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!