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."

Too Many Witnesses

Have you noticed that the only presidential candidate really talking about making the nation better is the incumbent?

While there is an awful lot of nonstop campaigning for the Republican nomination going on, the men seeking the nod all like to blather on and on about "taking our country back," or "returning the nation to what the founding fathers intended," or in some way or another "restoring the freedoms we have lost."

But, really, there are too many witnesses who know firsthand about the shortcomings of the past to want that as a future for their children and grandchildren. I am not talking about slavery, sweat shops or child labor.

Those are all documented historic facts reflecting conditions in the United States that were sanctioned as official policy for decades or centuries. Yet, most of the victims of those systems are gone.

I'm talking about protective covenants in housing; glass ceilings and discrimination in hiring, promotions and other personnel matters, funding inequities in education and health care; discretionary law enforcement in cases of rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and other crimes; racial profiling, lending and finance and the provision of basic services for socially, physically, or economically disadvantaged populations.
 
There are still millions of people alive who can speak first-hand of such injustices.

The founding fathers had the wisdom to ensure that an independent judiciary would have the final say on all constitutional matters.  Federal judges, and by extension, the Supreme Court have the right and the obligation to periodically reexamine laws and issues to determine whether, based upon reason and the times, certain aspects of American life warrant institutional review, revocation or change.

The problem is that freedom and equality have not always meant the same thing in this country. I've written before about property rights, voting rights, and human rights. People are entitled to all of these things whether they agree with you politically, morally, socially or not.

Religious freedom is not just for Christians, Jews and Muslims, it's also for Buddhists, Wiccans and Satanists.  Local standards and majority customs cannot define who can participate nor can any group force any individual to keep their own beliefs silent in the interests of not offending the majority.

Public education is not just for the gifted, the average and the able-bodied. It is something that is supposed to be universally offered and provided. Yet, more times than not, the courts or advocates have to fight tooth and nail to make sure that some children have access to the programs and services they need.

Women are still fighting for the right to maintain control over when and if they become pregnant, even as some would deny them the choice of whether to become parents.  We are taught that women have the right to say no and expect it to mean no. Now, some politicians are saying "I don't think so." 

Equal access in the job market remains a real challenge for many.  Growing numbers of men and women have learned during the Great Recession that the playing field is not level, and age, race, body type, sexual orientation and other factors can mean the difference between getting or keeping a job, and waiting for calls that never come.

Those who would seek to reign in courts, deregulate business, and limit the rights of the small to challenge the mighty do not offer a free and equal world. Instead they offer an America stripped of many of the protections that have gradually shifted us toward being a nation of greater universal freedoms.

They also promise their would be supporters a future they envision that those who have ever lived with the indignity of exclusion simply cannot allow. If justice is not blind, it is good to have laws and courts to offer her guidance.

 

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 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.

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!

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.

The Nation Needs Great Works

"When more and more people are thrown out of work , unemployment results."-- Calvin Coolidge, U.S. President, 1923-1929

 

Those words made headlines in the Roaring Twenties, they were uttered by a committed deregulator in an era when irrational exuberance dominated the mood of investors, large and small.  Did I mention that the quote came shortly before the Wall Street Crash that led to the Great Depression?

(Photo By: Debra Davis-Holly)

I had really good history teachers in school and my love of the subject has helped me during more than 40 years as a journalist. While the technology changes from one era to the next, many of the problems are basically the same.  

Lessons Learned: When you turn the nation's future over to business, you roll the dice with leaders who are only accountable to their major stockholders. If things don't work out, a lot of little people lose out. 

 

Over the next nine months, we will hear a lot about freeing up business to create jobs and put Americans back to work. I'd love to see more jobs and more Americans working, but the people talking about that don't have real track records of creating good, permanent private sector jobs here at home.  

I'm not talking about part-time positions with no benefits, and I am definitely not talking about contract opportunities that pay by the day and leave workers twisting in the wind on taxes, unemployment insurance and healthcare.

 

Yes, lots of people need jobs, but the Great Recession has ended. Banks that were on the ropes are stabilizing and big manufacturing is rebounding. General Motors is once again the number one manufacturer of automobiles,  less than four years after a government bailout. Most of the Troubled Asset Relief Program funds have been paid back, but there's still a lot of work to be done, and much of that work could be projects literally right in your own backyards.

Drive through your community, or most any community in the nation, and you will see the results of bold infrastructure projects begun or completed as a result of public investment with the help of private labor. 

Examples? The interstate Highway System,  most major commercial airports, courthouses, schools, canals, ports, railroads, bridges, tunnels and water and sewage systems.

Photo By: Derrill Holly

When we have not invested in such things, the nation has suffered. When the world economy has stalled, those projects, financed by debt have kept people working and kept the nation moving forward.  They are productive pursuits that reap huge public benefits and tangible results.

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were builders. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and two guys named Bush were not.  

 

My conservative friends will note that this is a bipartisan list. It includes visionaries who saw value in using the nation's infrastructure needs to put idle people to work. It also includes a number of "stand patters" who saw no need to modernize. One group looked ahead and the other sought savings that now clearly were not reinvested in the nation's future.

There are obviously no guarantees in life, but if business leaders-- you know, the ones throwing all of  that money into Super PACs-- aren't ready to hire Americans for full-time permanent jobs, I just don't see giving them the reins to the future.

At Risk: 75 Years of Progress

The 2012 elections are about the future. There are alternate versions of that future that could well be determined by one national election and 468 House and Senate races. 

People really need to think about what the vision so-called fiscal conservatives have for the nation. They do not see a role for Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, or universal access to health care. They envision a nation where people can do business with whom they choose, have different pricing structures for different types of customers and refuse to serve areas for any reason they choose, even without explaining it.

Some of them speak openly of limiting or even eliminating the rights of victims to turn to the courts for justice and relief when they've been injured through negligence or circumstance. Some would even shift control of federal money, raised through taxes we all pay into the hands of people in the states, and try to limit the ability of federal judges to intervene under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Already, we are hearing candidates label such jurists as "bad judges" because some of their rulings consider Equal Protection central to U.S. laws. They would reduce or eliminate Pell Grants , in favor of loan programs that would turn our children into indentured servants for decades to come. They would privatize Social Security, and look coldly at those whose future security was lost in a system rife with marketplace flaws.

In the age of Super PACs, with unlimited corporate money flowing in to support candidates who would place business ahead of fairness, we have to do more than just focus on the presidency. The prevent defense that's stifled work on Capitol Hill in recent years could be on the beginning. We could see a new "Contract With America" that winds up being a contract on the working man.

Thirty years ago, President Reagan led the charge to turn community block grants over to the states. Now some of those cities that used to receive them contain residential dead zones. They are entire neighborhoods, of abandoned houses, broken glass and decaying streets that rival the brownfields of long-dormant industrial sites we've been dealing with for decades.

Between 1980 and 1997, 27 percent of the nation's public hospitals closed, eliminating 66,000 beds. As Baby Boomers age, Medicare, becomes our problem. Free market healthcare could well jeopardize any retirement we are able to salvage from the Great Recession, and frankly, most of us do not have time to build a financial cushion to protect us from that risk.

Rest, assured, there are many problems, and of course there are limits to what the taxpayers and the nation can afford, but when it comes to programs I know my parents and grandparents depended on and found comfort in, I am just not willing to risk everything on a crapshoot with the profit mongers and speculators.

Who occupies the White House and who does the work on Capitol Hill could well determine if more of that is part of America's vision of the future. Everything from FDR's New Deal to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society is hanging in the balance.


They may say "beating Obama is the most important thing," but believe me, they've got bigger plans than that, and if their vision of "returning to American values" does not include you, then finding that out in 2013 could be a truly costly mistake.

Where Will the Money Go?

Mitt Romney is filthy rich.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But it appears there are huge differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.  One type is preoccupied with tax policy, deregulation and spending as little on the public as possible. The other often wants government to define, restrict or codify its beliefs. 

While so-called liberal Democrats provide the muscle and the people to get their candidates elected, the liberal leadership understands that there is no money without the progressive wing of the party.  Wealthy Republicans have always been able to count on the party to ensure that a relatively moderate speaking candidate survives to carry the party's standard. 

This time, you have Romney seeking the nomination against several remaining candidates that many believe appeal to social conservatives. 

Romney is being branded with the "L" word.  The man believes corporations are people and admits to getting a rush from firing folks. 

Some wealthy Republicans believe he might be good for business.  They are reportedly not too clear about the prospects for candidates who would spend too much time on issues like civil unions, abortion, and creationism. 

When you think about the last ten Republican presidential nominees, win or lose, none of them did much to change national policy on those issues. From Eisenhower through McCain, not much was said or done beyond the lip service to the language in the party platform.

So, how much money will fiscal conservatives be willing to spend on those sideshow issues?  My guess is not very much with any enthusiasm if they think it is bad for business. 

South Carolina may be the battleground for now, but don't look for it to be the final meaningful battle.  Those with the deepest pockets are now fighting for the heart and soul of the Grand Old Party. If Romney cannot pull off a slam dunk, you can bet Republicans with money will try to bring a voice of reason to the nomination fight.

Wait for it, WAIT FOR IT... “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964

The preceding quote helped make The Great Society possible.

The Business of Governing

While you can try to run a nation like a family, you really can't run one like a business.  The motivations are different.

Families take care of each other.  They recognize strengths and weaknesses and act with empathy on behalf of members in need.  They also keep a place for the rowdy and disagreeable even when it's not easy.

 Businesses try to make a profit. Now there's nothing wrong with profits, but often getting there means neglecting the weak and casting off the disagreeable.  Anybody whose ever worked for a company or in an industry forced to change its business model knows the drill.

"We are downsizing... it's a business decision."  One way businesses have prospered in recent years is to absorb struggling firms, sell off what doesn't work, compromise the old pension plan and contract out production.  "We'll keep the brand, but slap the nameplates on something we made overseas."

Running the nation like a business is a scary approach.  Can you imagine selling off Cleveland, or Buffalo, or St. Louis just because aging urban centers are no longer profitable?

Coming out of the Great Depression, people did not have a lot of faith in bankers. They also expected businesses to change.  Very little of the change that followed was voluntary.

Much of the New Deal wound up before the Supreme Court. While everything the president came up with did not work. Those things that did, have worked well for more than sixty years.

I'm not ready to trust a banker. I also do not want to see the country run like a business.  That kind of mandate could lead to some very good people being declared surplus.