Respect Rights

The freedoms of speech, expression and assembly are very basic in the United States.

They give most if us the liberty to come and go, presumably without fear.  They also prevent police or anyone else from challenging us without cause.

Demonstrations are a way of challenging aspects if the system we may not like.  In many parts of the country, demonstrations ate rare.  In the District of Columbia, they happen everyday.

I have always made my living watching the world, and in the more than 40 years I have done that, I have learned many things.  One of the most memorable is that the causes that send people out into the streets are endless.

I do not have to agree with your cause, and how you express your views, but I respect your right to do it.  Sit-ins, blockades, marches and other forms of protests each have their legitimacy.  That includes things like flag burning, passionate, same sex kisses on the streets, banner-sized photos of aborted fetuses and  wearing hoodies on the floor of the House of Representatives.  

Congress has its rules, and all members know how violations of those rules are handled.  Dress code infractions can lead to removal. Every member of Congress learns that during their orientation. But sometimes actions are taken for the record or as a matter of principle.

Demonstrations are about symbolism.  Arrests go on the record as a commitment to a cause.  Being escorted from the chamber of the House turns up in the congressional record. There are a whole list of symbolic misdemeanor charges and nominal sanctions that can apply to those who cross the line from support to civil disobedience or violations of rules.

Bobby Rush made his point.  His penalty is inconsequential.   Some may condemn his method, but it is likely it was a hit with his constituents. 


In the rest of the country, it is easy to see demonstrations and the necessary security they require as being wastes of the taxpayers' money. In Washington, D.C., it is part of the fabric of America.


This time it is about the tragic loss of a child, last time it was about the cause of the day.

Whimsical Worrisome Words

I grew up opposing racism, because I was born in a country that had not come to grips with its own issues about race.

I have been blessed with daughters and granddaughters and wanting the best for them, I speak out against sexism.

As I have gotten older, and seen people of the baby boom generation pushed to the sides in the name of progress, I have become sensitive to agism.

Various  isms are used to divide, desensitize and compartmentalize people. Some people bank on the premise that if you are not part of a group under attack or subject to ridicule, you will not care about such things or might even join in.

I thought long and hard about what I could write about the bumper sticker campaign that attempts to twist the "N-word" in a free-speech protected statement against President Obama's reelection effort.

It has already been labeled racist, but I think it is just a symptom of a broader backlash of bigotry being embraced for political reasons.


There are some who would harness the collective anger of individuals who have somehow convinced themselves that a coalition of formerly underprivileged or disadvantaged classes are out to take away their rights.

If you do not enjoy the same institutionalized advantages that your father or grandfather enjoyed, then you might consider attempts to equalize the rights others as a reduction of your own.

The bumper sticker flap from March 15 triggered some interesting comments, particularly as some people I know tried to get others to at least admit the bumper sticker, the idea behind it and the language used as racist.  They included two responses from the same guy, whom I know is a broadcaster in Texas:

"Ever since 2004, the prevailing sick reasoning is that it's some kind of crime to be a conservative. And we "allow" it by not fighting back." He also said "The thing that bothers me most is this constant barrage from the Left that conservatives are "racist". And yet, I've never seen a more racist person than Al Sharpton. No one calls him on it. He gets the proverbial free pass from the MSM."

I am not clear about the motivation for this feeling of "persecution" as it was put to me. But I have heard it before. It strikes me that this unapologetic conservative is willing to defend the promotion of various isms, by what he perceives as acceptance of isms by the so-called mainstream media and by inference a broader society hell-bent on destroying conservatism.

Could that be just excuse to buy into bigotry?  It's funny that just a few decades after America laughed at the outdated bigotry of Archie Bunker and George Jefferson on popular  TV sitcoms, we now have the far less funny  nastiness of Talk Radio.

The things heard daily on the air provide the angry with outlets to buy into bigotry they that don't get much anymore.

Most people don't go around using words like "honey, baby or sweetie" on the job because they are considered sexist.  Uttering various ethnic, or racial labels that were once commonly heard on the streets of most cities can carry perilous consequences. It is considered tasteless to refer to the physically or mentally challenged as "cripples" or "retards"  today.

 There are now sections in a lot of school systems "codes of student conduct" that make use of many of these terms grounds for discipline.

At many jobs there are policies in place that recognize that such language can create an uncomfortable work environment. People who say them or display them are likely to hear from the boss, the human resources department, or attorneys representing an offended party pretty quickly.

Discouragement of use of the "N-word" is something something some of us have worked for in recent years. These days, we are seeing a backlash from those who likely once used such terms without consequence.
Some smirk smugly through their denials of racism, sexism and xenophobic commentaries.

No matter how often they smile and say "I am not a racist," or "I am not a sexist," or "I am not an agist," the realities of their words, and the tolerance and acceptance of the sentiments means they may be a bigot.

The question is, who will they dislike next, and is that something most of us want to easily accept?

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.

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.

Consider the Foundations of Your Beliefs

I believe most people are predisposed to be good, social and caring. I don't think it is a naive point of view, because I understand that if people are led to believe that certain outlooks are acceptable, they will adopt that point of view.

When you teach a child, you repeat what you want them to learn again and again, and over time, they repeat it to you. Then you reinforce the image or action with words that best represent the concept and the meaning is imprinted.

This is what has been going on since Nov. 4, 2008. "If we never refer to 'him' as President Obama, he will never really be president."

There are people in this country who have dealt with the last election as though it were a bad dream. They want to believe that since Jan. 20, 2009, there has been no one in the White House and no one running the United States.

This is the fiction that has made it so easy for people named Wilson, Sensenbrenner and Brewer to get headlines over the past few years. Their actions have left lasting impressions, constantly reinforced by angry pundits, writers and in conversations held beyond the earshot or those warranting language that was "politically correct."

One thing Ihave learned in more than 40 years of being in the news business: Headlines make Page One and last forever.  Apologies are buried somewhere beyond page three and never receive the same attention.

I also know that for decades, no one confronting  a sitting president at any event ever got within fingerpointing distance of the leader of the Free World. These types of sad activities will forever change the nature of the U.S. Presidency.

By talking about the physique of the First Lady or suggesting for a moment that Brewer “felt a little bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had,” is to play up to the basest stereotypes of the past.

This is likely to be significant as we head into the election cycle of 2012. Already, Newt Gringrich has been admonished for rattling the sensibilities of our Cubano cousins. I have said in recent days that the basest natures of "Willie Horton racism" will play out in the months ahead.

What I can tell you is that many people have been desensitized to racism and classism since 2008. They have been conditioned to believe that finger pointing, blaming and labeling is natural, normal and acceptable. Perhaps reminding them of what they are willing to accept as truth, could jar them back to reality.

Anger, distrust and resentment have become so ingrained that they are considered, normal and natural.Even as their parents came around to the inequity of those concepts as they existed in the past, perhaps they need to be reminded of the unfairness of it all. Should we have to fight the battles of the last generation again, simply because we are silent?

Inside, if the people accepting all of this believe in Jesus, and the fundamental truth that God created all men equal, can they really believe that anything like this could ever be acts of Christian kindness?

Perhaps there is more than the souls of political parties hanging here in the balance.

A Generation of Anger

I could have called this column "Why They're Pissed Off."

Basic stump speeches talk about how candidates will help the nation return to American values. Those speeches often embrace themes of how we have gotten away from the Constitution and what the founding fathers intended. They continue to blame most of the problems in the country on so-called radical deviations from the "American way of life."

I had an exchange recently with someone who assured me that an ancestor of theirs was really a Republican, even though he was elected governor of a great state as a Democrat. He told me the guy was only a Democrat because Republicans could not get elected in that state back then.

History is a wonderful thing. You can actually look back and give context to a lot of attitudes that exists decades or generations later.

There was a time, after the Civil War, when most voters in the 11 states that made of the Confederacy were Democrats. They stayed Democrats for decades because they blamed Republicans and Abraham Lincoln for changing the way of life of their most privileged friends.

One hundred years later, Lyndon Johnson changed their way of life with the stroke of a pen.  What Johnson, the Texas Democrat, did was sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But getting to the point where he had that option was not easy. It took months of negotiation, weeks of debate, and a lot of public attention to make that happen.

The one time that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. ever met face to face was March 26, 1964. They were in the gallery of the Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol to observe the Senate debate of the Civil Rights Act. A Democrat named Robert Byrd of West Virginia unsuccessfully had filibustered to block the vote.

When the final votes were tallied, the Democrats in the House voted 153 to 91 and Republicans voted 136 to 35 for passage. In the Senate, the vote was 44 to 23 for the Democrats and 23 to six for the Republicans.

President Johnson said on July 2, 1964 that American values made passage inevitable. It also cleared the way for a raft of changes that many people believe made America stronger. While passage of laws and inaction of regulations set standards for compliance, working toward institutional change and overcoming generations of injustice has been a constant struggle ever since.

In 1967, older and younger workers gained protections  under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Provisions of that law helped protect members of the World War II generation from upstart Baby Boomers as they reached the ends of their working lives.

In 1975, Congress passed the Sex Discrimination Act, and within 20 years or so, the game of grab ass became politically incorrect in the workplace. Seventeen years later, women of every age and every description and some men still have to struggle against workplace harassment and disparate treatment.

In 1978, the Ethics in Government Act passed and with the help of the federal courts, government workers gained a variety of protections designed to give them the same protections available to those in the private sector.

These were followed by the Americans with Disabilities Act  and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990. Those laws gave disabled people access to jobs and facilities that most Americans continue to take for granted and made it illegal to just pick up the bones and belongings of long dead people who were here in ancient times.

When people rail about what's wrong with America and talk about the special interests who have ruined the country and radically changed what the founding fathers created as a perfect ideal, what are they really saying?

If you listen to the words of President Johnson from July 2, 1964, they are are speaking out against measures taken as America and its people evolved. Johnson and Congress, both Republicans and Democrats saw that they nation had to evolve. The promise of America had to grow closer to the literal meanings of the Constitution.

If you really think about it, the anger that has built up over 48 years and intensified over the election of a mixed-race president, could be based upon the changes that have occurred in since 1964. People passionate about rolling back the clock recall hearing about how much better things were "in the good old days."

 
The problem with that is context? Who reaped the benefits of a time when so many Americans were considered socially, sexually, racially and physically outside the concerns of a privileged few.

Lawyers Can't Do Everything

Lawyers have had a role in elections for decades, but ever since the presidential election of 2000, their role has been totally blown out of proportion.

For many years, they have been on hand to help ensure voting rights, for at least ten years, they have been stationed at polling places to discourage voting.  Assertive speech and accusations can chill the participation of some voters who don't particularly trust the legal process.

Now, some candidates who somehow never got around to building basic political organizations, have been trying to use lawyers to force their way onto the ballots in several states.

Even when people traveled by wagon and coach, somehow they managed to build support across the country to give themselves a shot at winning their parties' nominations. 

To circumvent the basics of politics is an insult to those who dedicate their time and resources to the system. Voters show up on election day, policy wonks and party activists move from one election cycle to the next with only a few days off. They are the people who prepare the nation for elections yet to come.

Everything from poll challengers to paid canvassers and court petitions designed to challenge qualification requirements are measures aimed at corrupting the system. It is sad that respect for the process has been tossed on the trash heap.

It's doubtful I will add to this blog this weekend. I will be celebrating the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend. For those of us who are passionate about civil rights, it commemorates something very special.  As I wrote this week in a basic tweet, "Nothing changes a person's mind about #civil_rights protections more quickly than having theirs #violated."

This is something many of my conservative friends don't seem to understand. Many of my other friends are of a generation that still remembers life without basic #equal_protections.

This is what makes the  #MLK_holiday and the memorial on the National Mall so important.

It took court rulings to force the issue of equal protection in commerce and accomodations. Then Congress wrote laws codifying it to remove the ambiguity for the public. And in the intervening years, the people have gradually come to accept the basic fairness of what the law requires.

I will leave challenging the basic nature of conservative ideology for another day, but I will leave you with this thought. 

If the ethos of America is the equal value of each of its people, then why rail against any laws passed with intent to ensure equal protection? Is it not human nature that keeps each man or woman from being measured equally?