultant from the continual threat of filibuster in these terms: “In the ‘60’s, only about 8 percent of major legislation was affected by the filibuster or the threat to filibuster. By the 1980’s, it was 27 percent. By 2007, 70 percent of all major legislation faced a major filibuster threat. That’s a quantitative change so big it’s a qualitative change.”
And so, I would ask our legislators to consider some of Shane Koyczan’s words as well as the words of the Olympic Oath. Please legislate for the “generations beyond our own,” not only for yourselves and your own political party. Make America, once again, “an experiment going right for a change.” Work with a spirit of fair play, guard against an abuse of the rules, and work for the glory and honor for this country. We are a great and powerful country, but this does not mean that we retain this status without the work and dedication it took to bring us to this level in the first place. Other nations are watching us now and making their own moves to harness clean energy, to provide health care, and to out produce us. If we have a legislative body content to win big politically by being and thinking small and only planning for the win of the moment, we will be out paced. Remember, there were other great powers in the history of the world: the Netherlands once ruled the seas; the sun once never set on the British Empire; the Romans ruled the known-world. Pride and complacency will be cold comfort for us if we do not prepare for the way the world and other nations change while we are squabbling and standing still. A good Olympic example would be to remember that the Soviet Union always won the gold in hockey, until it didn’t. In 1980, the U. S. beat them 4-3. It was called “The Miracle on Ice.” Bet no one, especially the Soviets, saw that one coming. Is that a lesson for all of us?
1. www.mapsofworld.com/olympictrivia/olympic-athletes-oath.htm
2. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html
3. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-lein/.html; December 26, 2009; 11:00 AM ET
4. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Do We Really Need Black History Month? Sadly, We Do.
February is officially Black History Month. Nonetheless, some trivialize and others disparage the need. Why do we need a specific time to remember that extraordinary African-Americans have been a part of our history since the beginning?
It is evident that a set-aside Black History Month has not taught us much. Recently, a few politicians have used suggestions of secession, literacy tests, interposition, and nullification. These are words freighted with historic pain and should not be made carelessly or deliberately to score points against an adversary. If they knew anything about the history of race in America, they would never make some of the statements they make.
Secession is not taken lightly by those of us who know anything at all about the Civil War, a war that bloodied our soil with the loss of over 600,000 lives. It supposedly taught us that “all men are created equal” means what it says. After the Civil War, Lincoln’s dream that we would not be a house divided supposedly came true. No one should trivialize the price that far too many paid by tossing out threats of secession to score political points, whether the word secession is meant literally or metaphorically.
Governor Rick Perry has--on several occasions--talked of the secession of Texas to the roaring applause and delight of those at his rallies. Does he mean it? It may be a veiled reference to score points with some or a metaphor for get-the-government-our-of-Texas for others. Next time Perry and his supporters say they want to secede, tell them, “Done. You’re out.” Call his bluff. I’m sure he’ll think twice before scolding the federal government about its role in his state affairs. Where would Texas be without it?
It might be good for the U. S. bottom line if we grant Governor Perry his wish. As of 2005, the federal government paid Texas $.96 for every tax dollar Texas paid. We could surely make up the four cents without too much trouble. Whatever could we do with the 23 military bases and installations located in Texas? I’ll bet the other 49 states would be happy to divvy up those installations as they would benefit from the 195,000 jobs no longer manned by people paying taxes in Texas. Another coastal state could snatch up the Houston Space Center. Poor Texas, they are so burdened by paying taxes. Please. Texas ranked third in government procurements, receiving well over $20,639,000,000 in 2005 alone. They like to play cowboy so much. Let them shoulder the cost of border patrol and illegal immigration entering the U. S. through Texas. We could build the border fence above Texas instead of below it if they want out so badly.
And now a note to former Representative Tom Tancredo: What exactly do you mean to imply when you see a need for literacy tests in order to vote? Tancredo’s remarks at the opening address of the Tea Party Convention received thundering approval. Since he is old enough to know better, I have to assume that he knew exactly what he was saying when he said that voters who couldn’t even say the word vote elected a committed socialist to the office of the presidency. It is reprehensible to suggest we return to the Jim Crow laws that denied many citizens of color the vote. And, the ugliness aside, may I remind Tancredo just who elected Barack Obama? According to www.carnegieendowment.org, Obama won the college-educated voters by 62-38%. I’m pretty sure that means that they could read and say the word “vote.” And, Tom, the Obama victory was 53% to 46%. This wasn’t a close call at all.
What do the words “literacy tests” invoke to anyone who knows or lived through that history? Literacy tests were a part of the same Jim Crow laws that came after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, a compromise that ended Reconstruction. The real servitude the Civil War had been fought to end was replaced with economic and social servitude that endured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, “And we really mean what the 14th Amendment says.” By 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment was once again enforced. Many people, perhaps Tancredo himself, would fail some of those literacy tests. Before one could register to vote, a registrar administered a literacy tests to qualify a potential voter. That consisted of an interpretation of a section of a state’s constitution “to the satisfaction of the registrar.” First, those excerpts from the state constitution are awkwardly worded and full of convoluted legalese. Next, the test was scored by a registrar who probably could not have passed himself. Whites always passed. Blacks never did.
After the beatings of peaceful Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday as they crossed the Pettus Bridge in their march from Selma to Miami, President Johnson was able to pass the Voting Rights Act, saying, “And we shall overcome.” But have we conquered over two centuries of racial hatred? If we have, why then would Tom Tancredo suggest that we should return those Jim Crow days? He and those who cheered as he said it obviously don’t know much about Black History or history of any hue, for that matter.
And then, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more shocked by veiled or purposeful racism, I heard something that catapulted me once again into the Jim Crow Era. Debra Medina, running for governor of Texas—what is wrong with these people?--suggested that Texas should use interposition and nullification as much as they could to fight federal interference in her state. This harkens back to George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama to block two black students from entering. He had begun that year by proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Who still thinks those were the Good Old Days? If so, grab your hood.
Those who wanted the good old days of the Whites Only policy and segregation now and forever resorted to the claim of “States’ Rights,” referring to the 10th Amendment. However, the 10th Amendment is quite clear where it stands on the separation of powers between the state and federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Jim Crow States’ Righters chose to ignore that “the United States” means the federal government or that the amendments after the 10th Amendment created federal law they had to follow, laws that allowed Blacks equal treatment as well as voting rights.
Debra Medina threatened interposition. This doctrine was used by segregationists and was another State’s Rights argument. Interposition, according to www.dictionary.com, notes that states “used this doctrine to say that any individual state of the U. S. could oppose any federal action it believes to encroach on its sovereignty.” The doctrine of nullification was the “refusal of a U. S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Both of these doctrines that Debra Medina cited imply that a state can do whatever it wants and federal law be damned. What kind of country would this be if all states could do just that? We resolved that issue after the failure of the Articles of Confederation didn’t we?
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his stirring Dream Speech reminded us of the ugliness of these policies: “….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right here in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Study your history, Ms. Medina, Mr. Tancredo, and Governor Perry. Please. You may not be a racist, but why do you want to use words so heavily laden with America’s ugly racist past?
When this country elected Barack Obama by a healthy majority, I naively thought we had turned the page on an issue that had divided us since our nation’s very beginnings. Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers chose to compromise on the slavery issue by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person so that the slave-holding states could have more representatives. The Founders tabled the issue of slavery until later. That “later” led us to a horrific Civil War that nearly destroyed us. Even after that, Jim Crow laws maintained our racist past until late in the 20th century. But 53% of our registered voters elected a man or color whose wife’s ancestors were slaves. I want to believe Dr. King’s dream: One day—today, even—we will come to realize that the freedom of all citizens, citizens of every color, is “inextricably bound to our freedom.” We all need to remember the web of mutuality about which he spoke.
It’s not that I disagree with Morgan Freeman who contends that Black History Month trivializes the contribution of African-Americans in our history and undermines the fact that “black history is American history.” I happen to think that he makes a very good point. However, as long as men and women are willing to throw around words like secession, interposition, nullification and suggest a need for literacy tests or carry placards of Obama in white-face or photo-shopped with a bone through his nose, it is clear that we do need Black History Month. Better yet, we all need to know our history, not just what a blogger—including me—writes or what some pundit or politician claims. Please read the Constitution yourself. It’s a very short document. Know your country’s history. We have the potential to be everything our Founding Fathers dreamed we could and would be, even if they didn’t always practice it themselves. To paraphrase everyone’s mother: We should act as they said we should act, not as they sometimes did.
It is evident that a set-aside Black History Month has not taught us much. Recently, a few politicians have used suggestions of secession, literacy tests, interposition, and nullification. These are words freighted with historic pain and should not be made carelessly or deliberately to score points against an adversary. If they knew anything about the history of race in America, they would never make some of the statements they make.
Secession is not taken lightly by those of us who know anything at all about the Civil War, a war that bloodied our soil with the loss of over 600,000 lives. It supposedly taught us that “all men are created equal” means what it says. After the Civil War, Lincoln’s dream that we would not be a house divided supposedly came true. No one should trivialize the price that far too many paid by tossing out threats of secession to score political points, whether the word secession is meant literally or metaphorically.
Governor Rick Perry has--on several occasions--talked of the secession of Texas to the roaring applause and delight of those at his rallies. Does he mean it? It may be a veiled reference to score points with some or a metaphor for get-the-government-our-of-Texas for others. Next time Perry and his supporters say they want to secede, tell them, “Done. You’re out.” Call his bluff. I’m sure he’ll think twice before scolding the federal government about its role in his state affairs. Where would Texas be without it?
It might be good for the U. S. bottom line if we grant Governor Perry his wish. As of 2005, the federal government paid Texas $.96 for every tax dollar Texas paid. We could surely make up the four cents without too much trouble. Whatever could we do with the 23 military bases and installations located in Texas? I’ll bet the other 49 states would be happy to divvy up those installations as they would benefit from the 195,000 jobs no longer manned by people paying taxes in Texas. Another coastal state could snatch up the Houston Space Center. Poor Texas, they are so burdened by paying taxes. Please. Texas ranked third in government procurements, receiving well over $20,639,000,000 in 2005 alone. They like to play cowboy so much. Let them shoulder the cost of border patrol and illegal immigration entering the U. S. through Texas. We could build the border fence above Texas instead of below it if they want out so badly.
And now a note to former Representative Tom Tancredo: What exactly do you mean to imply when you see a need for literacy tests in order to vote? Tancredo’s remarks at the opening address of the Tea Party Convention received thundering approval. Since he is old enough to know better, I have to assume that he knew exactly what he was saying when he said that voters who couldn’t even say the word vote elected a committed socialist to the office of the presidency. It is reprehensible to suggest we return to the Jim Crow laws that denied many citizens of color the vote. And, the ugliness aside, may I remind Tancredo just who elected Barack Obama? According to www.carnegieendowment.org, Obama won the college-educated voters by 62-38%. I’m pretty sure that means that they could read and say the word “vote.” And, Tom, the Obama victory was 53% to 46%. This wasn’t a close call at all.
What do the words “literacy tests” invoke to anyone who knows or lived through that history? Literacy tests were a part of the same Jim Crow laws that came after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, a compromise that ended Reconstruction. The real servitude the Civil War had been fought to end was replaced with economic and social servitude that endured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, “And we really mean what the 14th Amendment says.” By 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment was once again enforced. Many people, perhaps Tancredo himself, would fail some of those literacy tests. Before one could register to vote, a registrar administered a literacy tests to qualify a potential voter. That consisted of an interpretation of a section of a state’s constitution “to the satisfaction of the registrar.” First, those excerpts from the state constitution are awkwardly worded and full of convoluted legalese. Next, the test was scored by a registrar who probably could not have passed himself. Whites always passed. Blacks never did.
After the beatings of peaceful Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday as they crossed the Pettus Bridge in their march from Selma to Miami, President Johnson was able to pass the Voting Rights Act, saying, “And we shall overcome.” But have we conquered over two centuries of racial hatred? If we have, why then would Tom Tancredo suggest that we should return those Jim Crow days? He and those who cheered as he said it obviously don’t know much about Black History or history of any hue, for that matter.
And then, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more shocked by veiled or purposeful racism, I heard something that catapulted me once again into the Jim Crow Era. Debra Medina, running for governor of Texas—what is wrong with these people?--suggested that Texas should use interposition and nullification as much as they could to fight federal interference in her state. This harkens back to George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama to block two black students from entering. He had begun that year by proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Who still thinks those were the Good Old Days? If so, grab your hood.
Those who wanted the good old days of the Whites Only policy and segregation now and forever resorted to the claim of “States’ Rights,” referring to the 10th Amendment. However, the 10th Amendment is quite clear where it stands on the separation of powers between the state and federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Jim Crow States’ Righters chose to ignore that “the United States” means the federal government or that the amendments after the 10th Amendment created federal law they had to follow, laws that allowed Blacks equal treatment as well as voting rights.
Debra Medina threatened interposition. This doctrine was used by segregationists and was another State’s Rights argument. Interposition, according to www.dictionary.com, notes that states “used this doctrine to say that any individual state of the U. S. could oppose any federal action it believes to encroach on its sovereignty.” The doctrine of nullification was the “refusal of a U. S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Both of these doctrines that Debra Medina cited imply that a state can do whatever it wants and federal law be damned. What kind of country would this be if all states could do just that? We resolved that issue after the failure of the Articles of Confederation didn’t we?
Martin Luther King, Jr. in his stirring Dream Speech reminded us of the ugliness of these policies: “….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right here in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Study your history, Ms. Medina, Mr. Tancredo, and Governor Perry. Please. You may not be a racist, but why do you want to use words so heavily laden with America’s ugly racist past?
When this country elected Barack Obama by a healthy majority, I naively thought we had turned the page on an issue that had divided us since our nation’s very beginnings. Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers chose to compromise on the slavery issue by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person so that the slave-holding states could have more representatives. The Founders tabled the issue of slavery until later. That “later” led us to a horrific Civil War that nearly destroyed us. Even after that, Jim Crow laws maintained our racist past until late in the 20th century. But 53% of our registered voters elected a man or color whose wife’s ancestors were slaves. I want to believe Dr. King’s dream: One day—today, even—we will come to realize that the freedom of all citizens, citizens of every color, is “inextricably bound to our freedom.” We all need to remember the web of mutuality about which he spoke.
It’s not that I disagree with Morgan Freeman who contends that Black History Month trivializes the contribution of African-Americans in our history and undermines the fact that “black history is American history.” I happen to think that he makes a very good point. However, as long as men and women are willing to throw around words like secession, interposition, nullification and suggest a need for literacy tests or carry placards of Obama in white-face or photo-shopped with a bone through his nose, it is clear that we do need Black History Month. Better yet, we all need to know our history, not just what a blogger—including me—writes or what some pundit or politician claims. Please read the Constitution yourself. It’s a very short document. Know your country’s history. We have the potential to be everything our Founding Fathers dreamed we could and would be, even if they didn’t always practice it themselves. To paraphrase everyone’s mother: We should act as they said we should act, not as they sometimes did.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Play Nice, Boys and Girls. Govern Like Men and Women.
Sometimes I wonder if there will ever be civility in Congress, let alone among the pundits, bloggers, and commentators. And then I bounce back to reality and remember my American History. I recently read The Devil’s Advocates, Greatest Closing Arguments in Criminal Law by Michael S. Lief and H. Mitchell Caldwell. The authors have compiled a number of cases and closing arguments they believe to have shaped our legal and judicial system. This book includes cases and their outcomes that have become an integral part of what we believe, from “every man’s house is his castle” to any of us wanting our Miranda rights. It shows the courage of John Adams’ defense of British soldiers accused of what Sam Adams and the press at the time called “The Boston Massacre.” It deals with the Randy Weaver defense after Ruby Ridge to Aaron Burr’s defense in his treason trial. It is the account of the latter that especially yanked my starry-eyed idealism back to the real world. Is incivility part of who we have always been? Is there any way for us to overcome this legacy? Have there never been times when two opposing political parties worked together for the greater good?
We all learned that Aaron Burr did shoot and kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel while serving as Thomas Jefferson’s vice-president. And, since this was illegal in New York, Burr’s home state, as well as in New Jersey, where the duel took place, he had to flee to the territories until things died down. He wasn’t tried for this and even finished out his term as Jefferson’s vice-president during Jefferson’s first term. But it was the election of 1800 that set two other adversaries—Federalist Hamilton and Democratic-Republican Jefferson—out to destroy Burr.
The election had ended inconclusively, and many of the Congressional Federalists were ready to support Burr, which would have given him the presidency because Burr, unlike Jefferson, had not been so absolute in his politics, had served as an officer in the Revolution, and was a New Englander. It was Burr’s long-time nemesis who set out to see that this never happened. Hamilton set out to be Burr’s undoing in word and in print. He asserted that Burr was “bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country.” That he could “scarce name a discreet man of either party who does not think Mr. Burr a man unfit for the office of the president…..” He said that he was “selfish” without citing any facts to back up this claim or any of the others he had made. He proclaimed that Burr was only interested in “getting power by any means and keeping it by all means.”
Burr had made the election of Jefferson possible by pulling New York and New England into the corner of the Democratic-Republican ticket. Without it, Adams may very likely have had that second term. And while there is no evidence at all--conversely, evidence to the contrary--that Burr did anything to wrest the election from Jefferson in favor of himself, it took 35 ballots for Jefferson to win enough votes to be named president, largely because Hamilton’s inflammatory proclamations finally paid off. Even after Jefferson won, and despite Federalists saying Burr had not conspired with them at all, Jefferson set out deliberately to destroy Burr. With the help of his ally with the American Citizen newspaper, Burr was continually attacked. He was called “most immoral,” perfidious,” one of the "most unprincipled of men,” and “possessed of an evil of great magnitude.” This was inflammatory journalism as hot as that of any blogger or any pundit today and just as bare of facts to back up the claims.
Granted, Burr did not keep his cool as Hamilton and Jefferson’s media pals continued to cast aspersion after aspersion. Even though he had secured the office of the president for Jefferson, Jefferson was certain Burr had schemed and plotted because Burr did not concede immediately. The last straw for Burr occurred when a press release quoted Hamilton as seeing Burr as a “dangerous man….despicable….and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.” When Burr asked for a denial, Hamilton simply said all was admissible in politics, a version of “all’s fair in love and war” and to Hamilton, in politics, too. Burr retaliated by saying that “political opposition cannot obliterate rules of honor” and that Hamilton seemed to have a will “to violate the courtesies in life.” He demanded an apology or a duel. Hamilton doomed his mortal self and Burr’s political future and reputation by accepting a duel as the better option. This is one historical example of a man’s stubborn refusal to admit his excesses resulting in a most unhappy ending.
Fast forward to 2009-2010, and we have reached a new level. In a recent poll, more than 24% of self-identified Republicans believe Obama wants terrorists to win. Another 33% think he may but are not sure. More than a third—36%--believe that he was not born in the United States and another 22% are not sure but think it may be true. Am I to take heart in the fact that a whopping 42% of those self-identified Republicans are certain that the President was indeed born here? Sorry, but the fact that 58% refuse to believe all the concrete evidence to the contrary shows a sentiment that I cannot begin to understand. I myself sometimes maintained that Bush 43 lived on another planet, but if asked, I would never have made that assertion in print or in a poll. A sizeable number believe that Barack Obama, son of a white woman and reared by white grandparents, hates white people, I suppose because Glenn Beck told them so?
And while I’m on Glenn Beck, a few days ago, he earnestly said that the President would not have “chosen”—that was the word he used—the name Barack if he wanted to identify with Americans. Does Beck mean to suggest that men named Ian or Sean are not true to America because their parents gave them Irish names? News flash, Glenn. Parents name their children; most of us don’t get to choose our names. Talk to Apple in a few years. This name thing is such an absurd comment, and it seems quite transparent what his real motivation is: to paint the President as an other, not one of us.
I have to believe that it is possible to disagree with a president’s or a political party’s policies without resorting to fear and hate mongering. It is always exciting to see a grassroots movement energize politics, but today, all too often, too many signs are over the top or even racist. What message does someone wish to convey with a placard of Obama in white face? Or attired in primitive African attire complete with a bone through his nose? When signs accuse him of being facist or socialist or even a communist sympathizer, it is evident that the carrier doesn’t know the definition of the term. And where is the logic in a sign that reads, “Keep the government out of my Medicare”? Medicare is a socialist program in that it is a single-payer, government-run health care system. The government is very much in Medicare and seniors love it.
And now I come to Michelle Bachmann, queen of the hysterical and all too frequently factually inaccurate defamatory remarks. She has claimed, “Really now, in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent being held on enemy lines.” She decries that we now have a “gangster” government. What is her meaning there? I ask you. She wants her people “armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax….” What is wrong with conversation, with an exchange of ideas without becoming “armed and dangerous” in the process? According to Bachmann, “Not all values are equal,” and by this, I have to assume that she believes hers are the superior values and that those of us who don’t believe as she does have fewer rights. I’m pretty sure that she will not find that in the Constitution she swore to uphold.
Her recent rant against the census was one of pure Bachmania. She decried the census saying, “If you fill out the census, you might end up in an internment camp. That’s how they rounded up the Japanese.” Again, may I refer her to the document to which she swore an oath? Article I, Section 3 deals with the states’ apportioned number of representatives saying, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Therefore, every ten years since that time, the federal government conducts a census of who lives in this country. According to the Encarta Dictionary of English, the word census means “an official count of a population carried out at set intervals.” Today, the census is very important to each state and district within that state. A state’s number of representatives is determined as is the amount of federal money available to that district and to that state. Why would Bachmann, whose district’s numbers depend on there being enough residents to be counted as a district within Minnesota, not want that census filled out? Baffling. Just baffling.
I suppose my starry-eyed wish that things will change--that politicians and pundits will begin to criticize policies not individuals-—may, at this time, be unrealistic. But I do remember those times when some in Congress had the courage we should expect from our elected officials. President Regan wanted a larger tax cut than the Democrats in Congress. They talked, each side gave a little, and a policy of tax cuts less than Regan wanted and more than the Democrats thought necessary was put in place. Governing occurred because men and women did their jobs.
I urge our politicians to frame their arguments by making a factual point, not a baseless and inflammatory assertion. Stop calling names. Think about your constituents more than your own reelection. Read the Constitution for the first time or again. Brush up on your American History. Think before you speak. Remember, what goes around comes around. You can’t expect people to cooperate with you if you are unwilling to cooperate with them. The word compromise implies that both sides have to give something in order to get anything. Play nice! Govern.
If each political party becomes so intent on all or nothing, nothing will happen. There is no escaping that reality.
We all learned that Aaron Burr did shoot and kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel while serving as Thomas Jefferson’s vice-president. And, since this was illegal in New York, Burr’s home state, as well as in New Jersey, where the duel took place, he had to flee to the territories until things died down. He wasn’t tried for this and even finished out his term as Jefferson’s vice-president during Jefferson’s first term. But it was the election of 1800 that set two other adversaries—Federalist Hamilton and Democratic-Republican Jefferson—out to destroy Burr.
The election had ended inconclusively, and many of the Congressional Federalists were ready to support Burr, which would have given him the presidency because Burr, unlike Jefferson, had not been so absolute in his politics, had served as an officer in the Revolution, and was a New Englander. It was Burr’s long-time nemesis who set out to see that this never happened. Hamilton set out to be Burr’s undoing in word and in print. He asserted that Burr was “bankrupt beyond redemption except by the plunder of his country.” That he could “scarce name a discreet man of either party who does not think Mr. Burr a man unfit for the office of the president…..” He said that he was “selfish” without citing any facts to back up this claim or any of the others he had made. He proclaimed that Burr was only interested in “getting power by any means and keeping it by all means.”
Burr had made the election of Jefferson possible by pulling New York and New England into the corner of the Democratic-Republican ticket. Without it, Adams may very likely have had that second term. And while there is no evidence at all--conversely, evidence to the contrary--that Burr did anything to wrest the election from Jefferson in favor of himself, it took 35 ballots for Jefferson to win enough votes to be named president, largely because Hamilton’s inflammatory proclamations finally paid off. Even after Jefferson won, and despite Federalists saying Burr had not conspired with them at all, Jefferson set out deliberately to destroy Burr. With the help of his ally with the American Citizen newspaper, Burr was continually attacked. He was called “most immoral,” perfidious,” one of the "most unprincipled of men,” and “possessed of an evil of great magnitude.” This was inflammatory journalism as hot as that of any blogger or any pundit today and just as bare of facts to back up the claims.
Granted, Burr did not keep his cool as Hamilton and Jefferson’s media pals continued to cast aspersion after aspersion. Even though he had secured the office of the president for Jefferson, Jefferson was certain Burr had schemed and plotted because Burr did not concede immediately. The last straw for Burr occurred when a press release quoted Hamilton as seeing Burr as a “dangerous man….despicable….and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.” When Burr asked for a denial, Hamilton simply said all was admissible in politics, a version of “all’s fair in love and war” and to Hamilton, in politics, too. Burr retaliated by saying that “political opposition cannot obliterate rules of honor” and that Hamilton seemed to have a will “to violate the courtesies in life.” He demanded an apology or a duel. Hamilton doomed his mortal self and Burr’s political future and reputation by accepting a duel as the better option. This is one historical example of a man’s stubborn refusal to admit his excesses resulting in a most unhappy ending.
Fast forward to 2009-2010, and we have reached a new level. In a recent poll, more than 24% of self-identified Republicans believe Obama wants terrorists to win. Another 33% think he may but are not sure. More than a third—36%--believe that he was not born in the United States and another 22% are not sure but think it may be true. Am I to take heart in the fact that a whopping 42% of those self-identified Republicans are certain that the President was indeed born here? Sorry, but the fact that 58% refuse to believe all the concrete evidence to the contrary shows a sentiment that I cannot begin to understand. I myself sometimes maintained that Bush 43 lived on another planet, but if asked, I would never have made that assertion in print or in a poll. A sizeable number believe that Barack Obama, son of a white woman and reared by white grandparents, hates white people, I suppose because Glenn Beck told them so?
And while I’m on Glenn Beck, a few days ago, he earnestly said that the President would not have “chosen”—that was the word he used—the name Barack if he wanted to identify with Americans. Does Beck mean to suggest that men named Ian or Sean are not true to America because their parents gave them Irish names? News flash, Glenn. Parents name their children; most of us don’t get to choose our names. Talk to Apple in a few years. This name thing is such an absurd comment, and it seems quite transparent what his real motivation is: to paint the President as an other, not one of us.
I have to believe that it is possible to disagree with a president’s or a political party’s policies without resorting to fear and hate mongering. It is always exciting to see a grassroots movement energize politics, but today, all too often, too many signs are over the top or even racist. What message does someone wish to convey with a placard of Obama in white face? Or attired in primitive African attire complete with a bone through his nose? When signs accuse him of being facist or socialist or even a communist sympathizer, it is evident that the carrier doesn’t know the definition of the term. And where is the logic in a sign that reads, “Keep the government out of my Medicare”? Medicare is a socialist program in that it is a single-payer, government-run health care system. The government is very much in Medicare and seniors love it.
And now I come to Michelle Bachmann, queen of the hysterical and all too frequently factually inaccurate defamatory remarks. She has claimed, “Really now, in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent being held on enemy lines.” She decries that we now have a “gangster” government. What is her meaning there? I ask you. She wants her people “armed and dangerous on this issue of energy tax….” What is wrong with conversation, with an exchange of ideas without becoming “armed and dangerous” in the process? According to Bachmann, “Not all values are equal,” and by this, I have to assume that she believes hers are the superior values and that those of us who don’t believe as she does have fewer rights. I’m pretty sure that she will not find that in the Constitution she swore to uphold.
Her recent rant against the census was one of pure Bachmania. She decried the census saying, “If you fill out the census, you might end up in an internment camp. That’s how they rounded up the Japanese.” Again, may I refer her to the document to which she swore an oath? Article I, Section 3 deals with the states’ apportioned number of representatives saying, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Therefore, every ten years since that time, the federal government conducts a census of who lives in this country. According to the Encarta Dictionary of English, the word census means “an official count of a population carried out at set intervals.” Today, the census is very important to each state and district within that state. A state’s number of representatives is determined as is the amount of federal money available to that district and to that state. Why would Bachmann, whose district’s numbers depend on there being enough residents to be counted as a district within Minnesota, not want that census filled out? Baffling. Just baffling.
I suppose my starry-eyed wish that things will change--that politicians and pundits will begin to criticize policies not individuals-—may, at this time, be unrealistic. But I do remember those times when some in Congress had the courage we should expect from our elected officials. President Regan wanted a larger tax cut than the Democrats in Congress. They talked, each side gave a little, and a policy of tax cuts less than Regan wanted and more than the Democrats thought necessary was put in place. Governing occurred because men and women did their jobs.
I urge our politicians to frame their arguments by making a factual point, not a baseless and inflammatory assertion. Stop calling names. Think about your constituents more than your own reelection. Read the Constitution for the first time or again. Brush up on your American History. Think before you speak. Remember, what goes around comes around. You can’t expect people to cooperate with you if you are unwilling to cooperate with them. The word compromise implies that both sides have to give something in order to get anything. Play nice! Govern.
If each political party becomes so intent on all or nothing, nothing will happen. There is no escaping that reality.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Only Thing We Have Is Fear Itself: Don't Let It Destory This Nation.
Recently, my family and I saw Avatar, and our post-movie discussion began with the plot as metaphor for the military-industrial complex aided by a Black-Water-type security force and quickly led to an often heard question: "If the enemy has no rules of war, why do we have to obey those rules?"
We do have a powerful, dedicated, regulated, well-armed military. The men in my family have served in every war since the Revolution and through Viet Nam. My own father was killed in the Korean War. I respect our military, arguably the best in the world. And, not the least importantly, we pride ourselves in being a nation of laws. We have a constitution and a military code of conduct. Why is this a bad thing? Why a liability? I refuse to believe that I am idealistic--or worse yet, unrealistic--to believe that the U. S. should set the example and keep the ethical bar set high. I shudder to think of our sinking to the depths of inhumanity we disparage when others are savagely inhumane to us.
In December of 1949, the U. S. became a signatory of what we now refer to as the Geneva Convention. This set of protocols was established to avoid some of the horrors seen during World War II. Since then, we have believed that these Rules of War (even though those words juxtaposed are indeed oxymoronic) meant something. And many of us, non Cheney-ite Republicans included, have either decried or at least cringed when we became a nation that tortured, imprisoned people without due process, practiced rendition--a terrifying act belied by the innocence of the term--and swept people off the street and threw them into prisons in unknown places and unknown prisons without their families or friends knowing what became of them. What have we become? These are the practices of governments we have condemned while basking in our own moral superiority in the past.
Have we forgotten the righteous indignation we felt while condemning the use of gulags for political prisoners in the USSR? The sorrow we felt for the families of the "disappeared" in Guatamala, Argentina, Buenos Aires and other South American countries when ruled by cruel dictators? Weren't we major players in the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II when we tried Nazi and SS war criminals? Didn't we try and convict Japanese soldiers for.....wait for it....water-boarding our prisoners of war?
Who and what has fear made us? This nation? If we don't stop to think about who and what the United States of America is and on what principles this nation was founded, Al Qaeda will win. We will have let the fear 9/11 engendered destroy us utterly.
Those men who flew planes full of innocent people into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--or crashing into a field in Pennsylvania--killed many more innocent people. They did so because they followed an extreme and fundamental tenant of Islam and were directed and trained by a lawless and power-hungry group proselytizing converts by killing unbelievers. They were able to train and arm themselves because they established their bases in countries with failed governments. I, like anyone who saw the events of 9/11, will never forget that day and those horrific acts of terror. We here in the U. S. had naively believed that those things just didn't happen here. We now know differently.
Despite the terror if 9/11, we came together on 9/12. We had a feeling of oneness, quite unlike the anger at our government recently co-opted by Cry-baby Beck in the name of 9/12. That spirit of "How Could This Happen to Us?" has metastasized into an overwhelming dread and anxiety that has led us to forget the dictates of our Founding Fathers and the U. S. Constitution they wrote to be our guiding principles. Al Qaeda only wins if we let them.
We do have a powerful, dedicated, regulated, well-armed military. The men in my family have served in every war since the Revolution and through Viet Nam. My own father was killed in the Korean War. I respect our military, arguably the best in the world. And, not the least importantly, we pride ourselves in being a nation of laws. We have a constitution and a military code of conduct. Why is this a bad thing? Why a liability? I refuse to believe that I am idealistic--or worse yet, unrealistic--to believe that the U. S. should set the example and keep the ethical bar set high. I shudder to think of our sinking to the depths of inhumanity we disparage when others are savagely inhumane to us.
In December of 1949, the U. S. became a signatory of what we now refer to as the Geneva Convention. This set of protocols was established to avoid some of the horrors seen during World War II. Since then, we have believed that these Rules of War (even though those words juxtaposed are indeed oxymoronic) meant something. And many of us, non Cheney-ite Republicans included, have either decried or at least cringed when we became a nation that tortured, imprisoned people without due process, practiced rendition--a terrifying act belied by the innocence of the term--and swept people off the street and threw them into prisons in unknown places and unknown prisons without their families or friends knowing what became of them. What have we become? These are the practices of governments we have condemned while basking in our own moral superiority in the past.
Have we forgotten the righteous indignation we felt while condemning the use of gulags for political prisoners in the USSR? The sorrow we felt for the families of the "disappeared" in Guatamala, Argentina, Buenos Aires and other South American countries when ruled by cruel dictators? Weren't we major players in the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II when we tried Nazi and SS war criminals? Didn't we try and convict Japanese soldiers for.....wait for it....water-boarding our prisoners of war?
Who and what has fear made us? This nation? If we don't stop to think about who and what the United States of America is and on what principles this nation was founded, Al Qaeda will win. We will have let the fear 9/11 engendered destroy us utterly.
Those men who flew planes full of innocent people into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--or crashing into a field in Pennsylvania--killed many more innocent people. They did so because they followed an extreme and fundamental tenant of Islam and were directed and trained by a lawless and power-hungry group proselytizing converts by killing unbelievers. They were able to train and arm themselves because they established their bases in countries with failed governments. I, like anyone who saw the events of 9/11, will never forget that day and those horrific acts of terror. We here in the U. S. had naively believed that those things just didn't happen here. We now know differently.
Despite the terror if 9/11, we came together on 9/12. We had a feeling of oneness, quite unlike the anger at our government recently co-opted by Cry-baby Beck in the name of 9/12. That spirit of "How Could This Happen to Us?" has metastasized into an overwhelming dread and anxiety that has led us to forget the dictates of our Founding Fathers and the U. S. Constitution they wrote to be our guiding principles. Al Qaeda only wins if we let them.
I, as much as anyone, want to feel safe. I spent my early childhood hunkering down under desks during air-raid drills because we feared the Soviets would drop the Big Bomb on us at any moment. My freshman year in college saw the ramped up fears of World War III after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't ever forget the assassinations of JKF, MLK, and RFK that scarred the rest of my college and graduate school years. I want to feel a safety and security that I, too, lost a bit more of after 9/11. But, I want us to beat Al Qaeda by doing more than using guns and beefed-up security, both of which are important as well. I want those who want to destroy this country because of what we represent to see us for what we say we are: a nation of laws. Like Pandora, the magical land seen in Avatar, the U. S. is a nation blessed with beauty and spirit. We cannot let our fear destroy the vision of who we are to the rest of the world. We dare not lose the vision and essence of who we are to ourselves.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What Is True Suffering? A Man Cold!
After years of deriding men for being such babies when they have a cold while we women have to slog through our daily lives with or without a cold, I now have shamefully to face a harsh reality: a man cold is worse than a regular cold. We all know that men appear to be pretty wussie when they have what we women have always regarded as the sniffles. The cold-suffering man lies listlessly on the sofa, wishing the proverbial someone--a wife or the nearest female--would fluff his pillow, hand him the remote lying inches from his hand, bring him a cool drink or something to soothe his troubled brow. He occasionally tosses in a sigh or a moan for good measure. Any female in the proximity rolls her eyes in disgust as she does or does not comply.
We women have looked askance at cold-suffering men for generations, basking in our own superiority. We say things like, "If men had to be pregnant for nine months, or--God forbid--give birth, civilization would have ended with pre-CroMagnon man." Or maybe we just continue to roll our eyes at the pathetic heap on the couch, knowing that we are tougher, stronger--heck, let's face it--better. I have been as guilty as the next woman.
Usually, when we get a cold, we grab a box of tissues along with the car keys or brief case or the children as we head out the door for our daily grind. Our noses become raw, our eyes, red, but the the work still gets done whether in the workplace or at home. Or at least that's what I had believed until I myself was the victim of a man cold.
A man cold, I now know, is far different from a woman cold. This epiphany came to me as I lay on the couch for two days, sniffling and coughing, too helpless to do anything else. And, worse yet, I don't have a wife to wait on me, with or without the rolling eyes or the looks of disdain. No, I was a woman with a man cold left to suffer on my own. It was horrible.
As one now aware of the existence of the man cold, I have a suggestion for Big Pharma. Spend less time researching things like pills we only have to take once a month to improve bone density, for example. All right, Sally may be right, and taking a pill once a month for osteoporosis might be more convenient than taking a pill once a day. But really? By the time someone needs a drug for osteoporosis, isn't she at least taking a daily vitamin or another drug any way?
If medical research can redirect some of its focus to something like a cure for the common cold, or at least the man cold--and having a a man cold is suffering--then I say, "Focus people! Sore throats, congested chests, stuffy noses, and raspy coughs demand attention now. Please?
We women have looked askance at cold-suffering men for generations, basking in our own superiority. We say things like, "If men had to be pregnant for nine months, or--God forbid--give birth, civilization would have ended with pre-CroMagnon man." Or maybe we just continue to roll our eyes at the pathetic heap on the couch, knowing that we are tougher, stronger--heck, let's face it--better. I have been as guilty as the next woman.
Usually, when we get a cold, we grab a box of tissues along with the car keys or brief case or the children as we head out the door for our daily grind. Our noses become raw, our eyes, red, but the the work still gets done whether in the workplace or at home. Or at least that's what I had believed until I myself was the victim of a man cold.
A man cold, I now know, is far different from a woman cold. This epiphany came to me as I lay on the couch for two days, sniffling and coughing, too helpless to do anything else. And, worse yet, I don't have a wife to wait on me, with or without the rolling eyes or the looks of disdain. No, I was a woman with a man cold left to suffer on my own. It was horrible.
As one now aware of the existence of the man cold, I have a suggestion for Big Pharma. Spend less time researching things like pills we only have to take once a month to improve bone density, for example. All right, Sally may be right, and taking a pill once a month for osteoporosis might be more convenient than taking a pill once a day. But really? By the time someone needs a drug for osteoporosis, isn't she at least taking a daily vitamin or another drug any way?
If medical research can redirect some of its focus to something like a cure for the common cold, or at least the man cold--and having a a man cold is suffering--then I say, "Focus people! Sore throats, congested chests, stuffy noses, and raspy coughs demand attention now. Please?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Dear Santa: Please Bring Fat Bankers Some Gratitude and a Memory
"Merry Christmas." I think not. More like "Bah. Humbug!" Or "Mine! Mine! All mine!" After the American taxpayer bailed out the big financial institutions so that they wouldn't go under and pull us all down with them, Wall Streeters' bottom lines are healthy, their stock prices up, and their bonuses and salaries are huge. Hello Ebenezer!
And now, when Congress is entertaining some regulations for the institutions that ran amok, gambling as if they could never fail until they did, those same fat cats are sending in armies of their lobbyists to fight even the idea of changing anything. After all, they wonder, we're fine now. Why dwell on the past? When were we ever near financial ruin? Trust us!
They just don't get it. Why in the world not? Their kind of free enterprise was only free to them.. It cost us taxpayers plenty, and some are still paying with eminent foreclosures and nonexistent jobs. You guys are so very, very welcome. If their own personal investors had wiped out a wad of their very own money by engaging in ridiculously risky practices, would those fat cats give them a raise, a big bonus, and tell them to keep on doing what they were doing? You and I both know there is no way in hell that they would. They'd fire them in a heartbeat and warn all their friends not to trust that investor. If an MBA candidate failed an exam because he or she hadn't studied for it, would their recommendation be, "Don't bother studying the next time either. Maybe you'll get lucky." Come on! Give me a break. People who gamble until they lose everything and then keep repeating the same behavior are candidates for Gamblers Anonymous. Who in his right mind would give that gambler their life savings and send them off to Vegas? That seems to be what Big Banking expects from us taxpayers.
Also get a grip, reform-resisting members of Congress. At least pretend that you learned something. It's only been a little over a year now since we teetered perilously close to financial Armageddon. How short are your memories? Has the Haitian from Heroes been at your brains? The financial regulatory system we have now did not prevent or even alert us to the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did it? No!
I suggest that both the bankers and the reform-resistant members of Congress find their ethics and their souls and/or different campaign contributors (in the case of Congress) and take a good hard look at our broken financial regulatory system and fix it. ASAP. If they don't, those Congressmen and women and the greedy fat cats will be on Santa's Naughty List and mine.
And now, when Congress is entertaining some regulations for the institutions that ran amok, gambling as if they could never fail until they did, those same fat cats are sending in armies of their lobbyists to fight even the idea of changing anything. After all, they wonder, we're fine now. Why dwell on the past? When were we ever near financial ruin? Trust us!
They just don't get it. Why in the world not? Their kind of free enterprise was only free to them.. It cost us taxpayers plenty, and some are still paying with eminent foreclosures and nonexistent jobs. You guys are so very, very welcome. If their own personal investors had wiped out a wad of their very own money by engaging in ridiculously risky practices, would those fat cats give them a raise, a big bonus, and tell them to keep on doing what they were doing? You and I both know there is no way in hell that they would. They'd fire them in a heartbeat and warn all their friends not to trust that investor. If an MBA candidate failed an exam because he or she hadn't studied for it, would their recommendation be, "Don't bother studying the next time either. Maybe you'll get lucky." Come on! Give me a break. People who gamble until they lose everything and then keep repeating the same behavior are candidates for Gamblers Anonymous. Who in his right mind would give that gambler their life savings and send them off to Vegas? That seems to be what Big Banking expects from us taxpayers.
Also get a grip, reform-resisting members of Congress. At least pretend that you learned something. It's only been a little over a year now since we teetered perilously close to financial Armageddon. How short are your memories? Has the Haitian from Heroes been at your brains? The financial regulatory system we have now did not prevent or even alert us to the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, did it? No!
I suggest that both the bankers and the reform-resistant members of Congress find their ethics and their souls and/or different campaign contributors (in the case of Congress) and take a good hard look at our broken financial regulatory system and fix it. ASAP. If they don't, those Congressmen and women and the greedy fat cats will be on Santa's Naughty List and mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
