Totally Unqualified

Every law enforcement agency is not qualified to handle homicide investigations.

I am not police officer, but in the past 40 years, I have been to an unbelievable number of crime scenes. I have also seen good, average, poor, shoddy and bad police work.  While some of it is kind of like you see on television, it is neither simple or easy and it is seldom wrapped up in an hour.

In Sanford, Fla., local police do not appear to have much experience with homicide investigations.

There has been no indication that they secured the crime scene, which in many places is routine, even pending a coroner's inquest. Did I say coroner's inquest? There has not been one, nor have the results of the autopsy on Travis Martin been released.

That means that more than a month after the 17 yea-old was shot and killed as he walked back to the home where his father was staying from a convenience store there is no official ruling into his cause and manner of death.

We know he was shot and died instantly as a result of a bullet that entered his chest at close range. We do not know officially if the manner of death was homicide.

What we do know is that many potential witnesses have not been interviewed by the police. We also know that some evidence that might be critical to the investigation and any resulting prosecution in this case has not been collected, secured or preserved.

There also has not been much effort put forth to secure the integrity of people who would likely be called as witnesses in any criminal trial.

Statements offered in court by people who have told their stories repeatedly on television may not stand up well when lawyers decide to roll the video tape.  If this case goes to trial, prosecutors may have to build their case upon facts that have not played out in the press.

In most cities or counties, when a family member of a current o former judge or other official gets involved in something as sensitive as the death of a child, local authorities run to find someone else handle the matter. This helps them avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interests.

In Sanford, it appears someone made a decision to just act like this case was going to go away.  Now, this week, they have attempted to stop national journalists from poking around in a case that is garnering world attention. Believe me, no one I know who is covering this case is likely to disappear. What's more, the lawyers and the bail money are standing by if local lawmen decide to interfere with the pursuit of the news.

Every police officer is not an investigator, and every investigator does not necessarily have the skills, the experience or the guts to investigate homicides. 

In Sanford, the Trayvon Martin case stinks for a number of reasons. Not just how he died, but also how the search for the truth has been totally botched up by the boys in charge.

The Talk

"You will run into people in these streets who don't give a damn about you."

That is a statement generations of young men heard from fathers, grandfathers, uncles, coaches and male teachers.

It was often the opening statement of "The Talk."  One of those critical life lessons that needed to be verbalize and reinforced in as young males asserted their independence.

It was often followed by reminders that one of a male's greatest obligations to his family was coming home.  Because if he cannot come home he cannot provide for his children or his mother and he cannot defend his sisters.

"The Talk" remains every bit as critical today.  It is the time to cover all those situations where potentially deadly force could mean the difference between survival and tragedy.

Raising our young men to confront all situations directly does not necessarily prepare them for any challenge they might face.

A people conditioned to flourish in a society of oppression only accomplished that by knowing how to assess, think, plan and react thoughtfully to the challenges they encountered in their lives.

In my nearly 60 years, I have known many men who have survived conflicts with those who did not give a damn about them.  I have also seen many families crushed under the grief of deadly violence.

"The Talk" is a memorable conversation many of us had with very wise older men.  They may not have had a lot of schooling, and some might have even been illiterate, but they knew their obligations and they understood the threats.

If we want our young men to one day be old men, some things can not remain unsaid.

Sons, nephews, their friends, and the young men in the lives of our daughters and granddaughters who may not know, or may not hear, it from those who'd mourn their loss the most, need to hear it somewhere.

"You will run into people in these streets who don't give a damn about you." Start the conversation there and then let them know why that matters.

Word, it's what it is!

Hoodies Don't Mean Danger

A question came up Friday night about what hoodies are. The first one i received was cotton fleece gray. It was surplus from World War II and not unlike one my dad brought home from service in the merchant marine.

  They have been part of American life for generations. They do not make anyone suspicious. 

 

 Homeboys wear them, Wiggers wear them, skater boys where them. No athlete, male or female who went to the NCAA tournaments would have traveled without one.

They are seen at soccer games, cheer leading competitions and gymnastics meets. Head out on a Saturday and they are the garment of choice at most coffee shops. Moms pack them in their diaper bags to pull over their infants' onesies if the weather gets cold or wet.

Hoodies have universal utility. they offer protection from the weather, but lack the armor to defend against deadly force. If you ignore the facts of this story, you place the safety of all you care about at risk.

Followed because you look suspicious for wearing a hoodie in March, even in Florida?

Clothes do not make the man. In this case, they did not protect the child.

Short List

Let's see, can I say what I think needs to be said in a few short lines?

Presidential wannabes are on the stump selling their vision of an America that once existed:

Women were wives or worked toward being wives and let their husbands and fathers make most decisions.

Racial and ethnic minorities knew "their place" and understood that if they stepped beyond it, no one would be there to keep the punishing rabble away.

The handicapped and disabled sold pencils, made mops, and accepted that because they were different, their needs could not be accommodated.

Those "other religions" were just not something we had to deal with in this country, because we weren't like that.

And people who lived "like that" just kept it quiet and acted like the rest of us when they came around decent people.

The candidates may promise to put "America back the way it was,"  but the genie is out of the bottle.

Making America better is not stepping back to any of the above.

There, less than 200 words.

Enough!

I was in my late 30s when I finally stopped being an automatically suspicious person. Still, my instincts tell me that the best way to encounter armed authorities, particularly after dark is with my driver's side window down and my hands  firmly gripping the steering wheel at 10 and two.

The Trayvon Martin case saddens me, angers me, and troubles me.  A 17-year-old child, dressed like anybody's 12 to 22 year-old child walks toward his house through a subdivision where his parents pay taxes and a mortgage wound up dead.

The 9-1-1 tapes are chilling. You hear a young boy screaming in terror. He is 140 pounds, with a soda and some candy in his pockets and he is walking home. Someone decided he looked like he was up to something and despite appeals from a 9-1-1 operator, chose to go after him in an S-U-V.

This citizen watchman not only decided to confront this child, but felt somehow he had authority to try and grab him, hold him and detain him not far from the presumed safety of his parents home.

We have to assume a struggle took place. Any of us who are parents would expect our children to run from danger in the interest of their survival., When he couldn't get away, he begged the darkness for help. Perhaps he tried in vain to protect himself with defensive maneuvers, even as his child's voice wailed out in terror.

If you have not heard the 9-1-1 tapes from this sordid, sick incident. I encourage you to listen: Trayvon Martin 9-1-1 Call



 They are the sounds of distant witnesses who at least had the human decency to call police. They are also the tragic screams of anybody's child. If you listen you may hear the utterances of disbelief from a boy who could not understand why walking home became the final seconds of his too short life.

Some would try to desensitize a mother's pain by suggesting that this is just another case of street violence. While it is true that young people are die everyday in our cities and some of our suburbs, there are no indications that this was about drugs, or girls or labeled shoes or jewelry or leather jackets or gang violence.

This was not a domey, or a case of "Addidas Up," as i have heard law enforcement officers describe incidents of domestic violence or neighborhood beefs repeatedly over the years.

This was just a kid, headed home, who allegedly ran into the wrong wannabe vigilante. Neighborhood watch people simply watch, they do not drive up as judges, juries and executioners and blow away their neighbors' children.

We have allowed ourselves to be desensitized to so much of the violence and other problems occurring in our own backyards. If our hearts become cold to any parents' pain, then who are we? Could we meet our God with such apathy for the worth of the living and claim for a moment we lived our lives for good?

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?

Lest You Be Judged

One thing I learned in thousands of Sundays sitting in lots of pews in lots of places. Most Christians believe that sin is sin. Many Christians believe in original sin. That's the one traced back to Adam and Eve and paradise lost.

There are also mortal sins and venial sins.  Somewhere in the mix are all the lies, thefts, murders, and slights against God, woman and man that most of us could ever imagine.

Still, I have always believed in a forgiving God. A God, who knows exactly what types of imperfect beings he created, and like the best of parents loves us anyway, flaws and all.

As much as I have learned through the years about the separation of church and state and how it is central the democracy in the United States, I am struck by the growing overlap between prayer and politics.

People are being judged, not for the way they live their secular lives, but essentially, how some, who call themselves people of faith believe they should act or live, according to them.

It wasn't long ago, maybe the 1980s, when some folks used to be accused of wrapping themselves in the flag. Back then, it was common to suggest that some people were stronger on defense than others, and even worse, to say some we would roll over for our enemies.

Today, the ranks of the military are filled with the sons and daughters of basic blue collar Americans. Wealthy people do not go there. While the last administration got us involved in Iraq (not to fight terrorism, it turns out) and Afghanistan, the current administration has been tough on Al Qaida and has found ways to make us safer.

Questioning the patriotism of the opposition was bad, but that's become difficult. Still, questioning the faith of many is even worse. It is tiresome to have people speaking out against what they think you may believe, when many do not live what they profess they believe.

Rush Limbaugh is the the pope of the Republican Party. He has awakened a lot of rage in the moderate middle, a very large group of Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans. This childless man labeled someone's daughter a harlot and a loose woman. Her alleged sin? Offering to share her personal story with Congress as it looked into a woman's health issue.

Many of those of us with daughters were offended by the nastiness of the labeling. Many of us with daughters would go completely off if such attacks were aimed at members of our own families.

I am reminded of Matthew 7, verses 1 and 2. I think it puts it all very clearly:

 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So, as this political season continues, and people are tempted to use the ideals they strive for to judge, candidates and voters, think of Ms. Fluke, and remember the words of John 8, verse 7: "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Like I said in the beginning, "sin is sin."

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.

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.

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.

By Any Means Necessary

A lot of us are in the habit of carrying voter registration applications around with us.  We give them to people who may not be registered or may have changed residences since the last election.

Maybe we should take the time to talk about things like voter intimidation and other dirty tricks they may encounter when they head to the polls.  Some people take politics that seriously.

They will lie about their opponents and smile while claiming their motivations are for the good of the country.  If people will destroy jobs to make money, blame the problems of the nation on "those people" and repeatedly desert sick wives for younger women, do you think they won't cheat you out of a vote against them?

Caucus results from eight precincts in Iowa are missing and will likely never be found.  Black people are being labeled as the prime recipients of food stamps even though only 22 percent of the recipients are black. 

If a man abandons sick wives, do you think he'll have much problem ignoring sick and suffering strangers? Then, there are the candidates who would use the courts to force their way onto ballots they neglected to qualify for.

Voter registration is only the beginning, voter education is the rest of the story.  When you talk to would be voters, encourage them to join the fight, then let them know there are people out there working everyday to keep them away from the polls.

Thinning Field

There is an ideological struggle underway as a back story to the race for the GOP nomination.

On the one-hand, you have very angry voters who have dug in their heels behind a vision of America where the people they disagree with do not matter.

On the other hand, you have Republicans who still perceive themselves as moderates. They control a lot of Grand Old Party money. They control a bunch of Political Action Committee donations, and they like to think they control what happens at the Republican National Committee Convention, especially when there is no incumbent seeking the nomination.


In the past, it was this faction of the party that deep-sixed the presidential aspirations of Pat Robertson and  twice got rid of Patrick Buchanan. They assured the first nomination of Ronald Reagan, brought us the compassionate conservatism of George Herbert Walker Bush, and financed the unsuccessful White House quests of Bob Dole and John McCain.

As the battle for the GOP nomination plays out,  the struggle between the angry wing of the party and its wealthy supporters will produce excellent drama. Some candidates will head out on the stump with varied speeches that seem to ask "who are we gonna hate or blame this week? Others will smile and talk about their electability and having the "best chance of beating Obama."

Neither of those themes offer much in the way of new ideas. As we watch the thinning field, just remember that it took the first 12 years of the 21st century to bring the nation to this point. What has happened in the last three was essentially just a few steps toward righting the mistakes of the previous decade.

Voters may be impatient for change, but life is not a sit-com or a made-for-TV movie. You cannot wrap up huge problems into a tidy solution in the last few minutes of a half-an-hour, or the final scenes of DVD.  That means whatever happens Nov. 6, we will still be in the midst of correcting a floundering course. 

So even if you don't have much interest in the opening act for Campaign 2012, tune in to the game from time to time. It will produce some great one-liners, a few interesting quotes, and hopefully, a lot of insight into what these people really think.

Think About Us

The United States is an evolving idea. If you think about it, it has always been that way.

Lately I have been thinking about the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Even if the people who founded this country could not bring themselves to accept the concept that all men were truly equal, Congress eventually got around to it.

Civil Rights are Human Rights

After a bloody civil war, the 14th amendment became part of the law of the land. It opened the way for many things that made a difference in America for the next 150 years.

Great men and women think about the big picture. They consider not only the value of the change they help bring to themselves, but also the way those changes will affect future generations.

My wife and I spent  Jan. 14 on the National Mall, in Washington, D.C.  It's funny, but sandwiched between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials are two monuments to great thinkers and visionary men of the 20th Century.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the 32nd president of the United States. Rev. Martin Luther King was a human rights activist.  Their monuments capture their times, but they also point toward hopeful images of a world that most people in their times could not have imagined.

Words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Roosevelt was perhaps the greatest disabled person in U.S. history. He was a friend to Helen Keller and a founder of the March of Dimes. He believed this was a country that could harness the strengths of all its people.

Martin Luther King, spoke out for peace, economic justice, and universal opportunity.. Quotes on their Memorial walls speak not of "those people," but of "all people".  They point to the tragedy of empathy and the pain shared by all who suffer injustice.

Words of Martin Luther King

Some people consider the MLK Holiday, just a black holiday. When you think about it, every law enacted in response to the civil rights movement of the past century has been blind to race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, age, disability and even sexual orientation.

The late congressman George "Mickey" Leland, D-Texas, was fond of saying that "America is a promise. It is not what the country has been or what it is now, but what we all work to make it in the future."

Over months and years, and decades, we continue to work to make it better. I wrote this week that "
Nothing makes a person change their mind about civil rights protections more quickly than reaching a point in life when theirs are violated."

It seems that when one winds up on the receiving end of institutionalized unfairness, their views on right and wrong often begin to resemble those of people who've fought the battles of the habitually or consistently oppressed.

The message I brought away from a day of walking through January's cold and looking at words from men who knew nothing of the 21st Century was that in the end, it is not about "us against them," it is really "all about us."

Standards and Principles

Let's See. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Tawana Brawley.  These are all names that have  come up for years in discussions about the politics of Barrack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Politics can be a very unforgiving process.
People weigh your past voting records and statements. They examine your relationships ans associations. And they consider the actions of your family, your business associates and your high-profile supporters.

When you have to campaign in 50 states and five territories, everything you say, do or ever have done could have a shelf life.   People will remember insensitive positions you've taken against women or minorities. They will also remember your appearances made before or on behalf of organizations and institutions and your associations with individuals.

So, if Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Tawana Brawley can be forever linked to some politicians, then surely other politicians should face similar scruitiny. If public denouncements and repudiation are so critical to vindication, then perhaps such demands should be universally applied.

Would that not be holding everyone to the same standards?  Wouldn't that make clarifying where candidates stand on issues such as bigotry a matter of principle?