A More Perfect Union

Before the American Revolution people on the colonies would speak of the rights of Englishmen.

The great leap the founding fathers were willing to make with the U.S. Constitution was support of a paternalistic system that did not deem property as the great legitamizer for voting and other privileges.

Germans, Scots, some French, free Africans and varied people of mixed races gained their rights by helping to create this nation.

Still, it took more than a century for women to constitutionally evolve to full personhood. It has taken twice as long for various ethnic, racial, religious and immigrant minorities to approach that status, and for many, it remains an elusive goal.

You do not hear many people who appreciate egalitarian ideals talking about class struggles, reigning in the courts, or restrictions of hard fought and hard won rights.  People who remember being ignored, structurally underserved, and socially subordinated to the privileged do not look back on those times fondly.

The Irish rose out of their service in the Civil War. Women gained theirs through suffrage movements over 50 years, and grew it through liberating actions of the 20th Century. Italians and various Eastern Europeans emerged from  two World Wars with a bit more of it. Jews gained it through horror, hardship and determination.

Negros who became African-Americans and then just black, native Americans from Florida to Texas and New York to Alaska, Asian and Latin American immigrants and the disabled are still fighting for the incremental gains that lead to it. As are those of  those of nontraditional sexual orientations.

I'm talking about the basic right to be an American. It represents full citizenship .The total sum of rights and privileges that add up to no one attempting to limit your opportunities based upon bigotry, professed gender superiority, or other absurd traditions.

If what once was, conceptually represents something unfair, that should never be resurrected.

I cannot imagine my daughters or granddaughters living under the system my mother or grandmothers were forced to accept.  I do not want any of my young people, male or female,  to work in an economy where standing is determined by color, familial relationships or social association.

I won't embrace a time when contraception availability was a political or religious choice decided almost exclusively by men.

So-called social conservatives often speak of returning the nation to how it once was.  What they seem to desire is a vision of America where the will of a fortunate few is foisted on the many.

America's freedoms continue to evolve. Looking backward to a romanticized past does not mean more freedoms for all. Instead, it is a false hopes that somehow, conforming to the visions of a privileged few.

Anyone who thinks back to the pain of those who had to fight for rights and basic freedoms cannot possibly embrace that vision. America moves ahead and gets better as it evolves, those who long for the past want something that is not good for the rest of us.

Policies and  laws limiting any of us, deprive each and every one of us.That is the true and real threat to our freedoms and our democracy. It is not about returning America to anything it once was, it is really about a future no freedom loving person in their rational mind could ever truly want for themselves or for anyone else.

Tippin' My Hat- Because I Can

I've lived a lot of places and done a lot of things. But only close family and old friends from the 70s, 80s and 90s know much about my cowboy period.

Fact is, even though  I am from Cleveland, I am Houston Proud. For nearly 20 years, every February I lived for rodeo time.  It wasn't really about jeans, or hats, or boots or buckles, it was about fun, history and tradition.

Over the years, I learned to ride, rope, cut cattle and even had a few experiences with branding and making steers. I still miss Texas every day.

Even though the times were different I made a lot of good friends there. We worked and played together, drank a lot of longnecks and boosted bourbon  to Willie, Waylon, Johnny Cash, Al Downing, O.C. Smith  and Charlie Pride. We bought auction cattle and livestock pens in the Super sales Sales Salon and laughed at city folks whose boots were so new they didn't crease.

I've been in Washington now for nearly as long as I was in Houston. Yet, in February, I still think about trailrides, mesquite smoked barbecue, morning coffee sweetened with a winter's morning rain, and tight jeans, cowboy hats and pickup trucks.

So, for all my Go-Texan Committee friends: Andy Hudack, Clint Wright, Chuck Wolf, Joe Ladd, Bill Bailey, Pam Ivey and all the rest. When the barbecue judging starts and the carnival kicks off, or the riders form up for a quick cantor up South Main, remember you know one real cowboy in the nation's capital who still wants to play.

It's February in the Bayou City and this ain't no Mardis Gras, this is the the biggest show this side of the Calgary Stampede.... It's time, Let's Rodeo!

Life's Choices

Roman Catholics are not required nor do they ever pledge obedience to the pope, prelates (bishops) or priests. A basic foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is the free will of all men and women.

It is the cleric community, ordained priests, nuns and brothers of the order(s) who pledge their obedience.
Yet, there would be no scandals if the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience were followed succinctly. It follows that they too, maintain their free will.

Catholic teachings also take comfort in a forgiving God. While the Church remains Pro-Choice, cradle Catholics and others, note that policy is not doctrine.

It follows that one's views on choice can remain a matter of conscience and a subject open to the individual. While some are passionate, one way or the other, there are still those who do not presume to decide matters of passion or parenthood on behalf of others.  Their nonjudgmental stance is their right and their choice.

With that in mind, one's actions are to be sorted out with their God and not subject to the judgment of man, no matter their views.

Why Hate the Government?

Society needs its institutions. There are families,churches,  tribes, towns, cities, states, countries and more. None of those institutions are perfect. People who believe in them work to make them better.

Dissatisfaction with an institution does does not mean it cannot be improved, but few improvements come overnight. You push, prod, inch and drag what is good about it toward something better.  That's one of the reasons the United States has continued to evolve over more than 200 years.

People have looked at where the nation was in their times and worked to make it better. Some of the things that government has done include:

1) Identifying and promoting better farming practices so that the land, crops and livestock we depend upon to feed our families will be able to do the same for future generations. That solved the erosion problems that devastated farm families in the 1920s and 1930s. It also led to the banning of D-D-T and other chemicals that nearly killed off dozens of species in the interests of increasing yields.

2) Beating diseases like smallpox, yellow fever and polio. While private pharmaceutical companies will do some research, coming up with ways to manage, prevent or cure the most crippling diseases has always taken a combination of public institutional research, private sector investment and a good dose of government cash to produce results.

3) Providing basic minimum standards of education critical to the nation's defense, economic competitiveness, and basic cultural identification of what it means to be an American.  While local and state control may be important, sharing concepts on a national scale does play a tremendous role in making sure that people have some basic similarities when they need to function as a unit representing America.

4) Tying the country together so that people from coast to coast, and even in flyover country have access to the same goods, the same technology, and the same services. If you go to certain parts of the eastern United States, you will still find remnants of private  pikes, canals and railways that served portions of a state or region, but withered  because they did not connect to merchants to markets they needed to serve.

5)  Building codes and other safety safety and health standards. If the free market was always the best option, we would still be using leaded gasoline in our vehicles and asbestos in our floor coverings and break linings and lead paint in our homes. The government, through Congress, exercising the will of the people, has brought us many standards that have helped to create a standard of living unrivaled in much of the world.

6) If people were always fair and honest, we would not need to be concerned about human rights. But people have a weakness for acting in their own individual self interests. When people at the local or state level pass ordinances, adopt policies or enact laws that result in institutional unfairness,  government has an obligation to intervene. This is the United States of America so "if you don't like it, move" is just not an option.

So, when people go on the stump and start talking about how government has abandoned or is ignoring the people, they are pandering. In most cases, they do not suggest ways of making government better. Instead they harken to a past time when government was not doing its best by all of its people.

Talk of restoring the nation to its freedoms does not mean the same thing to all people. If you are disabled, elderly, female, an ethnic or racial minority or live outside of the social norm, it could mean a return to exclusions, restrictions or persecutions.

All of these things are part of America's past, yet even now, there are movements to eliminate or minimize their significance in the text books used in the nation's public schools. There are no perfect institutions, like families, countries do not always treat all of their children the same. And like people, acknowledging flaws and working to get better makes any institution stronger.

Don't hate the government or the courts for encouraging change. In the end, only change will make the nation stronger.

Political Change

Political change is never easy.  Sometimes there are so-called velvet revolutions where the people in power weigh the risks and simply decide to get out of the way. 

But more times than not, there are demonstrations and protests, followed by riot, terrorist attacks, assassinations and then ultimately, full blown rebellions, revolutions or civil wars.  Add sectarian violence to the mix and you have the chaos that most often brings about significant change. 

A year ago, we had the Arab Spring.  While some longtime leaders fled or accepted house arrest, others fought on, only to face retribution sparked by the anger of their persecuted subjects. 

No one knows how things will play out in Syria.  Bashar Assad is not his father, even if he uses the same tactics.  Whether he can quell a restive population and avoid ouster remains to be seen. 

What other Arab countries are willing to do for the people could influence the outcome, but it could also come down to how many Arab fighters from more than a score of nations opt to join the fray. 
 
In Iran, the Persians in power have their own problems.  Besides a young population weary of the stifling rules of the ayatollahs, there are also outside pressures designed to destabilize the aging regime.The Islamic Revolution was a long time ago, and even still, there are a lot of Iranians inside the country and abroad who wouldn't mind a good dose of western culture. 

In the emirates and kingdoms, there are calls for democracy, women's rights and economic opportunities.  The ruling powerful are rich, but many of the people do not share in the oil and mineral wealth of their countries and are facing high prices and shortages of basic goods. 

When you think about the early years of any nation created or rebuilt following political upheavals the images are the same. Struggle, euphoria, thoughtful efforts at lawmaking, disastisfaction, disillusionment, conflict, destruction, and reconstruction.

In Western Asia, there are nations in varied states of getting there. With so many outcomes now uncertain watchingm waiting and deciding later who to help makes an awful lot of sense.    

One Dangerous World

War, terrorism, political famines, acts of God and random crimes. We live in a very dangerous world.

But even if we have to be on guard, most of us still try to live.

No one can know when they could get caught up in events where their very survival will be on the line.

You can drive defensively ans still be involved in a crash; you can eyeball all 150 people who board a crowded train car and still become a victim of collateral damage when and if something happens; you cannot make a storm change course by the force of your will.

But you can decide to live without fear.

For most of my young life I knew governments, the United States, the Soviet Union and others, could blow up the world.

Today the talk about limited nuclear war. Some extremely well armed countries are dealing with internal strife that could spiral into civil wars.

Who ultimately will control their weapons or keep up with their technology is anybody's guess.

We live in a very dangerous world, and while I may think about it, I am much too busy living life to worry about all the possibilities. 

Perhaps we will be here to see tomorrow, but maybe not.

One More for the Team

President Obama's reelection campaign will need a lot of volunteers.  

Some will be involved in get-out-the-vote efforts, others will dedicate their time to fundraising. But tens of thousands will be use their talents to support the Truth Team. 

The campaign wants to recruit as many as two million people to pursue a single goal: combatting the misinformation pushed out consistently by the opposition.

"People don't just want tl hear from campaign statements ans ads-- they want to hear from family and friends they trust," said Stephanie Cutler, deputy campaign manager for Obama for America. 

This sounds like the kind of volunteer work I might enjoy.  You sign up online and then start joining the effort to stamp out bull _hit. 

The team will be divided into three parts.  Each unit will have its own Web portal: 

Attackwatch.com will combat basic and over the top nastiness:

KeepGOPHonest.com will challenge Republicans who lie about their records;

And KeepHisWord.com will promote the president's record. 

All of this is necessary because the opposition is willing to say and do anything to win the Whitehouse, retake the Senate and keep control of the House. 

One thing I've learned, over the years, is that you do not edit the president. Once an individual is elected leader of the free world, what he says, everything he says, is a matter of public record.

Honest communicators to not paraphrase, distort or mislead their readers or their audiences with words presidents have not or do not say. When the quotes are available, they simply provide the quotes and let the readers or their audiences form their own conclusions.

Since all sorts of positions, policies and statements are routinely attached to the president and repeated as though they were facts, the need for a Truth Team is obvious.  I think it's a very good idea. I wish them well.

What Exactly Do They Mean

There are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives often whine about domestic spending.  Public education, taxpayer supported health care, job training and economic development are generally bad ideas.

Social conservatives talk a lot about freedoms even as they try to force their views on the rest of us.

They want to peek inside your doctor's office and dictate what services you can get.  They want to put certain material into the classrooms and revise textbooks to eliminate realities they find objectionable.  They want to look into your bedroom and tell you who and how to love. 

Some of those desires may seem peculiar or invasive, even to people who live really dull lives.  But social conservatives are scary for other reasons.

All this talk about returning America to the values that the founding fathers intended. They draw their loudest applause when they talk about restoring, not creating, freedoms we've enjoyed in the past. They contend these things were never intended by the founding fathers.


They insist they love the U.S. Constitution, yet they object or condemn some of its most wonderful tenets.  They consider the role of the federal judiciary, by its very mandate, charged with interpreting the constitutionality of federal laws, reactionary and warranting restrictions and greater controls.


The question numerous pieces of legislation designed to ensure constitutional protections for all parties, both citizen and visitor. And they lament actions taken by Congress and affirmed by majorities of the legislatures of the states which alter the laws of the land and grow our Constitution as a living document.

When they talk about returning the nation to some unidentified past, what do they they really mean? Could it be they want a time when most if not all supervisors and people of power were white and male?

Are they seeking a time when women of any color or nationality had no real power and even their rights to property were based upon the whims of their fathers or husbands? Do they long for a time when immigrants, documented or not, were subject to exploitation and had few opportunities to seek relief in the courts?


Perhaps they wish to return to those times when law abiding people of varied backgrounds could be denied their franchise or dispossessed because of their race, gender, ethnic origin, religion, physical impairment or sexual orientation?


The danger here is that no one ever really explains what they mean when people considered the most promising conservative politicians start waxing nostalgically about the values of the past.  That's scary!

Opportunity in America is far less exclusive than it was even a few short years, and definitely a couple of decades ago. What may be the good old days for some seems like a return to a past with limited choices for a heck of a lot of Americans.

A Sweet Voice Stilled

Whitney Houston, a songstress born to one of the most talented families on American music, died Saturday in Beverly Hills, Calif. She was 48.

Houston, whose career included numerous gold records, a starring role in an iconic dramatic musical, numerous Grammy Awards, Emmys and American Music Awards had a troubled past marred by drugs, volatile relationships and suspected domestic violence.

The daughter of 70s R&B artist, Cissy Houston, who later became a top Gospel performer, Whitney Houston was also the cousin of Dionne Warwick and her late sister, Dee Dee, and the goddaughter of Aretha Franklin.

Formerly married to Bobby Brown, she self-parodied her life in a reality television show entitled "Being Bobby Brown" in 2005. 

The cause of death and the details of her final days will be investigated by police and reported for days to come.

Hours after her death, legendary music producer, Clive Davis, hosted his annual pre-Grammy  party, at which Houston had been expected to perform.

"Whitney would have wanted the music to go on, and her family asked that we carry on," Davis told his guests.

Alicia Keys, Sean Combs, Tony Bennett, the Kinks and others honored the singer's memory with words and songs.

For now, I choose to remember a world class talent. Like so many great artists, she has gone before her time. The flaws of her life and her personal demons do not diminish her talent.





Whitney Houston made music, her songs brought joy and made many little girls, grown women and sweet men want to hit and hold high notes.  Like Billie Holiday, Van Morrison, Mama Cass, Jimi Hendrix, John Belushi, Richard Pryor and Kurt Cobain, remember her for her art, and not her final act.

Sweet Memories

 Baby Boomers have lost a bit of their childhood. City, country, North or South, some things are part of our collective memory, and Nello Ferrara had a lot to do with that.

You may not know the name, but on the side of little boxes that likely were among the first things we ever purchased for ourselves, was the name Ferrara Pan Candy Co. If you still do not know what I am talking about, think Lemonheads, Atomic Fireballs, Redhots, or Boston Baked Beans.

Nello Ferrara passed away at his home outside of Chicago , Feb. 3.  He was 93.  It was Ferrara who led the company that came up each of these products. Some of them date back to the 1930s, and were enjoyed by the Great Depression era kids, when they were probably a penny for a little square of paper tied with a string.

He developed Atomic Fireballs after serving in Post War Japan. 

We all had our favorites. We bought the nickel boxes, looked for them inside the candy counter of the Saturday matinee, and wished without hope that the Easter Bunny would bring them instead of those ordinary Jelly Beans.

They became our comfort foods... Not something healthy our moms, aunts or grandmothers made, but something we bought from the first people we did business with using money out of our own pockets.

Even today, some of us will keep a few around. We will fib and say "they are for the grandchildren" but we have moments when we will put three or five or ei in our mouths and savor memories from childhoods that ended long ago.

Nello Ferrara made our lives sweeter. The candies he invented and the names he kept alive still make us smile. 

The one thing I remember most, is that they always did and always will taste better than that Brach's s--t!

Overlooked Tragedies

When I write these days, it is often as an old man. I have seen a lot of life, up close and personal. I still know a lot of people who run toward danger when most folks are running away.

This year, there is an awful lot of talk about things government should and should not be doing for people. When you are sitting around in a suit and tie or walking into some climate controlled assembly hall, it is easy to talk about people doing things for themselves.

When you've been places where even the strongest and the best are challenged to do for themselves, you learn things about people.

That was the chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005. People literally saw everything they owned washed away. Cars, houses, clothing, everything.

The aftermath of that tragedy puts the lie to liberterian ideals. One cannot expect government to do the minimum in times when many people are exhausted and have only God and their last strength to fall back on.

When you see despair in people's faces, and total surrender in the faces of the old and sick, civilized people look to authority for providence and benevolence. If government is to have any authority at all, it must be ready and able to step in with material aid when God may want men and women to depend upon each other.

In 2005, government was more than a wee bit late. The private sector cut its losses and looked to insurance companies to make them whole, and tens of thousands of people looked to government for help.

Believe me, it was chaos, not just in Lousiana, but across the country. Lots of people who had nothing spent their last change to make calls for help. After fumbling the call, the government dispatched a lot of debit cards, wrote a lot of checks and made a lot of direct deposits.

In the chaos, lots of money changed hands and some of it needed to be sorted out later.

Well, after seven years, it has been sorted out, Some people-- no, tens of thousands of people owe thousands of dollars. They are not crooks. They were people up against it. In a time of chaos they took the aid they were offered and took as much of the aid as they could possibly get.

Today, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced that those who owe less than about $4,300
will have their debts waived. Yes it is taxpayer's money, but it is money that even after seven years, many of the victims, have not seen since.


In many ways, what happened with natural disasters in 2005, set the stage for the economic disaster that began two years later. The government was again, asleep at the switch, At a time when people needed and looked toward authority for help and guidance, some good people were silent.

Now, we need them all to care and understand.

One Busy Tuesday -- It's Election Year

Republican challengers are trying to stake out ground on social issues. Rather than embrace positions that indicate they broadly support individual rights and public policies that offer help and hope to those in need, they have been focusing on singular positions.

The problem with that outlook is that in proclaiming yourself a single issue candidate or even a dual issue candidate you deny the needs and the humanity of  large segments of society.

On a day when hopefuls made headlines railing against the incumbent on birth control and health care coverage, the White House was expressing a willingness to search for compromise.

Also today, a survey commissioned by Planned Parenthood indicated that the majority of voters favor inclusion of contraception in health care coverage.

Meanwhile, the White House announced that it is adding $50 million in funding for Alzheimer's research. That boosts the level of funding to fight a very serious group of diseases and dementia conditions to $500 million this year.

In California, a federal appeals court raised the issue of equal protection in overturning a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. That means the U.S. Supreme Court will wind up deciding the issue.

The irony is that in many ways this is a matter of individual freedom. No state or jurisdiction that has taken up the issue has made attempt to force any religious institution or cleric to sanction such unions. The laws as passed are secular.

Perhaps since some of these opposition candidates consider corporations people, those who want to avoid the issue should simply incorporate and merge. Would that end the discussion?

Finally, the opposition hopefuls have been gleefully going around for months raising grand theft money from big donors for Super PACs that are unfettered by existing election laws. As the millions have flowed in, the down and dirty game of wild west politics has been waged in early primary states.

President Obama and his reelection campaign has now announced that big money donations can go to Super PAC that  will spend its money to combat the other guys. Could this be the elusive level playing field we've been hearing about all these years? If we are to exist in a land without laws, then let the chaos begin.

Gradual Shakeout

We already know the Democratic presidential candidate will run on his record.     

 The Great Recession ended under his watch, and despite congressional gridlock, the nation's economy is slowly turning around.

Whether the incumbent is opposed by Mitt or Newt, we will hear loads of promises about job creation, lower taxes and increased opportunity. The problem with that is neither has a track record of making that happen.

Selling off the assets of floundering companies may create limited profits, but it does not put people back to work.Instead, people with jobs are declared surplus, and the machines they used to run to turn out products are shipped abroad for use in sweat shops.

Deregulation that makes outsourcing easier takes away the incentives for domestic growth as quickly as raising taxes.  Contract workers cost about one-third less than permanent staffers and have none of the protections of employees.

Luckily, private sector job creation  is up, and first time unemployment claims are down. All the negative ads and campaign talking points in the world cannot change reality.

Pop Goes the Half Time

At 53, Madonna pranced on stage and with multiple costumes and a medley that included segments of 30 years of hits, she pulled off an adequate and safe performance at Super Bowl XLVI.

She promised no wardrobe malfunctions and without a doubt there were no surprises and no more excitement than you might find in an old Busby Berkley musical.

The Material Girl provided some familiar lip synch moves, but this was not a show that warranted many "oh wows!"

There was little to illustrate why she once was a favorite artist on MTV and why songs titled "Like a Virgin," of "Like a Prayer" once aroused controversy among some and passions among others. The lyrics were the same, but the moves were purely rated "G."


She has not aged like Cher, who is now 65, and put her sexiness side by side with Christina Aguilera just last year. While Cher has toned down her look over the years, what she provides is show biz, that like the late Mae West, is classically her own.

Madonna was not Tina Turner at 69, as this picture, taken three years ago, will indicate. Turner is a diva whose moves, curves and voice have all endured maintaining the essence of great beauty worthy of her past sexiness.

 The globe-trotting material girl did not make any moves she would not want her children or even the pope's children to see. Instead, she moved around the stage, going from a black and gold look reminiscent of 1995's New Orlean's Saints Cheerleaders, and ending up draped in Gothic lame' and taffeta.

The Super Bowl Half Time Show has gone for safe entertainment since Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the half time performance at Super Bowl XXXVIII.

To be sure, Madonna at 53, is not Janet Jackson at 45. But half-time show producers apparently chose to go with a name, the promise of tame and a safe show for Super Bowl XLVI.

Madonna danced, moved and smiled through the requisite 15 minute set. While the songs were once hits, the overall performance was simply a staged production that screamed out "Glee."


 

Against Their Interests

 "History repeats itself." That adage is familiar to most of us. It can often explain why people who otherwise should have "no dog in a fight" will risk everything they have by taking up a cause that is not their own.

Terms like "class struggle" and "politics of envy" are being used to paint a curious picture of the wealthiest Americans as victims of some unfair conspiracy designed to strip them of their hard-earned riches.

The logic is that "fair-minded people" will see this as a great crusade to redistribute their wealth and rally to their aid by voting for candidates who won't allow such injustices to occur.

The way the last few years have shaken out, we have expanding poverty and we also have expanding wealth. While the number of poor in this country has grown, the richest Americans have seen their net worth expand.

In the center, is the so-called middle class. Most statistics indicate that they have lost ground. Some of them have slipped back into poverty and others have hung on, marking time and hanging tough against the battering waves of  economic  turbulence.


America has been this way before. History tells us that the Civil War nearly destroyed the union. Ninety years after the birth of the nation, more than 618,000 people died in four bloody years of fighting. Slavery and economics were central causes, and rhetoric about states rights fanned the flames and passions between North and South.

Yet, only 7 percent of southerners owned slaves in 1860. That slave owning class represented perhaps one or two percent of the total population of  the nation. Still millions marched off to war willing do die to defend the rights of a very exclusive club.

Now, as then, we have inflammatory rhetoric, enraged passions, and dramatic struggles for support of divisive causes. On the one hand, there are calls for social and economic justice, on the other, there are  demands that we return to or preserve the values and institutions of the past.

 The nation is gripped by the words, voices and images of politicians, the admonitions and warnings of orators and the harsh realities of economic uncertainty. The world is changing and those who prospered most under the old system seek to maintain or restore it, even as others call out for something more.

In such times, it is the extremists whose voices rise above the fray, but in the end, the decisions rests in the hands of the center, and where they choose to stand and fight when their comforts are at stake.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 

-- George Santayana, U.S. Philosopher, 1865-1952

Pragmatism? Pshaw!

Nancy Brinker built a movement to save lives and honor the memory of her sister. Her idea was simple, "helping women beat the risks of breast cancer is a good." People bought into it and raised tens of millions of dollars.

Somewhere along the line, Nancy Brinker allowed idealogues to divide, and possibly doom her organization. If only for a few days, she turned her back on the poor.

Pragmatism embraces practical solutions without consequences. If you pack a board with people who believe certain things, then they can change the rules, take a vote and end alliances that were crucial to maintaining broad appeal.

In picking funding for Planned Parenthood, or an end run to eliminate it, a faction of the Komen Foundation selected a powerless target. The poor women, very young to premenopausal, who go to clinics offering services at no - to low costs.


Brinker and others did not realize that these women have a reservior of goodwill out here that would not sit silently by as donated dollars were used for exclusive purposes. The money did not come from any one group of people who believe certain ways, it came from lots of people willing to do something for women's health.

The Komen Foundation allowed its intentions and its brand to become  pawns in a political power play. We now live in a time when people, charities and institutions may find themselves offered up for pragmatic reasons. That means that those who would abandon all reason and compromise in favor of any single goal
will roll the dice, consequences be damned.

In this case, they were willing to let poor women, those who lack insurance and generally seek out the only preventive screening and other services within a busline, languish in uncertainty about their health or get sick and die.

There was no talk of alternative care and no true notice that vital breast screening provided at Planned Parenthood would no longer be part of a very fragile safety net.

Pragmatism puts no stake in consequences. It is built on concepts or statements repeated by rote without regard to any waivering thought.

Declare it right, label it just, and disavow anything that falls outside that narrow view. This time it was women and breast screening, last time it was "the poor" and food stamps, or faceless immigrants and a backlash against a 21st century Bracero program.

Pragmatism could lead to protective covenants, discretionary work rules and worse. These are dangerous times, and we should be very concerned about the poor.

 If you are outside the narrow view of pragmatic thought, perhaps you should also be concerned about the rest of us too.

Out of Touch with Our Times

If you've grown up in a world of Pell Grants, student loans, veterans' benefits and getting shots from public health clinics, it tends to impact your world view.

People who have dealt with the hard realities of layoffs, unemployment, no health insurance and paychecks that don't stretch between pay days have reason to be very concerned about their survival.

The older ones know the younger ones are trying to make it in a world where the rules have been dramatically changed.

If a company fills out its staff with contractors or part-time rs, it doesn't need to think about benefits.  That means no unemployment insurance, health care, vacations, paid holidays or workers' compensation coverage. 

Experts say that can save a firm as much as 30 percent of the cost of a permanent full-time employee. A lot of us know good young people who work two and three part-time jobs to feed their families.

We also know good older people who work everyday and should be seeing doctors. Some of them have no benefits so they just ignore aches, pains and chronic conditions.

Some of us remember the taste of government cheese, white label peanut butter and powdered milk.  If those surplus products were part of your diet, you were glad to get them and scraped out the last drab or crumbs.

We now have a guy who wants to lead the nation who says the very poor have a "safety net."  He says he's not concerned about them or the very rich because, "they are doing quite well."

Many of us, down here in the middle, see the poor a lot differently. You know-- the good people who volunteer at food banks or soup kitchens, or have their homes open to family or friends caught up in an economic struggle created by their times.

Moderate, liberal or conservative, we are a huge part of that safety net.  We're also the cheerleaders, motivators and caregivers who often encourage the hardest hit to stay out there and keep pluggin' away to make things better. We are very concerned about the poor!

I can say that and include some conservatives in the mix because I believe many of them are torn. They may absorb a lot of the harsh rhetoric throughout the week, but they show up on an evening or a weekend and make the sandwiches and sort the clothing for the poor with their preachers. Even they will concede that caring for "those with the least among us" are the virtues they believe they should exhibit for righteous redemption.


Politics and religion in this country are so entwined these days that it is often easy to drown out the cries for justice and compassion. Singular issues come to define believers and nonbelievers for political purposes and reaching out to believers often means denying the humanity and moral worth of those who disagree.

 Right now we have one side attempting to sell the idea that all the poor are "those people." It is a way of saying "they are not us." 

A man who wants to be president says he "likes to fire people," and he wins the endorsement of a wealthy clown who fires people for entertainment purposes on a made-for TV-version of "You Screwed Your Life!"


You also have another guy who is third in line to presidency. He says 'let the housing decline run its course and find its on level,' then we will know where the real market is." He cries often, but would he shed a tear for families losing homes and hope in the worst economic downturn since Herbert Hoover?

Many of the conservatives in Congress who come from truly modest means would destroy the very programs they depended on to provide their escapes from classic blue collar, working class roots.

They would deny housing, health care, and educational opportunities to the poor and leave it up to business to make life better. Business does what is profitable, and encouraging human potential is always more costly than watching coldly as the strongest claw their way to the top.

Don Knew the Difference

People forget that Soul Train started in Chicago.  It was a city that could support a weekly music show intended for a black audience. It was also a city packed with talent. There were writers, producers, musicians and talented vocalists living there, hanging out and turning out music in phenomenal amounts.

The first guests Don Cornelius had on his show were Jerry Butler, the Chi-lites and the Emotions. A backup group led by a young musician named Maurice White would ultimately evolve into Earth, Wind and Fire.

When it came to music, Don Cornelius knew the difference. While disc jockeys across the country called it R&B, short for rhythm and blues, and most people referred to it as Soul Music, Don Cornelius knew that every city had a style and a sound.

That helped him make Soul Train different from a host of local shows created at the time that never quite caught on, locally and never really had a shot at syndication.  Chicago's Dells were not Cleveland's O'Jays, and Philadelphia's Intruders were not Cincinnati's Isley Brothers.

Don exposed two generations of young people to the sound tracks of their lives. The show provided an escape from chores, Saturday jobs and the stifling sameness of the neighborhoods many of us never left until we headed off for college or the military.

Gut-bucket Blues singers like Joe Simon and Johnny Taylor appeared on the show and sang songs that made their music urban enough to make national charts. Household names like the Temptations and the Four Tops checked their Las Vegas acts at the door and "came home to play just for folks."

Marvin Gaye sang songs, and sometimes even played basketball in outfits that him and Don wore that today's kids would say just looked "young."

When you had to have a huge hit to get any national exposure, Soul Train's syndicated success brought acts into markets from New York and Miami to San Diego and Seattle. The show was never on everywhere, but if you were black and ran into anyone else who was, you could talk about it anywhere.

I doubt that I know anyone who came of age between 1965 and 2005 who never tried to make a fashion statement with something they saw on Soul Train. From Apple Hats to Flagg Brother's boots, or those suspendered hotpants and the ever present Afro picks Soul Train helped define America's vision of black youth having fun.

If you grew up watching fuzzy images on Mississippi televisions from stations in New Orleans, or searched for signals in the rec lounge of some dormitory of some rural college campus on Saturday, Soul Train was not something you wanted to miss.




I could have written about politics, or the economy or this weekend's Superbowl tonight, but February 1, 2012 belongs to Don Cornelius. He knew the difference when it came to music, but he also knew what made us more alike. His idea and his legacy helped define what it meant to be into Black culture for more than 30 years. We will miss him.