SACRIFICE FOR THE SICK

It is a principle of community that each watch out for the other as much as possible—for reasons of safety, childrearing, role modeling, and stability. Oftentimes, people do not want to get involved in the neighborhood, for a focus on community seems to take away from individual concern and prosperity. Because of this tradition of self-centeredness and a combination of anthropophobia (i.e., fear of people) and soteriophobia (fear of dependence on others), the notion of sacrifice for the betterment of neighborhoods and the overall community has been anathema in American traditions in social relations.

Hence, it is no wonder that many people are up in arms that people are required to purchase health insurance, even when they are not sick or have not had any serious ailment. The major individualistic strand in the United States condemns any governmental mandate—alleging that it interferes with human freedom and the right to decide what to do with hard-earned income. Usually, there is little, if any, consideration about how their participation, or sacrifice, might help others challenged by existential circumstances. Those who can easily afford buying health insurance ruthlessly chime in, in opposition to mandate because they are hesitant to support any measure that goes against their frequently rudimentary and erroneous understanding of old-time laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Forcing people to buy into some plan, thought privately run, raises, to them, the specter of socialized medicine, Western society’s perennial nemesis.

When I was in professional school, pursuing a post-baccalaureate in religious and theological studies, I encountered a colleague who argued that the bible commands us to take care of ourselves and not to lift our hands and voices on behalf of the needy. I was both alarmed and appalled, and I genuinely wondered whether I was missing a few pages in my copy of the scriptures or had gotten my hands on an underground, subversive copy somehow! One of the most ubiquitous messages and lessons in the bible is to care for the exploited, marginalized, and oppressed.

By buying into health insurance, the healthy help to drive down the escalating costs of health care and enable those otherwise uninsurable to obtain minimal coverage. Just as we are required to pay taxes on our earnings to subsidize, for example, the military-industrial complex and rarely make any bones about it, we should likewise refuse to rankle over reducing the costs of medical care through buying into health insurance.

Why would anyone with a modicum of decency allow one’s nebulous comprehension of rights and freedoms to trump the receipt of healthcare services to those currently unable to acquire them? Private insurers are looking for the bottom line: money and profits. They do not care whether a person receives insurance, for anyone denied is quickly replaced by another who’s picked up. The cruelty of the market economy is clearly discerned, and the only way to curb its inertial juggernaut is through radical intervention by the public and governmental sectors.

I am not a doomsday theorist. However, it is incumbent upon me to say that the United States cannot continue to survive without changing its economic structure’s reliance on free enterprise market capitalism. For this system disproportionately makes paupers and exculpates imperviousness to the needs of others. An economic approach that works first to ensure fundamental and existential needs are met for everyone, including access to quality health care, would undergird our democratic republic and launch new vistas of opportunity. It would also help us to be perceived better in the world and become a harbinger of efforts for global peace.

Finally, we could become a nation that not only pays lip service to human rights, but also transforms itself from a sad tradition of rugged, dispassionate individualism to the fulfillment of the beloved community and a society of the best possible.

TAX CUTS, PHILANTHROPY, & SOCIAL CHANGE

Extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest in the United States was an unnecessary concession of the Obama Administration, which is concluding a very disappointing second year in the executive office. These acquiescences on the part of Pres. Obama to the minority party in the two houses of the legislature are poor examples of his campaign promise to begin a new era in the nation’s capital. Being a centrist is nothing new, for Obama has a perfect model in the former president who recently visited with him in the Oval Office, namely William Jefferson Clinton. Universal health care has yet to be realized, and the end to the economic recession is nowhere in sight for the middle and lower classes—not to mention the persistent underclass, for which the current administration seems to have little, if any, regard.

What is the point of allowing the rich not to pay taxes on income that they receive for doing very little, while their workers are being laid off or are making wages that are morally unconscionable in comparison? Who benefits from these tax breaks besides the individuals receiving them? History and common sense show that they do not redound to the favor of the middle and lower classes, not to mention job creation and the general economy. There is no trickle down reality that we are missing here, for it never has and does not exist. Just because a person repeats the lame idea does not make it healthy; the theory was invalid from its propagandistic inception!

Charity is always a good thing, and as many people should engage in it that can afford to make the sacrifice. There are some who can give much more than others’ proportional giving, for they have way more materially than they and their family need or could spend. So, it comes as no surprise that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and an assortment of multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires have pledged philanthropic donations—as if they are going beyond the call of moral duty to give money they have earned because of cheap labor, tax incentives, subsidies, and the floor of capitalism that inevitably create and divide folks into economic classes. The bottom line is that their largesse will not change a system that produces paupers out of necessity.

Charitable donations are not intended to reform, transform, or revolutionize structures, processes, and policies that discriminate against the middle, working, and lower classes and the poor. In order to improve the life chances of the masses of people who work every day, but cannot easily make ends meet, the market economy on which this country relies has to be seriously changed. This movement towards change may seem as an insuperable challenge, but there is very little alternative to stem the unethical sequestration of the haves and the have-nots. Radical change in our economic structure is not a new idea in theory, but it is very fresh as an action agenda.

What is really at stake is what type of society makes for fairness, equity, and the satisfaction of basic physical and existential needs. It is absurd to think that some inhuman economic forces should be relied upon instead of human intervention to construct our society. We can build a society that guarantees an income for all Americans, affordable housing, exceptional educational resources and facilities, and promise for continued opportunities for the next generation.

Our concentration on the merits of American democracy often avoids identifying and seeking to redress the failures of the republic. We would rather imprison anyone that calls attention to those failures than seek to root out the causes and build a society that make all citizens full participants. Instead of forging the best possible society, we foolishly seek to perpetuate the status quo that is clearly not working.

REFLECTIONS ON THE MIDTERM ELECTION

Approaching the midterm election, I was very apprehensive. I knew the electorate would regard the economic woes of the past two years as President Obama’s fault—having unfairly developed a convenient amnesia about the erstwhile Bush administration. Admittedly, I have been very disappointed over the bailouts and the stimulus packages, which unsurprisingly did not trickle down to the middle class, let alone to the working class, the impoverished, and the utter indigent. Nevertheless, I still had hope that folks would reason they could not vote for political candidates who to a greater or lesser degree endorse the policies of the executive branch what got us into this mess in the first place.

I was wrong!

Any reference to some halcyon day of peace, contentment, and economic bliss, I have long since realized, is sheer nonsense and fundamentally insulting to those who have been underrepresented and underserved for decades. In my opinion, it is disingenuous to make the claim that tax cuts for the wealthiest in the United States will benefit the rest of the economy and somehow transform paupers into ebullient purchasers. Reducing the taxes of the rich does not redound to the favor of anyone but the rich: it does not create jobs, raise the minimum wage and household income, or change them into philanthropists of the poor. It is a curious form of welfare, and the masquerade continues while millions languish in abject poverty.

We cannot continue in this fashion.

Over the next two years, the U.S. House of Representatives will simply flail in the water, rather than make any significant headway. The economic recession that we are in will scarcely rebound, and they will be the victims of their own criticism of the Obama administration. Regrettably, in politics, what goes around comes around. Hence, in 2012, that biracial man with the big ears and the inveterate mole by his nose will be a picture of health and strength and vision once more!

Hope restored.

In the meantime, we cannot waiver in our persistent fight against the conservative juggernaut seeking to wreak havoc upon the masses without rhyme or reason. Because they will take every opportunity to replace social programs with empty promises about jobs and to replace opportunity with a not-so-subtle diatribe depicting America as some cheery meritocracy. The future of our children prohibits us from such folderol.

And yes, we can!

Don’t get me wrong, I am not predicting Obama’s country will become a sort of panacea; rather I am asserting that the only viable counter to the destruction through the inevitable destruction of the conveyers of conservative politics is an increasingly progressive praxis that puts power in the hands of the people. Obama should forge ahead and run into brick walls as he tries to elevate the middle class, reinvigorate the public schools, frustrate global warming, refuse militarily to police the entire world, and serve the countless numbers suffering at the bottom of the major life indices.

Langston Hughes’ poem, “Let America Be America Again,” was really a revelation of the fact that America had always been a pipe dream for many looking for the promises of freedom and democracy. We are not there yet, and will never be. But we can steadily get closer, if we only have the will.

TICKETING SPEEDING--WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD!

Over the last three years, I have been cited for speeding more than the previous quarter of a century since I have been driving as an adult! I am not certain what has caused this increase in apprehension, for I am neither alleging that I am a speeder, nor admitting my success at rarely being caught. The last two years have been the worst, and I have seriously considered that my right foot has turned to lead or my sore right knee has finally locked, as the doctor predicted it would nearly ten years ago. I have even contemplated I have acquired some sort of attention deficit recently or am entering the first stages of undiagnosed dementia or senility.

I have felt that certain tickets for disobeying traffic laws are utterly ridiculous. Stopping for three seconds at an intersection when there is a four-way stop and clearly no traffic is clearly one example. Unless there is something radically wrong with a person’s eyesight or hearing, ticketing a driver is ridiculous under these conditions and rather petty. Likewise, when most cars are speeding on an interstate freeway and traffic is running smoothly, singling out a driver and ticketing that individual for speeding is surely wrong.

On one occasion, I was driving ten miles over the speed limit along with three or four other cars. As I approached my exit, of course, I slowed considerably and eventually was moving near single digits as I reached the line of cars towards the end of the ramp awaiting a traffic signal to turn from red to green. When the light changed and it came my turn to move, I turned left at the corner onto the overpass, where I was stopped by a state police officer. After asking me for my license and registration and telling me I was speeding, I asked him why he chose to stop me when I was simply driving along with three-to-four other cars whose drivers were also exceeding the speed limit. His answer was that I decided to get off the freeway.

I was appalled. I was now driving most recently at 10 mph, while the vehicles going ten miles above the speed limit were allowed to continue speeding! It did not make any sense to me, for I was no longer speeding. The state trooper agreed with me, but indicated my easy accessibility, despite my currently snaillike pace, mandated I be cited.

In addition, I mentioned that I was only speeding on that freeway for about five minutes, and prior to that time, approximately another five minutes, I was probably going less than the maximal speed limit. During the ten miles between my home and the interstate, I never exceeded the posted speed limit. So, I asked him what constituted my getting a ticket for speeding. He told me that some aerial radar had clocked me going ten miles over the speed limit during a moment in time, despite the fact that others matched or exceeded my speed, for I was not ahead of the bunch. Needless to say, I was curious as to why I was singled out and why I was ticketed after I had significantly slowed and was awaiting a traffic light to change along with other drivers in their resting vehicles. I told the officer that I could understand it if I was apprehended while speeding, but I was being cited when I was no longer speeding while the other speeders accompanying me were still speeding the last I had looked!

It seems to me that speed limits are designed to promote safety among the concourse of vehicles. They are not primarily instituted as a source of revenue for the locality or state. There was no reason to ticket me in the above example, for I was not endangering anyone and I had stopped speeding anyway—and my speeding had only lasted five minutes of the twenty-five-to-thirty minutes I had been driving that day. I was topped because of convenience, and not because public safety was jeopardized. There was no lesson instructing the public regarding the “folly” of my five minutes of exceeding the speed limit. The ticket did not deter me or anybody else from speeding for a brief period of time with the flow of traffic.

Moreover, I am a teetotaler and I don’t do drugs. I was wide awake, having already been up for a couple hours and was not at all groggy or drowsy. I was alert and hardly distracted by the enjoyable tomfoolery of the syndicated broadcast on my local public radio station. Yes, my cell phone was with me, but merely lying dormant on the passenger seat. I was going to a restaurant to eat before my visit to the cinema to watch a just-out movie. The only thing my stoppage by the state trooper did was compel me to skip the meal and go directly to the theater, as now I was running late!

Although I am oft labeled a civil libertarian, I am far from an anarchist. I believe in certain controls as necessary by government and law enforcement. However, I am opposed to arbitrariness, and attendance to the letter of the law, while the spirit of the law is damned. I would not go so far as to say citing me that day was immoral; but I will insist that it was entirely unnecessary and purposeless, for no one was ever in danger and public safety was never imperiled by my innocuous, momentary speeding on a short stretch of moderately trafficked highway during a splendid Saturday morn.

Raccoon Lampoon

I wouldn’t call myself a city slicker, but I did grow up in an urban area compressed with people. My developmental years were spent in an eight-story tenement building, one of sixteen, in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which at the time was the most affluent county in the nation. Of course, I knew what road kill was, but I did not encounter it nearly as much as I have in the Midwest. For the most part, I have been spared colliding with stray animals, until Thursday of last week.

Getting off the highway and onto a county road, I had slowed from 65 mph to about 50, when I entered an area that was pitch black. Before I knew it, two dark and thick animals scurried from the wire-fenced median and darted in front of my car. I realized it was impossible for me to stop, so I steeled myself for the bump: more concerned about injuring one or two of God’s creatures than the bloody smudge that might appear on my bumper. What actually occurred was a complete surprise!

You see, I had decided earlier this year to sell my Toyota Camry of eight years to someone in need of a vehicle. I had already determined I wanted to find a new car, one that was cheap and good on mileage and did not have the thrills to which I had grown accustomed with my sleek, six-cylinder sedan. I considered getting a hybrid, but finally settled on a Yaris—the two-door liftback kind. I took the car on the lot, which was white and without any of the electronic gadgetry I enjoyed with my Camry. It took some getting used to, but I was pleased with its simplicity, except for the exterior white.

I am not a small man. Needless to say, I encountered many people who simply got a kick out of me being cramped in the driver’s seat. Having not experienced the Yaris, they were unaware of the deceptively roomy interior. To make a long story short, I suffered from their attempts at humiliation with a secret pride that I had decided to opt for a bare-boned vehicle. No regrets!

Last Thursday night, my vehicular disposition completely changed. I heard a crack, then a thud, as I hit at least one of the animals in front of me and continued on my way to by traditional stop at the gas station a few blocks from where I live. I had thought the crack and the thud were a bit much for two trifling raccoons, but I had no qualms about my obeisance to traffic recommendations regarding deer and pesky vermin. As I exited my car, I cavalierly glanced at the front of my vehicle. Much to my surprise, the bottom of the fender was broken in two and bent inward, where the prongs had punctured the car’s radiator! Fluid from the radiator was pouring out onto the asphalt and the red pool at first made me think that the bloody raccoon was somehow still attached to my car’s underbelly. One of the brave clerks at the convenience store informed this automotive ignoramus that the redness was Freon and that I could probably make it home before damaging my car.

At the collision center where I brought my car, I was told that at least one car each day is brought in with damage from a sturdy, apparently well-fed raccoon. Momentarily relieved, I tried to convince myself that I had not gone wrong in my car selection in the late winter of 2010. After all, the damage was fixable and the bulk of the $1,500 would be covered by my insurance. However, when I was given a raggedy loaner vehicle for a day, because I couldn’t locate a rental car, and then finally found one with only 11,000 miles on it but still a clunker, my heart started to change a tad bit. What if it were a deer? Would my whole car split in two, with me standing on the concrete as if in one of Fred Flintstone’s motor-less contraptions?

Tomorrow, I am meeting with a car salesperson, a friend, to upgrade to some hybrid or other. At the very least, I got a poem out of the ordeal!

There once was a raccoon named Bud,
Who was ye old stick in the mud:
He and his mate, Paris,
Ran front of my Yaris,
And broke it in two with a thud!

NATIVE AMERICAN GARBAGE LEAGUE

The singular landfill in Hawaii is along the Leeward Coast in Oahu, an area that houses a poor community of indigenous, or native, Hawaiians. So, when you want to relieve your country of inordinate amounts of garbage, why not parallel dump it near an Indian reservation in the United States? Makes perfect sense, right?

Honolulu officials had been contemplatING sending 100,000 tons of plastic-wrapped bales of garbage every year to the state of Washington. Hawaii Waste Systems, a Seattle-based firm, had the audacity to authorize the waste-dumping on land overseen by the Yakama Indian Nation. Needless to say—or it must be said!—the insensitivity to indigenous peoples is alarming and the ostensible imperviousness to issues of environmental justice is simply mind-boggling!

Hawaii’s Big Island has enough land, but there is an ordinance barring any dumping of garbage hailing from outside the island. Heaven forbid if another landfill would block the beautiful scenery that brings in millions of dollars from the tourist industry each year! Rather, since certain folks already are used to being put upon and oppressed, what would be wrong about continuing such discriminatory practices by putting a landfill by or on an Indian reservation?

Congratulations on the restraining order that the tribe won against the U.S. Department of Agriculture before the first bale of garbage would be sent to Washington! After all, the potential dangers to individuals’ health is astronomical, albeit it is not known exactly what type of spillage and corrosive effects could eventuate. The USDA has become a bit notorious regarding some of its decisions as of late. Add this one to the list!

I guess there is a positive side to this near-debacle. A group of citizens, usually ignored, was able to win a federal court case against the USDA! A tribal group empowered and somewhat vindicated in the USA? That’s news! That some people of conscience were able to expose the irony and injustices involved in this transfer of stuff—fantastic! There is still hope in judicial system, despite its unseemly record with regard to natives and people of color. A large percentage of Hawaiians are people of color, but, apparently, those in positions of power could overlook their history and unwittingly, perhaps, make policy discriminatory to their racial ancestry and to other folks of color who have been mistreated and underserved. A bit confusing, to say the least!

Four decades ago, a group of sanitation workers wanted to be treated as adult human beings. Today, sanitation workers are able to make decisions whether other human beings are going to be treated fairly! Ah, the more things change, the more things stay the same!

WHAT'S UP, DOC (LAURA)?

Dr. Laura Schlessinger knew that she was being provocative with her guest, but she did not care. She ignored the response of the caller who had expressed distaste for the expletive the radio counselor was reiterating. The discussion of interracial marriage, and the specific concern her guest was sharing, did not warrant any reference to using the so-called n-word. Schlessinger’s insistence on recounting her use of the term was indisputably deliberately insulting and insensitive—and she consciously chose to do it. The “it” can only be characterized as hate speech.

Dr. Laura embarked on a commentary completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and definitely beyond her expertise. Bearing the cloak of white privilege and arrogance, she felt at ease remarking on the status of race relations after the election of the country’s first black president. Her ability to control her show, to disconnect from guests, and to make statements as if she is in the know about subjects about which she is substantially ignorant demonstrates the very definition of racism.

Schlessinger wants to have the liberty to be able to use incendiary rhetoric whenever she pleases, even when her words cross over into the area of hate speech. She made the claim that she did not call her guest the n-word; however, the tone of her echoing that word betrays her xenophobia and disrespect for the millions of people who believe that term to be derogatory, explosive, and unconscionable. At sixty-three, having spent over twenty-five years on the air, she is financially solvent and able to quit her show to avoid engaging in the necessary dialogue regarding not only her impertinence, but also her impudence. She is running away from the discussion of her actions, and she has the privilege to eschew any responsibility for her feckless behavior.

In our very racialized society, there probably should remain the perspective that the n-word cannot be spoken in the same manner by African and European Americans. It may be reduced to an unfair double standard, rather than appreciating the historical and social circumstances and contexts that necessitate the distinctions about who can say what at the present time. As a civil libertarian, I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and antagonistic towards censorship. Nevertheless, I do believe the court of public opinion analyzes what is fitting and proper to attribute to people, and the masses of people need to be ready to censure the remarks of a commentator without embracing the scourge of censoring.

What intensifies the racist juggernaut of Schlessinger’s words is her disparagement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Her comment about that organization is belittling and, again, demonstrates a depreciation of history and the celebrated role of that organization in concert with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Last year, the NAACP celebrated 100 years since its founding and the wonderful work it has done during that period to oppose the perniciousness of discrimination. Schlessinger took advantage of the recent attacks of the NAACP on conservative politics and media to throw a dart at that esteemed organization.

It is an irony that Dr. Schlessinger’s comments reveal that prejudice, stereotyping, and the paradigm of racism are alive and well in this country—especially when she seemed to be claiming that racism is illusory today and that people are taking advantage of a black president to claim that race is still a problem in the United States. As she departs from the air waves in December, let us be thankful for this lesson she has so graciously taught us!

REMEMBERING LOUIS ARMSTRONG

Recently, I was driving in my car and happened to pop into the CD player a disc of the greatest hits of Louis Armstrong. I don’t listen to music very much, but when I do, it’s usually some old gospel tunes or rhythm and blues and some pop—all, of course, from the second half of the twentieth century. Usually, I settle for a few recognizable songs, changing the selections like a couch potato with a remote in one’s hand. In a daze as I manipulated local stop signs, detours, and the scourge of young pedestrian traffic, I caught the lyrics to a song called “What Did I Do to Be So Black and Blue.”

Cold, empty bed,
Springs hard as lead,
Pains in my head,
Feel like old Ned.
What did I do
To be so black and blue?

No joys for me,
No company,
Even the mouse
Ran from my house,
All my life through
I've been so
Black and blue.

I'm so forlorn,
Life's just a thorn,
My heart is torn,
Why was I born?
What did I do to be so
Black and blue?

I'm white inside,
But that don't help my case.
'Cause I can't hide
What is on my face,
Oh! What did I do to be so
Black and blue?

What stopped me, literally, in the middle of the road was the line: “I’m white inside, but that don’t help my case.” I was floored, flabbergasted, flummoxed, and flapping my arms all at once in the little cabin of my vehicle, not knowing exactly what to do. I was aware that many black entertainers had disparaged Satchmo as being an Uncle Tom or too friendly with whites in the heart of Jim Crow America. Nevertheless, I was very fond of Pops, whose ubiquitous sweaty brow and oft caricatured soppy white handkerchief and unique gravely swoon and strong white teeth and bulging brown eyes were the thrill of audiences across the globe. How could this man, whom I was told I could perfectly imitate in high school and college after he had passed away, allow his trumpeter’s lips mouth such an ostensibly self-deprecating line?

I found myself becoming quite angry as I listened to the CD over and over again until I finally made it to a parking space at my place of employment and practically ran to my office to surf the Internet all about this gruesome folly. I had gotten upset because the audience, which I assumed was predominantly white, thunderously applauded the song as if they were impervious to its tragic meaning. I read and reread the entire lyrics and discovered the wonderful story of another musician I had loved in old movies and had just seen recently in Stormy Weather and a documentary about black bands during the Harlem Renaissance, namely Fats Waller.

Waller had a countenance that could just make you break out in instantaneous laughter and you didn’t know why. He was a gifted pianist with a knack for one-liners and for songs that could make you laugh uproariously or cry like a newborn baby! I came to feel that the song must have been partly written in jest, with a tinge of sarcasm or an ironic flair, yet intentionally and glaringly heartrending as a depiction of internalized racism. It was one of those Ah, ha, moments for me that softened my bitterness as I took some time to watch clips of Satch and Fats and Ella and Mahalia and Lena and the Duke and Count and. . . .

It’s no wonder that, during the 1950s and 1960s, the period of the classic Civil Rights Movement, many black musicians joined together to raise money for the cause. They had been and were still enduring a vicious system of structural racism that the ordinary citizen had resigned themselves to and called home. They fought it tooth and nail, and would not let it drag them down into the quagmire of fatalism and self-hatred. Rather, they repeatedly bucked the system and their music, while shortly winning the hearts of their white audiences, continually threw daggers at the heart of bigotry and ignorance.

As I watched the final clip of the aged Louie singing “Mack the Knife,” tears welled up in my eyes and my posture improved and I was compelled within myself to challenge those artists of yesteryear who belittled him as a buffoon, like the character Steppin Fetchit or Buckwheat of The Little Rascals fame. I now saw a very generous man who had lived through a lot and who had become a gentle soul in spite of a system that could make anybody embittered or suicidal or diffident. Mr. Armstrong had straitened my back—disallowing anyone to bring me so low as to feel humiliated, inferior, or broken. What a wonderful world!

MADNESS OVER A MOSQUE

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These are the marvelously prescient words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and they cannot be more relevant than today’s headline news. President Barack Obama made the mistake of appearing to support the erection of a mosque two blocks from “ground zero” in New York City. On Friday, August 13, at a White House dinner breaking the sunup-to-sundown fast during Ramadan, Obama spoke on the right of Muslims freely to practice their religion and to build a mosque on private property, even if it is in lower Manhattan. He did not advocate or endorse the building of the proposed worship and community center at the specific location near ground zero, but his hopeful remarks to Muslims a\from home and abroad in the State Dining Room was elevated to a political debate during an intensely contentious mid-term election cycle.

The current location where the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center would be constructed, 45-47 Park Place, is already in use by the Cordoba Initiative, a Muslim outreach group, for Friday prayers. Muslims are already there! And they have been there since late last year. The mission of the CI is, in part, to foster interfaith dialogue and mutual respect for all religions. The head of CI has been commended for his advocacy of religious tolerance and cultural acceptance, and many are aware of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s indefatigable efforts—including a number of Jewish civic leaders and scholars.

Countless politicians seem to think that supporting such a project a couple blocks from Ground Zero is tantamount to forfeiting their election bids. They assume that the issue is too touchy for U.S. citizens, and they denounce the venture because opinion polls signal that many are adamantly opposed to such an establishment.

When Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out against the Vietnam War and was roundly criticized by a diversity of people, he responded that he was not a “consensus leader” and did not make his decisions based upon public or popular opinion. Rather, he stated, it was better to be a “molder of consensus” than a “searcher for consensus.” Thus, he continued his opposition to the war and his support of the War on Poverty until his death by an assassin’s bullet. Such ethical decision-making is rarely seen or heard of today!

What appears to be infecting rejecters of the Muslim community center is xenophobia about the Islamic faith as well as ignorant misconstruction of the Muslim majority. This fear and misinterpretation calculatedly associate perpetrators of the attack on the World Trade Center with all Muslims. The history of racism in this country, if it teaches anything, is the story of repeatedly prejudging and making assumptions about people without any empirical evidence. It’s like the white lady who runs in and locks her door of her house at dusk because a swarthy man is about to walk pass. That lady should not project her perspective, based on anecdotal material garnered from media and personal experience, onto that man because the perpetrators of evil in those stories and individual encounters were of darker hue. Christians, because they authored the Crusades and were unconscionably lax in responding to Hitler’s genocidal remonstrations, cannot be characterized as violent marauders and anti-Semites based on such historical witnesses. Likewise, the Cordoba Initiative cannot be gainsaid because the planners are of the same faith as the murderers on 9/11!

Denying the Cordoba Initiative its fundamental right to the free exercise of their religious expression by building a vital and vibrant community center is wrong. In this instance, New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right on target when he stated characterized Obama’s words as a “clarion defense of the freedom of religion.” His words are, indeed, patriotic and aligned well with the U.S. Constitution, unlike Rick Tyler, spokesman for Newt Gingrich, who declared that putting a mosque near Ground Zero would be like “putting a statue of Mussolini or Marx (or Lenin) at Arlington National Cemetery.” Gingrich himself stated something very similar, that the location of a mosque near the World Trade Center should be opposed: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington” and “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.” These statements are ludicrous, a subtle form of hate speech, and antithetical to the principles of human decency, respect for the facts, and intelligent analysis. Sadly, the Anti-Defamation League, which I highly appreciate, has made Gingrich a strange bedfellow.

It’s nice to see Pres. Obama being a hammer rather than an anvil, a thermostat rather than a thermometer. It’s about time!

BIG BROTHER & ENCRYPTION

Yes, I own a Blackberry, as do many individuals for personal and professional use. Because the cell-phone business is highly competitive, the fact that numberless people—allegedly ninety percent of the U.S. population—own a cell phone is a bad market reality for the makers of the smartphones, Research in Motion (RIM). Why? Since there is such a glut, a surfeit, of phones in this country, RIM is compelled to go to new markets so that the company can continue to grow, make profits, and stay in front of the competition. It is a necessity to do this expansion in a capitalist economy that is cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, and based on the logic of greed.

Hence, when countries such as Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, and others, including China and Russia, balk at some of the impregnable security RIM has installed in its devices, the art of compromise comes into play. So much so, that the company must resolve the issues these countries have with the encrypted services while still having the go-ahead to enter their telecommunications electronic gadgetry industry.

We in the United States might point the finger at these countries by saying they are too conservative, repressive, and unsophisticated, but we must remember the adage that three fingers are pointing back at us. The nature of the capitalist game is to corner as much of the market niche that is possible and to work indefatigably to that end. In essence, it is to become a monopoly, like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, the former American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T), and Google, to name a few.

A monopoly can be looked at both positively and negatively. On the one hand, cornering a market or being primarily associated with a particular product is usually a marker of success. You have arrived! On the other hand, such “success” stifles competition and enslaves consumers. John Sherman, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and others are figuratively rolling around in their graves!

One aspect of the ordeal that is admirable, in this blogger’s opinion, is the power demonstrated by the threat of a ban or a boycott. In the commercial world, such threats are anathema and they usually result in repressive actions or compromise battles. At bottom, they are designed to attack sales and profits, and no company chiefs want to stare the potential of losing business and capital based on a disagreement that could be resolved. Would that peoples in the United States utilized the economic boycott in creative ways to encourage more livable wages and fairer employment practices!

In the final analysis, protection smartphone owners with doubly encrypted messaging are something worth keeping. Encroaching upon the expansionistic desires of a market giant is one thing; prohibiting placing a premium on privacy is quite another—especially when the rubric of national security is used. If governments want to spy upon their own people, not to mention other persons in their countries, through cell phones, then they should use their hired help to find ways to outsmart the manufacturers and not try to force these company leaders to deny citizenship rights and liberties to their own citizens.

HIP, HIP, HOORAY! NOW THERE ARE THREE!

As a pacifist, I appreciated the boldness of the dean of Harvard Law School when she challenged free and full access of U.S. military recruiters on campus because of the unconstitutional “don’t ask, don’t tell” decree. She had guts, and I relished her taking the U.S. Solicitor General position as the mentor for whom she clerked, Thurgood Marshall, had filled more than four decades earlier.

She will definitely add strength to the liberal, i.e., progressive, wing of the U.S. Supreme Court and, at the age of 50, will eventually take the vanguard in the quest finally, to paraphrase a biblical quotation, “to let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). The fact that Elena Kagan has not served as a judge in the past is, in my opinion, somewhat of an asset, for she will add fresh approaches to debates about issues that are currently quite prosaic in their judicial followership of thinly-veiled ideological stances. It appears also that she will not be so confined to the letter of the law that she will forget the spirit of the law.

What is simply grand about Kagan’s confirmation is that in October of this year, she will sit with two other women—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—on the bench, the largest number of that gender ever to serve on the highest court in the land!

Apart from not being a judge in the past, Kagan’s credentials are superb and speak for themselves: Princeton and Oxford Universities and Harvard Law School; clerk for Washington appeals court judge Abner Mikva and Justice Marshall; law professor at University of Chicago; special counsel to then-Sen. Joe Biden; associate counsel to Pres. Bill Clinton; and U.S. Solicitor General. Any remarks about fitness, qualifications, or unpreparedness are sheer poppycock.

EQUITY IN SENTENCING: IT'S ABOUT TIME!

Certainly, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction! The crackdown on crack cocaine that eventuated in the maltreatment and disparate sentencing of persons of color compared with users of powder cocaine was prima facie racist from its inception. That is why the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project is correct in exhorting the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to make this new law have retroactive effect. There are countless numbers of African Americans who are in prison for nonviolent offenses because of the presence of crack cocaine in their sentencing. This law is couched in terms of the future, but it should have reparative scope.

The marvelous thing about this new law, if signed by the President, is that it eliminates, for simple possession, mandatory minimums, which have forced the hands of judges who might have given lesser sentences to offenders if they had had the discretion to do so! Judges and juries can look at offenders as individuals and determine what alternatives to incarceration are available and suitable to each case. No longer is being caught possessing equivalent to a prison sentence! Of course, there are a number of drug abusers and traffickers who need to sit behind prison bars for a while, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not the old law, but the new law about to be signed by Obama.

This pending change is a true picture of democracy in action! Individuals, organizations, and institutions have repeatedly argued for the unconstitutionality and racist nature of the double standard with respect to powder and crack cocaine. The debating, petitioning, protesting, and so forth have finally paid off.

However, there are still some problems. The law significantly reduces the disparity between the two forms of cocaine, but it does not eradicate it completely. Furthermore, the law does not get rid of mandatory minimums altogether; rather, it raises the amount of possession that compels judges to levy a five- or ten-year minimum. This quantity disparity notwithstanding, the new law has the potential of reducing the prison population by 3,800, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

With caution, I submit a new day might be coming for the criminal justice system. The attempt to reduce the racial and ethnic minority disparities in sentencing will definitely have a ramifying effect upon law enforcement and indictments as well as on sentencing. The beloved community is not around the corner, so to speak, but finally some justice, fairness, and equity have found their way into the body politic. It’s about time!

AFGHANIZATION

Some folks seem to be under the impression that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are synonymous. That cannot be further from the truth! The Taliban are Afghan natives, and the members of al-Qaeda are insurgents of various national or cultural stripes. The United States should not be warring against the Taliban; rather, it should diplomatically support the Afghan government to control the cities in the southern and eastern regions so that al-Qaeda will not be able to find succor in those areas.

The sending of more troops to Afghanistan sustains an old policy that historically made little sense and continues to be foolhardy. The United States seeks to be deterministic in world affairs, and the control of the Afghan government has become the goal, it seems, rather than rooting out al-Qaeda and making sure that group does not wreak havoc upon Afghans and others in the area and among our allies. There is much confusion over what to do in the Obama Administration, and this kind of inept handling of complex issues harks back to our involvement in Vietnam.

There is something to be said about participating in conflicts from civil to international wars. What role should the United States play in helping a nation deal with internal strife or supporting one nation against another? When conflicts affect our national security directly, we certainly should be about the business of resolving the crises. However, when the linkages are not that distinct, then we have to evaluate thoroughly whether or not involvement by the United States can be singularly addressed diplomatically and without military utilization. We have such a long history of depending on the military-industrial complex to keep our economy going, and that easy reliance has a way of presaging what we will do in foreign affairs. This fallacious reasoning assails our attending to what is necessary and encourages our nation to continue disproportionately to be amassing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, to find theaters of war to use them, and to export them while deepening our national debt.

The United States and its allies have done a fine job of disrespecting President Hamid Karzai and trying to make him a puppet of Western hegemony. The people of Afghanistan have shown signs of growing disapproval of our relations with their president, and this feeling, if not fixed, can only lead to the intensification of any disaffection with our presence there. After all, we are occupiers, in a very real sense—believing that the tragedy of September 11, 2001, justifies any military escapade in which we engage.

The U.S. population must express its belief that the people of Afghanistan ought to solve their own problems. We cannot police the whole world! Besides, our oxymoronic “war on terror” is diversionary, at best, for what was required after 9/11 was certainly not declared warfare—whether it’d be in Iraq or Afghanistan—but expert police and intelligence action to thwart any future attempts at symbolic humiliation.

The hope many had for the new Obama Administration was that the failed and feckless policies of the President Bush and his cronies would be superseded by a significantly more thoughtful and effective approach. That some of the same people are surrounding Obama as surrounded Bush is far from consoling. Their hopes are not completely dashed, but how can they be realized when that tired, old adage remains true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”?

VILSACK, JEALOUS, OBAMA: LEADERS?

When the Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, was Governor of Iowa, he supported making English the official language of the state. He was not adept at addressing issues of race with sensitivity and sophistication, and this inadequacy has reared its ugly head with regards to the remarks made by Ms. Shirley Sherrod, a staffer at the USDA whom Vilsack fired for alleged racism.

Sherrod was discussing an encounter she had with a white farmer twenty-five years ago and what she learned from that experience. A conservative leader of the Tea Party campaign edited the tape and put the corrupted one on YouTube for the world to see. It made it appear Sherrod was discussing a recent episode and making racist decisions from her position of power and authority.

It’s disappointing that Vilsack was not alone in his hasty dismissal without any effort to investigate the matter. Mr. Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, who’s waged battles against the Tea Party movement, initially concurred with Vilsack and the Obama Administration’s demand for Sherrod’s resignation. However, Jealous eventually acquired the presence of mind to recant that support and encourage Vilsack to reconsider his ridiculous peremptory action. After some embarrassment and concomitant resistance, Vilsack indicated he would investigate the matter further.

This sort of acting before thinking, judging a book only by its cover or deciding without research is the type of anathema that has plagued politics forever. It appears President Obama took lessons from President Clinton, who could not deal circumspectly with the issue of gays in the military, the crackdown on crack cocaine, and the criticisms of his nominee for the Civil Rights Commission, Ms. Lani Guinier, and Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Obama fired Val Jones for past comments that had nothing to do with his position fostering environmental justice and placed in administrative advisory posts a number of individuals with whom he theoretically disagrees because it makes him appear more moderate. This drive to accommodate to the opposition rather than work diligently to persuade to one’s own side ineluctably leads to overly compromising and to challenging one’s integrity. Like Clinton, Vilsack, Jealous, and Obama have ventured down that road and must do yeoman work for restoration and redemption.

Sherrod’s remarks will in no wise reduce her ability to perform her duties, unless we allow the shenanigans of Fox News and Andrew Breitbart of the Tea Party to infect us with their routine vitriol. The USDA can use in its rural development director position a person of the caliber of Sherrod, who recognized a problem she had nearly three decades ago and learned from that experience to teach others to be inclusive and anti-racist. In all of this, she is the true leader!

ARROGANT DELAYS!

It takes a lot of gall and moral turpitude to ignore the cries of heads of households and their children for sufficient monies to pay their expenses, keep food on the tables, and maintain their physical and mental health. To filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits during an economic crisis second only to that of the 1930s is antithetical to any code of decency or professional ethics. Couple those misanthropic tendencies with the selfish concern over winning in a political election, and filibustering is downright objectionable!

The economy is not rebounding fast enough, and people are still losing their jobs or had to take jobs, usually part-time ones, in which they are considerably underemployed. This condition does not take into account the many who cannot find work at all as well as those who have become so discouraged that they are not even attempting to look anymore. Rather than search for a solution in some distant tomorrow or completely overlook the dire straits in which people are living, action needs to be taken immediately to ensure these households are getting unemployment benefits to help them to sustain their families and themselves.

I agree with the complaint that government spending is not the only solution to the crisis and that we must assiduously work to find ways to cut the budget. However, when the choice is between increasing our national debt and mollifying the plight of the poor, the favored answer is to relieve the latter’s concerns—hands down! No vaunted or pompous discussion about fiscal responsibility can substitute for the necessity of the country’s attending to the emergent needs of its citizens.

Ultimately, the United States must get out of the business of war and the trillion dollars already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds directed toward such violent endeavors could be utilized to help us get a better grasp on the socioeconomic causes of poverty, generally, and on how to respond proactively to alleviate the crisis in unemployment and lack of income in the short-term.

To paraphrase Martin Luther as he spoke to the national congress in the city of Worms in 1528: “Here we should stand; we cannot do otherwise, so help us God!”

CORRELATIONS: UNEMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL GRACES

When the employment rate goes unchanged for months, and the number of individuals still seeking jobs declines, is it not understandable why there is a recourse to activities that are not wholesome, productive, and life-affirming? How arrogant is it to expect people who are scarcely making ends meet for themselves and their families, if at all, to remain psychologically well-adjusted and socially responsible? Who is really at fault when a person under such duress and in the public or domestic arena behaves in ways that are antinomian, violent, and ostensibly misanthropic? In this particular sitz im leben, if you will, how can we rightfully indict and convict only the individual, while the causes of miscreant conduct relate to inadequate income, perennial political powerlessness, availability of unhealthy substances, poor neighborhood schools, and no remedy in sight? These are societal forces that are virtually out of the control of the individual.

Certainly, it is difficult to ascertain how to hold both the individual and the society accountable for civilian and criminal offenses. Some may argue that the judicial system is unable to make this type of accommodation, but I disagree. In the 1980s, that very system was allowed to engage in racial discrimination by counting possession of crack cocaine as worse than the possession of powder cocaine–causing an intensification of the crackdown, so to speak, on urban blacks and incarcerating them in record disparate numbers. That policy was wrong, but it demonstrates that the courts can be made to consider alternate ways of attributing and distributing blame!

Black youth between the ages of sixteen and nineteen have been experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of forty-five percent. What type of nation are we that permits pernicious poverty to permeate the core of tomorrow’s adults? The desperation they must feel, the sense of hopelessness and the realization they may not earn a decent living in the foreseeable future, cannot help but incline them towards misadventures antithetical to community and productivity in order barely to survive and sustain their families. A society that is silent and unhelpful when people are experiencing such dire straits is guilty of tyranny and must be held commensurately responsible. After all, it is execrable our nation tolerates this persistent declination of a part of the population, yet responds to their plight by imprisoning a disproportionate number of their young men.

The sheer numbers of people who are poor and who are locked up show that the problem of social dislocation and illegal activity pervades all of human cultures and groupings. Clearly, there is no genetic predisposition here. What is consonant among these categories of people is the interlocking, interdependent nature of economic depression and lawlessness. Because of this mutuality, we as a society must find a way to penalize structures and processes, policies and services, that conspire to alienate people, who resultantly acquit themselves adversely among their neighbors. The violence to which humans in terrible and urgent circumstances resort are symptomatic of the multiple and cumulative causes wrought upon them in systemic ways.

It is a common ethical question whether prisoners of war are generally excused for giving information to the enemy when they are being tortured and tormented by their captors. Many would claim that autonomy is a prerequisite of moral decision-making, and POWs usually have their liberties severely truncated–thereby exculpating them from blame or guilt. Certainly, groups of people such as unemployed African American youth are held hostage by institutionalized racism and the capitalist juggernaut of class separation, so much so that the prosecution of their lives into violence only mirrors the wreckage wrought upon them by the structural and procedural dynamics in which they live. They are similarly constrained as prisoners of war and cannot be expected to maintain a moral compass executed by those whose incomes are stable, habitats are safe, and participation in the body politic unencumbered.

A society worth its mettle assiduously works to eliminate poverty and to provide equitable opportunities for its members to satisfy their existential needs. In this regard, the probity of our country is, metaphorically, insufficiently ironed. And what we promote, we permit!

WILL THE REAL BYRD PLEASE FLY RIGHT?!

It is always quite challenging to figure out the trajectory of a person’s life. The choices of what to include/exclude and what to criticize/laud are commonly burdensome and muddled. Arguably, one of the most challenging issues to grapple with is when the recently deceased held a position in one’s past that is morally wrong and still has debilitating effects upon the body politic. Such is the case with the esteemed, legendary, and oftentimes revered legislator, Sen. Robert C. Byrd.

Byrd was a Democrat from the South who endorsed the subjugation of African Americans through Jim Crow Laws: a Dixiecrat. In congruity with this political posture, Byrd shored up his racial bigotry by being a member of the most notorious hate group in the United States, namely, the Ku Klux Klan. How can any individual who believes in the intangible ideal of the so-called American Dream and who holds onto the conviction that a person’s skin color does not determine that person’s character indulge in the activities of racial hatemongers? Either one would have to be unusually forgiving or one would have to be dismissive of the extent of that person’s commitment to the dehumanization of fellow human beings.

In 2001, Byrd used the N-word to discuss his upbringing and he confessed to being a member of the KKK. He indicated both the use of the racially insensitive descriptor and participation in the hate group were mistakes. At the time, Byrd was already an old man at 83. In his mid-to-late twenties, Byrd stumped for membership in the KKK because he believed it promoted traditional American values. In addition, during the same decade of the 1940s, he adamantly opposed desegregation of the armed forces. During the now-celebrated Civil Rights Movement, already well into his forties, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is a man who seemed to be fairly clearheaded about his view of black people as unworthy of first-class citizenship. Before that turbulent decade ended, Byrd stood tall in opposition to the nomination of the first black justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e., Thurgood Marshall.

Certainly, individuals can evolve, and the kleagle for the KKK surely did. He supported President Lyndon Johnson’s administration’s escalation of the Vietnam War, but vigorously challenged President George W. Bush’s executive decision to go to war in a country not responsible for the terrorism of September 11, 2001. As a thoroughgoing pacifist, I found myself rooting for such swinging of the U.S. Constitution, albeit unsuccessfully, against the unmitigated gall of Bush’s to arrogate to himself powers of the executive branch of government that do not exist.

When looking back over a person’s life, it is probably best and fairest to take into account major commitments, reforms, regrets, failures, and achievements—for all render the most realistic picture. Those who resort to hagiographic, rosy, and doctored depictions do a disservice to the public—squeamishness aside. Byrd, a boy from a poor Appalachian coal-mining family, orphaned at one, the pork-barrel “dean of the Senate” who served 51 years, as well as three terms in the House of Representatives, was a man with many flaws, great oratorical skills, who brought dignity into the chambers, and, for what it is worth, all irony aside, was dubbed the “conscience of the Senate.”

VIOLENCE BY ANOTHER NAME

When we think about violence in our society, we are quick to talk about physical violence such as assault, domestic abuse, rape, shooting, stabbing, fisticuffs, terrorism, warfare, and so forth. We have been socialized to think of violence in these terms. In addition, we are also prone immediately to credit such violence to the individual and to absolve communities or systems from any responsibility or accountability whatsoever. We are not astute when it comes to dealing with forms of violence that are covert and subtle, i.e., structural, procedural, and subsidiary. The lack of opportunities, information, community policing, social services, employment, justice in the courts, and so forth invalidate the claim that violence is individual and not societal in nature.

Just because we are unable to find an easy fix to address these deficiencies does not exculpate us from the responsibility. Whereas it is challenging for us not to separate the players in an armed robbery into merely direct perpetrators and victims, that is exactly what we must do in order to execute fairness and equity in the land. We don’t know how to do it, so we lock up the perpetrators, force them sometimes to engage in restorative justice programs, and continue to humiliate them for the rest of their lives–as if their criminal activities happened in a vacuum!

What needs to be done? We need to find ways to prevent violence by teaching alternatives to it as well as by addressing and redressing the multiple and cumulative causes that make resorts to violence seem palpable and necessary. More research should be done in connecting the dots between impoverished neighborhoods and criminal activity disproportionately numbered. Economic strife, political disengagement, familial discord, illness, and other plights conspire to distort the affected person’s thinking and consequently to compel or make easier the engagement of that person in miscreant or illicit activity. These issues–the stressors of the economy, politics, family, and sickness–inevitably point to the involvement of those institutions fundamentally responsible for these poor life changes and bad choices. The heads of local businesses, elected officials, relatives, friends, health care centers. law enforcement personnel, public school principals and teachers, etc., must come together to address the intensification of violence, particularly by youth and young adults, within the community.

There are a few individuals who have been proactive in this type of cause for many years, but many, many more people, from working professionals to unemployed citizens, need to come to the table and enter into the discussions and participate in the action items in order to improve people’s lot and to stem the growing stalk of violence. Summer is upon us and, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated it was preceded by a winter of delay. We always tend to wait until the last minute to start to get nervous about how the rise in air temperature might affect groups of folks in the public arena. By then, it is too late and many lives have been lost. Having some type of coalition of the above is needed to take a holistic approach to what ails the young ones and contributes to their seasonal blues. The fact of the matter is that the problems are perennial and do not ebb and flow whether the temperature’s 100 degrees or minus 15. Despair is ubiquitous; it is not time sensitive. Every day is replete with moments of seizure to make real the promises of democracy. Carpe Diem! Si Se Puede!

Dr. Benjamin E. Mays said it well in his poem, “God’s Minute.”

I’ve only just a minute,
Only sixty seconds in it.
Forced upon me, can’t refuse it,
Didn’t seek it, didn’t choose it,
But it’s up to me to use it.
I must suffer if I lose it,
Give an account if I abuse it,
Just a tiny little minute,
But eternity is in it.

ABSURDITY: DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE

There are many countries that intermittently and consistently violate the fundamental human rights of citizens. The United States of America is not exempt from this breach of humanity: American history is replete with such denials and this country continues to wrestle with the manner it will relate to certain categories of people. When our nation criticizes another country for unjust treatment of its populace, it surely must take the brunt of criticisms about its own shortcomings with respect to human rights. But such reciprocity does not affect the validity of the criticisms we make of other countries for its repression. In other words, guilty silence is not an option when a country is clearly trouncing upon the dignity and worth of its citizens.

Were each country to keep silent when another country is unduly repelling its citizenry, we would individually and collectively be endorsing the inhumane treatment of persons. Equally absurd is when a nation seeks to condone its oppression by arguing that it is being singled out by the international community or by another country or by individuals while human rights are being violated all over the planet. The result of such a claim is to stifle any criticism whatsoever, regardless of its validity or veracity. This type of claim is a logical fallacy of the first degree, and it does not excuse the guilty party because of false conversions, equivocations, and hypotheses contrary to the facts.

A major tenet of international relations, from the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights to the classic just war theory, is proportionality. A person or group that has limited means of demonstrating its position should not be overwhelmed by an opposing person or group that has comparatively unlimited means. Simply put, it is not a fair fight. When a citizen throws a rock at a police officer and is met with bullet fire, a serious violation of this principle of reciprocity has occurred. No discussion of security or protection is sufficient to justify such a disproportionate use of force. It might be challenging to find options to deal with pesky opponents, but wiping them out with a use of force that obliterates them is immoral, offensive, and prosecutorial—regardless of the social arena.

What happened in Tiananmen Square where the demonstrator stood in from of a tank is a case in point. The tanker could have bulldozed or blasted the protestor while the world watched, but did not. Doing so would have been inhumane. The demonstrator in Arizona who was gunned down because of hitting a guardsman with a stone clearly breached proportionality. And the killing of defenseless Palestinians by Israeli soldiers is likewise unconscionable. No puerile logical fallacy erases the perniciousness of the atrocity. Period!

POLITICAL SPILLAGE

The unexpected BP oil spill fiasco of April 20 has placed the Obama Administration in a precarious position. Anything that does not stem the flow of oil, avoid environmental catastrophe, and make the oil company pay for damages would be interpreted as inaction that compares to FEMA and the Bush Administration’s dilatoriness at the brink and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These two situations were utterly distinct—given that the course of the hurricane was predictable and its potential damage knowable prior to its hitting land. The oil spill was not a natural disaster, but, rather, an accident that caught the country off guard, despite the fact BP had cut corners and was unprepared to act promptly if such an accident were to occur. Hence, the comparisons are unfair and injudicious toward President Obama.

But the political chicanery that is taking place regarding the oil mishap is to be expected, since this year involves an election cycle that will influence the national election campaign two years from now. So, Obama has to appear that he is in control, knows what is going on, cares about what is happening by frequently visiting the scene of the confluence of oil and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and is not going to let BP off the hook, so to speak, in order to salvage the gains the Democratic Party attained in 2008. His speech on Tuesday night, June 15, was such a political move and, on the whole, he succeeded in giving the impression that he was on top of things and was holding BP’s feet to the fire.

The speechifying was typical Obamaesque, but the results are yet to be determined. The plan to make BP set up a fund of $20 billion over the next four years to pay for claims made by citizens and to establish another account to compensate oil rig workers laid off because of the moratorium on deepwater drilling over the next six months has spawned much criticism over government takeover of industry and has also engendered solipsistic remarks about unleashing the juggernaut of socialism. It appears that our government, particularly the executive and legislative branches, is unable to come together amid crises to protect the lives of its citizens and to avert ecological ruin. We are so caught up in our partisanship and our ideology-based, ad hominem attacks that we cannot objectively ascertain the extent of the damage or discern what steps need to be taken to restore the Gulf, the bordering states, and the people adversely affected.

At this writing, the spillage and the political shenanigans continue while lives are deprecated, the Gulf is sullied, the wildlife is being destroyed, and families are hurt and increasingly at risk for further injury. Who’s accountable? We all are. This is not a time of division and cherry picking; it is time for salvific action, resolution, and the establishment of safeguards to ensure this devastation will never occur again!

BENJAMIN L. HOOKS (1925-2010): ADVOCATE FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

The death of the Rev. Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks is a clarion call to reinvigorate our support for the disadvantaged and underrepresented in our society. Hooks, a lawyer, judge, and executive secretary of the largest civil rights organization in the country, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), was a stalwart defender of the so-called least of these and a stanchion against systemic oppression and injustice as well as personal prejudice and xenophobia. His receipt of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award in the land, is a fitting testimonial to his persistent battle to "let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Hooks was born in 1925 in Memphis, Tennessee, to a prosperous family whose livelihood was photography. Hooks was taught hard work, discipline, and self-respect at an early age, and these were demonstrated in his life through academic achievement, military service, ordained ministry, and time on the bench. As he ascended professionally in his life despite the strictures of Jim Crow segregation, he never forgot about folks locked in the poorhouse and suffering the indignities of structural racism and the malaise of social ostracism. That is why he left his position as a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission to become the executive secretary and CEO of the NAACP in 1977. He was able to revitalize the historic organization and had doubled the membership by the time he resigned in 1992.

Not enough has been written about this great man, who did a lot to continue the struggle against inequality while encouraging young African Americans in particular, and all Americans in general, to become the best persons they can be through hard work, discipline, and self-respect. What goes around, comes around. Thank you, Dr. Hooks!

TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE?: OBAMA'S SUMMIT

The words of the prophets Micah and Isaiah reverberate down through the centuries:

“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

When I first learned of President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Summit, I was moderately overjoyed. I let out an exhilarated sigh—so relieved was I to discover collaborative, international efforts ostensibly to disarm and extirpate stockpiles of atomic bombs and other weaponry. Time and experience have taught me never to be wholly optimistic about anything in the political arena—particularly with regard to foreign affairs. Sure enough, I was missing a very critical goal of the Summit: to develop an effective approach to ensure that nuclear fissile materials will not ever land in the hands of nations, heads of state, and terrorists determined to wreak havoc on this planet. Whereas I believe the Nuclear Security Summit could be a remarkable and revolutionary opportunity, I am cynical or jaded enough to believe the Summit will be more grandstanding than groundbreaking, more symbolic and gimmicky than substantive and galvanizing.

Just as wealthy people can scarcely be persuaded to relinquish their perceived economic security voluntarily, the leaders of sovereign nations are similarly constrained from reducing nuclear storehouses and other weapons of mass destruction. No citizenry will take the lead in authorizing their official representatives unilaterally to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. It is clear to me that the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 is to eradicate the stockpiles, and there has been no genuine attempt to act accordingly heretofore by the signatories to that agreement, namely, the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, and China. Certainly, there have been cuts in nuclear warheads from the end of the Second World War up to now by these countries; however, none of these states is willing to singularly take that step. And this Summit will not be the vehicle through which such a goal will more deliberately be fulfilled.

Perhaps, the holding of such a Summit is placed under the wrong jurisdiction. The United States has disobeyed the Geneva Accords on a regular basis, and the government has often looked upon the United Nations Security Council with disdain. How can we serve as a model for the other countries to stick to some agreement when we have not stuck to our own obligations in the international realm for countless decades and generations? It smacks of arrogance and disregard for law to trample on treaties with one foot and crack down on fellow disobeyers with the other foot, so to speak. The five oldest nations with nuclear weaponry should relinquish their questionable oversight of the NPT and surrender their authority to the Security Council of the United Nations. There is the proper body to levy sanctions upon those who are not in compliance with the spirit of both nuclear disarmament and stoppage of uranium enrichment programs or construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I would like to applaud Obama for launching this renewal of promises made in the past. However, will the group go beyond mere verbal excoriations of Korea, Iran, and Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withdrew from attendance at the Summit, and insist that they, along with India and Pakistan, join with the other 189 nations that are signatories of the NPT? The Summit will not amount to anything beyond a disingenuous show of cooperation if there is no strengthening of accountability and penalties that would make an impact and matter to those incompliant.

I am aware that my desire for a non-nuclear world is not going to happen in my lifetime. However, as long as my memory cords lengthen and my diaphragm rises and falls, I will work tirelessly to realize a world in which international conflict is resolved by peaceful means and nations will study war no more!

HEALTH INEQUALITIES. WHO CARES?

Why are American racial and ethnic minorities disproportionately numbered among all the major health issues and diseases in our country? Is it because the stereotypes are true: they are lazy, unintelligent, reckless, and hedonistic? Is it because they are unemployable, uninsurable, and uneducable? Is it because they are ensconced in unhealthy behaviors endemic to their culture and would risk being ostracized were they to contravene or criticize those conventions in any way? Of course, not!

Health care in the United States is another bastion of institutionalized racism. Historically for decades, the health care system was racially segregated and people of color, particularly African Americans, were forced to seek service at a “colored” facility, even if none was nearby and even during emergency situations. Today, we’re not far from that dehumanization. The millions who lack health insurance, many of whom are persons of color, do not have access to the medical care they routinely need and are egregiously treated as second- and third-class citizens. In my opinion, it is unconscionable for a citizen of this country to be denied the fundamental means of survival because they lack participation in a structure that deliberately discriminates against certain categories of people and types of work—never mind those who are temporarily or perpetually jobless!

President Obama’s health care reform was never intended to fix a broken system. Thus, to put it in other words, it was scarcely designed to insure everyone, let alone significantly reduce medical costs. Instead of focusing on those perennially unable to secure basic medical care, Obama and Congresspersons elected to improve the circumstances of middle- and working-class folks, without regard to the most disadvantaged. The probity of a nation is determined by how the poorest are treated or served. The United States has a bad moral record in this regard. It is like everyone complaining about the skyrocketing cost of health care, yet turning blind eyes to millions to whom the doors of hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies are tightly shut. I know my tendency to advocate for not only socialized medicine, but also completely free health access to all citizens, is far to the left of most people who self-characterize as liberal, but the more moderate stance of a single payer system has also been relegated to the radical junk heap.

There’s a part of me that laughs raucously over the attempts beginning in the 1990s to reduce the racial disparities in the health care system, first by the year 2000 and then by the year 2010. As the Center for Multicultural Education held various health symposiums and even a health conference in 2004, I tried not to be cynical or pessimistic over the possibility of success. I knew realistically that social structures, processes, and policies in the United States were hopelessly and inveterately ill-suited for such an appreciative overhaul. Besides, the goal of reducing health care disparities for minorities was never elevated to a federal endeavor, for we are not equipped, nor do we have the desire or will, to address and redress the plight of the oppressed and the indigent.

April is National Minority Health Month. My laughter is nothing short of cacophonous. Who cares?

Hillary vs. Barack on Health Care

Putting the First Lady in charge of health care reform in 1993 was a big mistake and set the stage for a Republican resurgence at the mid-term elections. It is probably never wise to place such a hot-button issue into the hands of the spouse of the president of the United States, for it is limiting to the latter's Cabinet and advisers, and makes it quite challenging to oppose whatever type of reform the bed partner would be espousing. Furthermore, it is rather distracting--especially when there are equally important issues with which to deal.

Hillary's plan was quite basic and progressive: develop a National Health Board to oversee the health care industry and improve access to quality health care for most people. However, the prospect of increased government restrictive involvement and monitoring of the health care system simply put conservatives in an uproar as well as sparked the creative development of the "Harry and Louise" commercials. Perceptions that the Clinton National Health Reform Bill, if passed, would levy higher taxes and seemingly more bureaucracy upon the average consumer, employee, or citizen really killed the bill and made room for a Republican takeover. Republicans were not the only ones criticizing the plan; major Democratic Congresspersons were outspoken against Clinton's health care reform initiative--some to the right and some to the left.

The defeat of Clinton's national health care campaign was such a tragedy that the issue did not resurface with some locomotive steam until the presidential race of 2008 and the speedy ascendancy of Barack Obama. During the first few months of his presidency, Obama talked strongly for health reform without really articulating specifically what he was seeking. The initial support for a bill that included a "public option" soon waned after sustained criticism from moderates and the Right. Obama never took up the mantle of a single-payer plan, because such a position would have erroneously been positively associated with the 1993 Clinton Plan. However, only people to the left of Hillary advocated such a position.

Whereas Hillary vehemently attacked the health insurance industry, Barack has been more conciliatory and interested in courting the support from across the political party lines--even if it means considerable compromise. This enervation of his strong campaign voice for health reform could clearly be seen in his importunately pleading first State of the Union Address. During the course of his first presidential year, the Harry and Louise ads resurfaced and the cacophony of Tea Party gatherings parlayed people's fears of the complicated proposals into more national media visibility.

The approach of both Hillary and Barack can be paralleled as to ways not to prosecute national health care reform. The former was too blatant and condescending; the latter has been too mealy-mouthed and consciously sycophantic. In a very real sense, at least symbolically, the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a consistent advocate for health care reform, spelled the fastening of the window of opportunity afforded to the new president during his honeymoon.

Will we get a bona fide national health care reform legislation during the Obama Administration with at least a public option, if not a single-payer system? Not on your or my life! And that's about the size of it: our lives are cheapened and jeopardized by the failure.

The Nonsense of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

While an assistant professor of religious studies at Missouri State and pastor of Pitts Chapel United Methodist Church in Springfield, I wrote a piece in The News-Leader entitled, "U.S. Discriminates Against Gays" (1/29/1993, p. 6A). Here is what appeared in print.

"The opposition to the new president's [Bill Clinton's] desire to lift the ban against homosexuals n the military is reminiscent of support of the ridiculous exclusion of African Americans and women from the service ranks in our recent past.

"Whereas the dynamics are somewhat different in each case, the negative responses to the inclusion of others who are characterized or labeled or lumped together as different or strange (or "queer") belong to the same genre: ignorance, stupidity, fear of unfamiliarity and change, and the complex of superiority.

"The question of sexual preference that is posed to a person who would like to enter the armed forces should be abolished--just as the question of race and gender should be. This is to say that a person's sexuality is that person's business and should not be considered as a factor in that person's ability to execute one's duties.

"Because of the stereotypes and prejudices justified by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a homosexual person is regarded as having no other dimensions of personality other than homosexuality.

"It is the result of these biases that might make some homosexuals outspoken and public about their sexual preference, but it does not characterize all who are homosexual in orientation, as it does not characterize all who are heterosexual.

"Given people's prejudices, lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military is not a simple matter. The expectations of those who are homosexual should not be any different than the expectations of those who are not.

"Many persons condemn homosexuality and transfer dislike upon homosexuals because of some biblical understanding of God's hatred of and Paul's distaste for homosexuality. But it is not clear whether the immorality of Sodom of Gomorrah is sexual in natural and whether the criticism of homosexuality therein is the irrefutable divine word or the inexorable contemporaneous cultural prohibitions to which biblical writers were assimilated.

"Nevertheless, denying homosexuals the right to participate in the military is discrimination at its worst and should not be tolerated by people who enjoy the benefits of democracy because they are white, male, and have a sexual orientation or preference that is not gay!"

Seventeen years later, my position has only grown stronger. It is way past the time when this country should remove any barriers to equal opportunity from anyone's path. A person's sexual orientation should not mute, ostracize, or otherwise interfere with that persons access to the structures, processes, and services of the society, and it should not shield anyone from the dislike or uncomfortableness of others. Rather, homosexuals are full citizens and must be accorded all of the rights and privileges granted to other citizens; discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons along with their allies should not be tolerated one iota in the body politic. Once and for all, we must abolish any forced silence upon homosexuals in the military and remove any and all of the restrictions placed upon them. It is scandalous to our humanity that we have been so hostile, xenophobic, and homophobic in our addressing this issue!

Obama and Health Care

When it came to health care in Pres. Obama's first "State of the Union" address, I was perched on the edge of my seat. I was hoping he was going to say something that I longed to hear: "let's get busy passing a bill in Congress that has a public option." It did not occur. Instead, he spoke in general terms about "the plan" and asked for both sides of the aisle to initiate some kind of reform since they are so close. No mention of public option for our health care reform. As a matter of fact, the only reference to public and health came when he talked about infectious diseases in foreign countries!

The problem with the current administration as it pertains to health care is the fact that it began on the wrong foot. Obama should have insisted that his Democratic colleagues in Congress write a health care reform bill that incorporated a single-payer plan. Instead, it ratcheted down its progressive agenda, which was so popular during the campaign season, and substituted a feckless and impotent compromise that failed nevertheless to win Republican support! Obama did not have a mandate to kowtow to Republicans, curry their favor, and enervate his legislative agenda. He was not elected to engage in endless concessions to the losing party in order to appear winsome or just to get any old thing passed so he could claim some kind of victory, however disingenuous and insubstantial.

I refrain from being too captious in my remarks about Obama on health care, because I, too, have done some acquiescing. For I have believed at the very least throughout my adult life in some manifestation of socialized medicine, i.e., a government-owned and -sponsored health system in which doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc., are employed and paid by the federal government. In my more prescient moments, I have advocated for a health care system that is not only a right for every citizen, but also free to the consumer. Of course, I have not been naive enough to believe that it would happen in the short run, but I have prophesied that it could happen piecemeal in the long run.

I will continue to speak out for a public option as I did during the early Clinton years, although I articulated a more socialist policy. I look forward to the debate!

Tribute to Howard Zinn (1922-2010)

One of my favorite teachers cum mentor and friend was Howard Zinn. While in my doctoral program at Boston University in the spring semester of 1986, I took an elective with him entitled "The Politics of History." Each student had to develop a project that showed how a particular aspect of history occurred, how it was covered during the time, and then how it should have been covered. It was an eye-opening experience! He subtly guided us, but we each felt we were completely free to give our perspectives.

I took the course because I knew of his past: that he had taught at Spelman, the historically black college for women in Atlanta; that he had supported young people, teenagers and young adults in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) as they waged battle against the Jim Crow laws primarily in the South; that he had been an anarchist for a while, but was earnest about the marginalization of American Indians, Latinos, and African Americans historically and contemporaneously; that he had written the vastly popular text, A People's History of the United States, just a few years earlier; and that many people did not like him because of his polemics against the reactionary nature of our political system and the oppression and exploitation endemic to the capitalist system. During a part of his tenure at B.U., he was denied raises and merit pay as his colleagues because of his candor and his progressivism.

One of the attributes I liked most about Zinn was his stick-to-itiveness, i.e., his unwavering commitment to and solidarity with those discriminated against by the structures, processes, and policies of our society and by ignorant, xenophobic individuals afraid of true justice, equity, and peace. He was what is called an infracaninophile: someone who empathizes with the underdog. In creative ways, he maintained this perspective throughout his adult life, writing for the last time in a recent edition of The Nation (February 1, 2010) his captious views on where the Obama administration is headed.

Regardless of where a person is politically or socioeconomically, Howard Zinn is a stellar role model in trying to forge the best possible society and world. As one of the titles of his books declares, "You can't be neutral on a moving train!" Zinn spoke up when others saw unfairness, but had not the will to seek to change it. Sure, he sometimes waxed radical and revolutionary, but he had a bountiful and courageous heart to compel people to beat their swords into plowshares and the spears into pruninghooks and study war no more. Although critical of pacifists, he became increasingly sympathetic to their cause in the face of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. In a very real sense, he was a rare prophet in our times--one who would not mince any words that revealed our inhumanity to other human beings.

Howard Zinn will be sorely and profoundly missed in our public discourse. But there are many of his proteges who must now take up his mantle and legacy of progressive and compassionate leadership before, I dare say, it is too late!

BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

A year into the presidency of Barack Obama, I am quite disappointed. Let it be said from the outset that I supported Obama's candidacy the most in the caucus and primary season and promoted him to others after the Democratic National Convention. Also, let me hasten to add that I did not like Obama's inattention to the plight of the poor, his brutality with regards to Afghanistan, i.e., finding and killing Osama bin Laden, and his emphasis on personal response to the near exclusion of speaking out against racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination and xenophobia that still systemically plague the structures, processes, and policies of our society. I lauded his assertiveness with respect to the brokenness of the health care system, and I truly anticipated with some optimism his tackling this goal, which has been a genuine conundrum heretofore among presidents since the first have of the twentieth century.

To be fair, President Obama inherited a lot of difficult problems produced and spurned by the George W. Bush Administration: deep recession, war in Iraq, international scorn of the United States, growing unemployment, clandestine activities, etc. Any person ascending to the White House would have a tough row to hoe. Generally speaking, Obama has held up pretty well considering those scarcely surmountable challenges, but there are some issues regarding tack and substance I am compelled to criticize.

In my opinion, withdrawing from Iraq in a timely manner was something he emphasized during his campaign but never really pursued since taking office. Retaining defense personnel was clue enough that he would relinquish swift accomplishment of that goal and never consider remove U.S. presence entirely from that country. Furthermore, I did not give my endorsement to the belief that withdrawing forces from Iraq automatically meant we should focus on a war against the Taliban and al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was not an advocate of going into Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. I believe in exhausting all avenues of diplomacy and dialogue, and I adamantly oppose revenge killing of any kind. Besides, now, over eight years after the tragedy of 9/11, the purpose of avenging it no longer seems clear or understandable. What is needed is better security by the police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ensure such devastating loss of life does not happen in the United States at the hands of terrorists again. Collaboration with allies and the international community as a whole should work to sabotage any attempt to harm Americans in foreign lands.

The United States and the world could eliminate poverty, hunger, and curable diseases with consistent, concentrated, and continuous effort. The ability is indisputable; the will is curiously questionable. These three interrelated crises are used in dastardly political ways that fly in the face of any propaganda about the goals of peace and goodwill to humanity. It seems we do not want to have a thriving international community where countries are self-sufficient for the most part and no country is belittled, humiliated, or isolated. I am not discussing an unrealistic panacea or utopia, but, rather, a realistic and ethical global society. I do not hear much difference in the language of Obama that defies the traditional folderol about ostensibly protecting national security interests.

A proponent of a universal, government-run, virtually free health care system, I was encouraged by Obama's campaign promise radically to transform the current debacle and provide health insurance and equitable access to quality health care for everyone. Once in office, Obama has kowtowed to the wishes of moderates, independents, and conservatives to the point where he has betrayed his own 2003 endorsement of a type of public option, the single-payer plan. Reform of the health care system as we know it today must include affordable access to quality care for the indigent--without question. Any reform worthy of its name has to overhaul the system so that the 48 million people without access to the best medical care available obtains inexpensive, or even free, ingress into preventive and ongoing care. It appears that if any bill comes out of Congress and placed in the Oval Office, it will be unrecognizable in comparison to Obama's rhetoric since 2003. The mandate given to him to transform the outrageous, intransigent health care industry in this country will not at all be met.

Whereas the Republican victory regarding the Senate seat vacated by the deceased Edward Kennedy was not altogether unexpected and does not foretell the outcomes of the midterm elections this fall, the dissatisfaction over the work of President Obama and his administration cannot help but to play a role in the political arena today. Record-high unemployment, job losses, a Vietnam-like parallel in Afghanistan, and an ineffective Congress must drastically be addressed in order to fulfill the promises the excited populace cheered for in 2008.

Pres. Obama has the opportunity on January 27 to begin to make those necessary changes. He needs to return to the promises he pronounced during his campaign and surrender his efforts to soft-pedal distinctions between the two major political parties. He should, at the very least, stick with his priorities expressed during the lead-up to taking office and claim his place at the vanguard of the movement for fundamental changes in the way we have been doing business. I await his message with hope, and with fear and trepidation.

Dissent vs. Treason

I do not assert that any form of dissent against one's citizenship country is a direct line to treason. I understand the argument that trying to undermine the legitimacy and existence of the country where one is a citizen is a treasonous act. However, dissenting against the policies and perspectives, the structures and processes, of one's country and seeking to transform them, are honorable endeavors. This viewpoint is not based on the founding of the United States, as some try to claim to appease others and to enervate concerns about treason. Dissent is an invaluable right in a democratic republic, and it is a vital part of civic engagement and the political process.

One of the major problems in our public discourse is that people resort to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, especially when they are unable to discover any substantive way to disagree with another person's point of view. Seeking to discredit another individual rather than building a case against what that person asserts or does is simply disingenuous. People are going to engage in that illogical process continually; what we must do is to point out the ignorance, obtuseness, and puerility of it.

There are a number of policies and approaches of the Obama Administration with which I disagree. For example, I am an advocate of pacifism and nonviolent diplomacy in resolving internatonal conflict; consequently, I am opposed to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In addition, I believe we should address and redress the plight of the poor; consequently, I disagree with claiming merely to attend to the bolstering of the middle class and remaining impervious to the debilitating conditions of the indigent. While I feel strongly about these matters, I am not interested in personally attacking those who disagree with me. Rather, I seek to persuade them of the folly of their thought and action, because my ultimate goal is to have the ends and the means cohere (i.e., use peaceful means to reach peaceful ends) and to elimate homelessness, hunger, lack of shelter, inaccessible health care, inadequate education, unemployment, underemployment, and disease that undermine life chances and cause the resort to crime, violence, drug abuse, sex, and other symptoms, or manifestations, of hopelessness and despair.

When there are meaningful disagreements with the direction of government entities, many recourses abound that can effectuate change and steer trends in a different way. Organizing people in such multiple and variegated efforts is the beauty of democracy. Putting people down, engaging in rumors, deceptions, and lies, and concealing information and facts are anathema to the political process--even though a number of public officials and civic leaders participate in those kinds of activities. In my opinion, people who resort to such dissembling, chicanery, and hyperbole are actually behaving treasonously, and those who do not call them out on the carpet for it may also be treasonably quiescent!

Let's be clear about the nobility of dissent and the ignobility of treason. The ignominy of the latter is just as great as the probity of the former. Not to make this distinction is the kind of silence that is betrayal!