The Politics Of Accusations, Conspiracy Theories And Propaganda.

When FBI Director James Comey announced last week that the FBI was reviewing emails that could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton case, it was quickly publicized by GOP congressmen as the FBI “re-opening the investigation of the Clinton private email server.” That, in fact, was untrue. The new announcement was referring to the discovery of emails on former congressman Anthony Wiener’s laptop which was shared with his wife, assistant to Clinton, that MAY have a bearing on the Clinton case – emphasis on MAY. The FBI had not yet read the emails in question – indeed it had no warrant to do so – so it could not conclude that the emails provided any new insights into the original case.

There was nothing to indicate a change in the FBI’s original conclusion that there was no evidence that Clinton had committed a crime, and no reason to prosecute the former Secretary of State. Yet the media and Republicans quickly turned Comey’s vague announcement into yet another unsubstantiated accusation against the Democratic presidential candidate.

That’s what the GOP and Donald Trump do best – make accusations against Hillary based on supposition, innuendo and wild conspiracy theories. And the media did what they do best – seeing a story that could increase ratings and readership, they pounced on it. Reading the headlines alone, one would have concluded that the FBI had found a smoking gun showing that Hillary was guilty of a crime. There were even headlines suggesting that she would be impeached should she win the White House! Following the sensational reports, the media then tried to backtrack in order to give the impression that they were functioning as real journalists. But the damage had already been done.

Before we all jump to conclusions, we should all do what the media should have done…take a deep breath and look at the facts.

For context, you should know that most levels of the federal government are technically challenged. Case in point: When President Obama took office, he wanted to continue to use a Blackberry so that he could manage all of his communications on a single device. The NSA originally told the president that his request could not be met. But, after much discussion, the NSA found a way to make it possible while keeping the president’s communications secure.

Upon her appointment to Secretary of State, Clinton asked for the same kind of system. But the NSA refused. So Clinton did something similar to what her predecessors had done. She chose to use her own email server in order to keep all of her unclassified communications on a single device – a server that she shared with her husband, a former president of the United States. (It should be noted that the server had been approved by the Secret Service and though the official State Department email system was hacked during Hillary’s tenure, there is no evidence to indicate that Clinton server was hacked.)

It is also important to note that all official State Department business is conducted by secured phones, diplomatic pouches or by wire. Emails are simply used for correspondence between State Department employees. And Hillary’s email was only used by her closest associates.

Given that it was well-known that Hillary intended to run for president again in 2016, it’s easy to see why her emails were of such curiosity to the GOP. It is equally easy to understand why she would delete any personal emails that would reveal details of her impending political campaign.

Though she has stated that she regrets using a private server and has publicly apologized for it, there is absolutely no indication that she compromised national security or broke the law. But her actions and the subsequent refusal of the FBI to recommend charges, have made for a good conspiracy theory invented by the GOP and reported by the sensation-seeking press.

In fact, it’s like all of the other GOP-created accusations against Clinton: Whitewater, Travelgate, Fostergate and Benghazigate. They all consist of wild accusations with little substance. That’s why, though the accusations have been thoroughly investigated at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer money, no charges have ever been filed.

Yet, based on the belief that where there’s smoke there’s fire, suspicion and innuendo fueled by Republicans and the media have hung over the Clintons like a cloud.

For some reason, the same kinds of suspicion are seldom applied to Republicans. For example, the four Republican congressmen who led the charge to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his dalliance with a White House intern were, themselves, guilty of the very same kind of transgressions or worse. One, former Speaker Dennis Hastert, was found guilty of child molestation.

And during this presidential campaign, the very same people who yell “lock her up” at Trump rallies are more than willing to ignore even worse accusations about their own candidate. Donald Trump is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault, having even bragged about them in an off-camera recording. He is also accused of having highly questionable financial ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Worse, he is facing multiple legal cases against the Trump Foundation and Trump University. And, while Hillary is endorsed by virtually every major newspaper and media outlet in the US, Trump is endorsed by the KKK and the Alt-Right.

Further, Trump refuses to follow decades of precedence and release his tax returns. He has all but admitted that he used some highly questionable loopholes to avoid paying nearly a billion dollars in taxes. He has reported ties to the mob. Worst of all, he is being sued for raping a 13-year-old girl!

These aren’t mere accusations. These are charges of substance. And they make the accusations against Hillary pale in comparison. But, for some unexplained reason, instead of cringing in horror at the actions of the tangerine one, supposed Christians have circled the wagons around a candidate that violates every single value they claim to espouse.

Go figure.

The Video Fantasies of James O’Keefe.

Given motivation, a hidden camera, editing software and enough time, anyone could create videos showing targets saying almost anything. An edit here and an edit there and you could make it seem that a NASA official said the moon landing was a fraud. Or you could make it seem that the Pope said there is no God.

Such is the work of James O’Keefe and his Breitbart-sponsored pals.

In 2009, O’Keefe released videos purporting to show employees of the community organizing group ACORN giving advice regarding prostitution. Not surprisingly, the group’s political enemies went wild resulting in Congress denying any further funds to the group. Even though the videos were later proven to have been fraudulent and misleading, the news came too late – long after most of the organization’s offices were closed.

Then, in 2015, O’Keefe turned his sights and his hidden cameras on Planned Parenthood, creating another set of highly-edited and misleading videos that seemed to show Planned Parenthood officials offering to purchase and sell baby parts from aborted fetuses. The videos are still reverberating in the blogosphere and among right-wing political pundits causing the GOP-controlled Congress to sponsor legislation aimed at cutting funding for the organization even though O’Keefe’s work was again shown to be fraudulent.

One would think that two such efforts would have relegated O’Keefe to the trash heap of history alongside the likes of Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and other disreputable right-wing operatives where he could no longer cause harm to well-meaning people and organizations. But he’s back with yet another unscrupulous hit job. This time he’s attempting to show that Democratic officials have engaged in unethical campaign tactics, the promotion of violence and vote rigging leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

In other words, O’Keefe is trying to prove the Democratic Party is guilty of doing the very same things the Republican Party and the Trump campaign are doing!

Yet the comparison is unconvincing. On the one hand, we have some highly-edited videos produced by a known fraudster. On the other hand, we have a long history of GOP efforts to gerrymander legislative and congressional district; of federal court cases surrounding voter suppression efforts by the GOP; of the beatings of protesters caught on video at campaign rallies; of GOP elected officials arbitrarily removing the names of minorities from voter registration lists.

Current Election More Revealing Of Character Than Policy.

There was a time when the debate between candidates and their supporters revolved around issues such as defense spending, tax policy, safety nets, federal deficits and debt. No longer. This election cycle has revolved around character – not just the character of candidates. But that of their supporters.

Here’s a case in point: Someone I know has been agonizing over a health crisis his wife is facing. Yet when he told a long-time friend and Trump supporter, the friend chose to use the situation to score political points by attacking Obamacare. Seriously? In fact, the wife would not be alive today without Obamacare. But his friend failed to consider that. So, instead of displaying a shred of sympathy or humanity, the friend chose to try to score political points!

As bad as that may seem, the example is far from unique.

Emboldened by Trump, people I’ve long known and cared about have made horribly racist statements. I’ve seen them reflexively attack Trump’s victims of sexual assault without knowing the women or the circumstances. I’ve heard them call for the exclusion of Muslims from the US and the deportation of Mexicans. I’ve heard them say that Hillary should be locked up even though they have not taken the time to examine the facts of her supposed transgressions. I’ve seen them repeat vicious, false and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories despite all the evidence to the contrary. I’ve heard them say that they admire how Trump “tells it like it is” even though independent fact-checking organizations have concluded that a vast majority of his statements are false.

I’ve seen these people support a candidate who has bragged about refusing to pay suppliers; who has filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits out of spite; who calls himself smart for evading taxes; who has encouraged violence; who has embraced the endorsement of the KKK, who has supported the torture of our enemies; who has called for the murder of combatants’ families; and who has stated that our democratic process is rigged so he may be unwilling to accept the outcome of the election. He has even suggested that the only remedy for his defeat is for his supporters to “exercise their second amendment rights.”

Any one of these things would be disqualifying for someone seeking to become a third world dictator, let alone for a candidate for President of the United States.

But what about his supporters – those who have helped Trump attain the nomination of a once-great party? How should we view them? Is it possible to remain friends with those who have revealed themselves to be of such questionable character? Personally, I don’t think so.

I can be friends with those who disagree with me on policy. Indeed, I encourage it. I learn little when I’m surrounded by like-minded people – they simply reinforce the views I already have. I thrive on debate – thoughtful, insightful and sometimes impassioned debate on issues that are supported by facts. But I do not care to engage in relationships with those who hold racist beliefs; those who would deny civil rights to others; those who choose hatred and meanness over respect and kindness; those who would deny aid to families in need; those who place partisanship over country; those who choose unsubstantiated lies over truth; those who care so little for the circumstances and feelings of others that they no longer understand what it means to be human.

In this regard, the 2016 election has done us all a great favor. It has helped us know our families, friends and acquaintances as never before.

The Age Of Disruption.

It has become fashionable for entrepreneurs and businesses to seek disruption; to seek opportunities so significant they can disrupt and change entire sectors of the economy in the same way Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat have disrupted the traditional media business; in the same way Uber and Lyft have disrupted traditional taxicab companies; in the same way AirBnB is disrupting the hotel business.

While these examples have been disruptive, for the most part they have created as many job opportunities as those they have displaced.

However, there are two impending disruptions that promise to be far more damaging: Climate change and Artificial Intelligence. Yet few are talking about them. Few have any idea of the large-scale impact of these issues. And our political leaders are either in denial or clueless.

Let’s begin with the effects of climate change. Scientists, NOAA, NASA, the EPA, the Department of Defense, POTUS, the UN, even world religious leaders have warned of the impending consequences of failing to deal with climate change. We know that the world’s coastlines and many of the world’s largest cities are threatened by global warming and rising sea levels. We know that climate change is increasing the number and violence of weather systems. And we know that thousands of the world’s species of plants and animals are threatened by changing temperatures. Yet politicians – specifically those in the Republican Party – continue to call climate change a hoax. And they have blocked every attempt to head off a crisis. But the rules of science are unbound by the beliefs of politicians.

Climate change is happening on a massive scale. And, unless we view it as a serious threat, as well as an economic opportunity for creating new industries to replace carbon fuels, climate change is likely to cause unprecedented migration and disruption. In the most extreme circumstances, perhaps it will render our planet uninhabitable for humans. Yet, in the first presidential debate, the subject of climate change was not seriously addressed by either candidate.

The other impending disruption is Artificial Intelligence (AI) – computers and robots that can learn by absorbing massive amounts of data and use logic to perform tasks that we take for granted as being exclusive to humans. We have already seen robots replace thousands of workers in manufacturing plants. In fact, more American manufacturing jobs have been lost to robots than have been shipped to China. Indeed, in recent years, many manufacturing plants have been moved back to the US, but much of their work is being done by robots.

Today’s automotive manufacturing plants employee far fewer people than ever before. The automotive frames and bodies are welded together by robots to precise tolerances that cannot be matched by humans. The engine blocks and other parts are cast, drilled and partially assembled by robots. So all of the tough talk about making US corporations bring back jobs through tariffs and other trade deals is just that…talk.

And manufacturing robots are just the beginning.

For example, within the next ten years, we will see the widespread use of self-driving cars and trucks. One of the positive consequences of such vehicles is that they will be able to reduce and virtually eliminate traffic accidents. On the other hand, they will eliminate the jobs of long haul truckers and taxicab drivers, even Lyft and Uber drivers. It is estimated that there are more than 10 million semi-truck drivers in the US alone.

What will these people do?

In the future, AI will permeate every aspect of our lives. AI computers will be able to access online legal libraries, make decisions and file legal documents on our behalf without need of a lawyer. They will be able to perform medical surgeries with more precision than the world’s best surgeons. They will replace military personnel. They will replace airline pilots and ship captains. They will act as highly-skilled and highly-trained servants to perform most of our daily tasks. They will search the Web for the best products at the best value and make recommendations to us. They will make purchases, make reservations and pay bills for us.

Such capabilities are not somewhere far off in the future. Computers are doing similar things now.

If the development of AI continues at the current pace (in all likelihood it will accelerate), more and more humans will be looking for and competing for jobs only humans can do. The disruption will be dramatic!

So while our politicians argue about national deficits and debt; while they dither over the reality of climate change; while they create fear over the influx of immigrants; while they divide us with ideologies; while they fiddle with the mundane, Rome and the rest of the world, including the US is only awaiting the match that will set fire to everything we know, even what we think we know.

Another Day. Another Police Shooting.

The current unrest in Charlotte as a result of yet another police shooting should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all metropolitan police departments. It’s only the latest in a long line of black men – many of them unarmed – who were shot and killed by police. The Charlotte shooting may well have been a justified shooting (it’s too early to make judgments). But that doesn’t mean that the unrest and rioting in Charlotte are unjustified.

After all, how many studies and investigations have uncovered disparities between the police treatment of whites and blacks? How many police departments have been exposed for racial profiling? How many studies have shown that the causes of crimes are economic rather than racial? How many studies have shown an enormous disparity in wealth and compensation between whites and blacks?

At least fifteen black people have been shot and killed by police – some of them with their hands raised – just since Colin Kaepernick called attention to the issue by refusing to stand for the National Anthem. Yet Kaepernick was vilified by some in the police, the military, and the media. And the Charlotte unrest, following the shootings in Dallas, the unrest in Ferguson and the formation of Black Lives Matter, has caused the clueless and the racist to believe that black people are lawless and get what they deserve.

So here’s my question to these people. Just how long should minorities put up with unequal treatment?

Blacks have already suffered through slavery, Jim Crow, voter suppression, segregation, redlining, discrimination, fewer educational opportunities, and lower wages. They were subjected to lynchings and bombings to gain their civil rights. They have put up with white flight leaving them to pay a disproportionate share of taxes while living in the hollowed out core of cities. They have been targeted for “stop & frisk”. Many of their families were torn apart as a result of disproportionate law enforcement for drug use. And almost all of them have been unlawfully detained for “driving while black”.

So I repeat the question: How much longer should minorities put up with inequality?

The unrest in Charlotte may not be justified by the police killing of Keith Lamont Scott. But it is nonetheless justified. Now, I’m certainly not advocating race riots – far from it. But it’s long past time for governments at all levels of our society to take action against racial inequities; to put some teeth into discrimination laws; to reform policing; to root out racist police officers. And it’s time for white people to stop blaming the messengers like Colin Kaepernick and to look at the message itself; to empathize with the people who are subjected to injustice. If demonstrating in the streets causes others to take notice, great!

Put into perspective, minorities in the US have been extraordinarily patient with the status quo. But their patience is obviously running out. It should.

We Cannot End Political Divisiveness Without First Changing Our Media.

Following the era of so-called “Yellow Journalism” from the early 1900s during which newspapers wrapped themselves in shame by focusing on sensationalism to the point of creating false stories, journalists found their better selves. After the Great Depression and World War II, journalists focused on exposing and reporting the truth. Not coincidentally, during that time period, our nation thrived. For the most part, our politicians and leaders served their constituents’ needs because the media held them accountable.

The truth was more important than readership, ratings and sensationalism.

More recently, especially following the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, our media chose a different path. They became obsessed with profits. That meant they intentionally sought out controversy and sensationalism. “If it bleeds, it leads” became their operating mantra. Real issues – those of politics and governance – were pushed to the background to be replaced by reports of crime and corruption, both real and perceived.

No longer interested in truth, the media instead focused on “balance.” Conflicting views were each handed a microphone and the “journalists” merely sat back to watch the ensuing arguments. This philosophy has now reached its zenith as demonstrated by NBC’s Matt Lauer’s performance at the “Commander-In-Chief” forum. During Hillary Clinton’s interview, he pushed her on already discredited accusations related to Benghazi, her private email server and the Clinton Foundation. Not because he thought he could find anything new of substance, but because they were sensational. On the other hand, when it was Donald Trump’s turn, Lauer asked softball questions refusing even to challenge or expose any of Trump’s many lies.

Lauer was offering viewers balance. What he was denying them was truth.

Such an approach does NOT qualify as journalism. It is mere entertainment, and not very good entertainment at that. It denies viewers the information they need to make informed decisions at the polls. It allows a liar and a bully who has done absolutely nothing to serve our nation to galvanize support. And Matt Lauer is certainly not alone. There are many other faux journalists who either hide behind “balance” or ignore the tenets of objectivity and real journalism to take sides. Worse, it encourages candidates and leaders to lie…to tell people what they want to hear without regard to reality or the facts.

To relate this to a sporting contest, it’s like a football or basketball team that has decided to commit as many fouls as possible in order to win knowing that the officials can’t, or won’t, call them all.

And things are only getting worse. Mainstream media ownership is in the hands of a very few. Thanks to Citizens United, the wealthy and powerful are able to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money to purchase elections. And on-line media has fragmented to such an extent, it is easy for voters to get one-sided “news” that panders to their ideologies.

All of this begs the question, “What can we do?”

The answer is for our citizens to exert some degree of control over the media. To demand that mainstream media replace pundits with journalists and to, once again, focus on the facts and the truth; to hold the media accountable; to demand that any organization that calls itself a news organization to operate in the public interest as judged by a bipartisan commission that includes real journalists; to acknowledge that falsehoods and partisanship do not help our nation. Indeed, they do it great harm. As was the case under the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, those media outlets that do not meet the standards of the commission should be denied their ability to operate and to collect advertising dollars.

This is not about censorship. It’s about truthfulness. We should teach our children that truth matters then demonstrate it to them.

Black Lives Matter! A Primer For White People.

When it became evident that an increasing number of black people were being killed by police despite being unarmed and often innocent, some activists formed Black Lives Matter. Given the obvious nature of their complaints, it’s unlikely that the founders thought the organization would be seen as particularly controversial. Yet many white people seemed to miss the point or, more likely, willfully ignored it. In response, they proclaimed that all lives matter.

Of course all lives matter! So do white lives and blue (police) lives. But such statements ignore the issue. The BLM organizers weren’t saying that black lives matter more than others. After reeling from police killings of unarmed black people: Eric Garner, Michael Brown, John Crawford, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland – the list is depressingly long – the activists were simply saying that black lives should matter as much as others! But the ongoing police murders of unarmed black people, black children, black people with their hands up in a clear sign of surrender, and black people in police custody clearly demonstrated to them that many police seem to assign a lesser value to black lives.

What the activists were really saying is that black lives matter, too! And the reason they took offense at the responses of All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter and White Lives Matter is that those slogans entirely ignored the issue. They showed a lack of empathy and understanding of racism, even if the responses are well-intended.

Even when the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its scathing report on the Ferguson Police Department, many Americans failed to get the point. They again showed a lack of understanding when the DOJ released an equally scathing report on policing in Baltimore. Even as the officers who killed unarmed black people continued to escape charges or were acquitted for their actions, many white Americans either ignored the developments or chose to demonize the members of Black Lives Matter as engaging in reverse racism. We continue to see signs and chants of Blue Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, White Lives Matter.

The backlash reached a crescendo when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem prior to a NFL exhibition game (an anthem which, by the way, was written by a slave-owner and includes racist text in its second verse). Kaepernick was quickly dismissed as un-American and many accused him of disrespecting veterans who fought for our country. Of course, he was doing neither. He was exercising his First Amendment right to call attention to the disparity in policing of blacks and whites. In doing so, he was trying to improve the country; to make it live up to its promise for all Americans.

Here’s the thing: Until the police, the white supremacists and the clueless supporters of Donald Trump pull their heads out of their collective behinds, the BLM movement will grow.

What will it take to make Black Lives Matter end the demonstrations? That’s simple. The answer is for law enforcement officers and the justice system to end the unequal treatment of minorities. That will require higher standards and more intensive training for police. No more 16-week wonders who trade in their police academy books for guns. No more militarized police departments who treat policing as war. No more bullies with badges.

Police Chiefs must be tasked with identifying the bad apples within their departments and firing them. More important, the good police officers (and there are many of them) must end the practice of covering up for the racist and incompetent officers. Likewise, the police unions must hold their members accountable. When bad cops are allowed to continue to dispense street justice in a disproportionate way, everyone loses, including the good officers who place their lives on the line to ensure public safety for all of the people in their communities.

Finally, the state Attorneys General and the DOJ should track arrests and the penalties meted out in all communities across the nation. When they discover disparities they must hold the cities responsible to correct the issues or lose their state and federal funding.

No group of people should be allowed to think that their lives matter less than others. Black Lives Matter, too!

Fascism, American Style.

Let me begin by stating that I recognize that fascism is a loaded and almost universally misunderstood term. Indeed, it’s one of the F words used to end conversations. But, in most cases, the fascist label is wrongly applied. For example, if you are intolerant of other races and ethnic groups, you may be a bigot. But you are not necessarily a fascist. Or, if, like President Obama, you are a democratically-elected official attempting to act on an agenda you were elected to enact, you are almost certainly not a fascist.

On the other hand, if you believe in extreme nationalism (that your country is always right, regardless of its actions) and that large corporations should necessarily enjoy a special status above that of individuals then you are almost certainly a fascist.

That’s not just my opinion.

It’s based on the words of the man who has been widely recognized as the founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini, who once said, “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state” and “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism.” Mussolini also believed in an extreme form of nationalism. As the Italian Prime Minister, he demanded complete authority, believing that he was the only person capable of solving his nation’s problems. Yet he decried state ownership of institutions, writing, “It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly…”

If these beliefs and statements remind you of the GOP vision for America – unfettered free markets, privatization of all public institutions, a belief in “American Exceptionalism”, the co-opting of the American flag as a show of nationalism and party affiliation, a determination to enforce “family values” and a powerful leader who promises to run the nation as a business – they should. By Mussolini’s definition, such views are the very embodiment of fascism.

In fact, thanks to the Republican Party, the US now leans heavily toward fascism. After all, the vast majority of our media are controlled by a very few large corporations. We have begun to privatize our schools, our prisons, even our roads. Large corporations have been allowed to hide their profits offshore to avoid taxes. Defense suppliers have been given no-bid contracts and are allowed to pass billions of dollars in cost overruns along to taxpayers. Our government is not permitted to negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals on behalf of our citizens. And Republicans have called for the privatization of Social Security and Medicare.

So how did we get here?

First, it should be noted that among certain circles – primarily those including powerful industrialists and financiers – fascism was popular in the US before WWII. But, though it was defeated, the concepts of fascism began to reappear in the US with corporate lobbying and what former President Eisenhower termed “the military-industrial complex.”

The ideology gained traction when Reagan vilified government and attacked labor unions. It was aided by the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which required media to act in the public interest. It was legalized when the conservative-dominated Supreme Court ruled that money equals free speech, that corporations are people, and that limits on political donations are unconstitutional. And it was institutionalized through the creation of ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) which brings large corporations and legislators together. As part of its charter, ALEC’s corporate lawyers write corporate-friendly bills dubbed “model legislation” then hand them to ALEC’s conservative legislative members who take them back to their respective states – often without reading them – and introduce the bills as if they are their own.

As a result of all this, large corporations and the very wealthy control most of Congress, many state legislatures and many other elected officials. And to ensure future control, the Koch brothers and their associates are using their wealth to meddle in many down-ballot races, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, even school boards.

All of this is bad enough. But what happens if we elect a nationalistic, authoritarian ideologue to the White House who believes government should be run like a business? I shudder to think of the possibility.

Ending Racism: A Proposal.

America has a problem with racism that we have not yet adequately addressed. Sure, we passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but those actions didn’t actually solve racism. Far from it. They merely altered it by making it somewhat less obvious and making it uncomfortable for racist white people to express their inner feelings.

Then along came Donald Trump and his attacks on political correctness, which freed racists to make public their long-held beliefs. In a way, such displays of overt racial hatred along with Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem can be seen as a good thing by bringing the issue back to the forefront. And I would suggest that it’s long overdue.

The problem stems from the fact that the US stands virtually alone in refusing to acknowledge its ugly past. For example, after Germany was defeated in World War II, it was forced to deal with the reality that it had committed genocide. As a result, it created memorials to those who were killed in Nazi death camps. It created textbooks for children detailing the horrors and explaining Hitler’s rise to power. And it banned any positive references to Nazism. It even banned the sale of copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Only recently has Germany again permitted the sale of the book, and only then if it includes notations regarding Nazi crimes.

Other nations have faced their ugly pasts is a similar manner. But the US refuses to do so. Our textbooks have been scrubbed of most references to the genocide of Native Americans. Likewise, they address slavery in a superficial, sanitized manner. And, instead of creating memorials to the victims of our genocide and to the victims of slavery, we have memorials to those who committed these vile acts. The former Confederate States of America have largely refused to acknowledge that their secession was motivated by their desire to continue the enslavement of blacks. Indeed, these states still celebrate the Confederacy, its leaders and, until recently, they still flew the Confederate battle flag.

There has been no restitution to the former slaves and their families. Indeed, the idea that they were given 40 acres and a mule is largely a myth. Lacking resources and possessions – and, in many cases, even a sense of family – following their emancipation many former slaves were employed by their former masters and corporations through a more acceptable form of economic slavery. As a result, today, more than 150 years after the end of the Civil War, we are still plagued by racism. Our schools are even more segregated now than during the late 1960s. And it has been estimated that it will take 228 years for the average black family to accumulate the wealth of the average white family!

Obviously, we have a problem.

So how can we fix it? How can we level the playing field for the descendants of African slaves and the Native Americans who had their land, their way of life and their identities stolen by our ancestors? How can we restore the well-being of cultures that were so thoroughly defeated and depressed? The answers are far more complicated than most white Americans are likely willing to accept. But I’ll make the attempt.

The solution to racism must begin with our nation, like Germany, finally acknowledging our past transgressions. As any therapist can tell you, there can be no healing as long as there is denial. And since the lingering effects of those impacted by our past actions are largely economic, we must work to provide blacks and Native Americans with opportunities. We must improve their education systems, making certain that they have the same resources and school budgets as our most affluent white suburbs. For those working in low-paying jobs, we must raise the minimum wage to a living wage. We must finally commit to universal healthcare so that all families have equal access to prenatal and childhood healthcare. We must commit to universal pre-school which has been proven to level the playing field and create lasting change. We must make certain that all families have food stability and access to healthy foods, which have been shown to improve performance in schools. We must commit to rebuilding our infrastructure, offering high-paying jobs to those without college degrees.

We must require national standards and training for those in law enforcement to eliminate racism within police departments and to ensure that all citizens are treated equal. We must end predatory city and community laws that treat citizens as a source of income for minor violations. We must pass universal background checks for gun purchases and pass other safety measures to get guns out of the hands of criminals and off of our streets. We should decriminalize and regulate drugs in order to rid the streets of predatory drug dealers. We should treat addictions with treatment instead of prison time. For the 1 in 9 black men who have already been sentenced to prison – often for petty, non-violent crimes – we should commit to rehabilitation programs to help them integrate back into society when they are eventually released.

And, most important of all, we should commit to thoroughly investigating every single claim of racist behavior – especially racism committed by those in power.

All of that may seem expensive and daunting, but it is all necessary. There can be no shortcuts – no half measures. After all, our nation benefited greatly from the labor of slaves and the resources stolen from natives. The problem of racism in this country has existed for centuries. It cannot be fixed easily or quickly.

And, if you’re wondering how our nation can pay for all of these things, just look to the cost overruns on the Pentagon’s weapons systems, such as the F-35 joint strike fighter – a fighter that has exceeded its budget by tens of billions of dollars. Also, you should consider the cost to society of not addressing racism – the cost of incarceration, lost tax revenue and the lost contributions from those who have neither the education nor the opportunity to shine.

Will US Election Be Decided By Outsiders?

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, the right-wing promoted numerous conspiracy theories – that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered; that Obama is not a US citizen; that Obama is a secret Muslim; that Obama is coming for your guns; that Clinton and Obama sacrificed our Libyan ambassador by telling a military response team to stand down; that Obama planned to use the Jade Helm military exercises to take over our nation and institute Sharia law. The list of conspiracy theories is lengthy.

Now, allow me to posit a conspiracy theory of my own.

We know that Russia hacked the email servers of the DNC (Democratic National Committee), of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), and the DGA (Democratic Governors Association). We also know that some of emails were altered before their release to make them seem more damning than they were. We know that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has threatened to release additional emails aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton’s election campaign. And we now know that a foreign government hacked into the election systems of at least two states: Arizona and Illinois.

We know that, until recently, Donald Trump’s campaign was being run by a man with close ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. We have heard accusations that Russian oligarchs are heavily invested in Trump’s businesses (we can’t know for certain because Trump refuses to release his tax returns) . And we know that Trump called for Russia to hack the former Secretary of State’s email server and release her personal emails.

Taken separately, these things are concerning enough. But collectively, I believe they represent a true threat to the sanctity of our election, especially given the improprieties that occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election that resulted in George W. Bush claiming the White House.

Equally worrying are Trump’s suggestions that the US elections are rigged and his claims that the polls don’t show the true strength of his campaign, saying that there are many voters who refuse to acknowledge their support for Trump to pollsters (of course, this would represent a ready-made excuse if the voting software are hacked to show that Trump’s vote totals significantly out-performed the polls to win the election).

Yes, I acknowledge that such concerns can be dismissed as a wild-eyed liberal conspiracy theory. But I think you will have to admit that there is far more substance to it than any of the aforementioned right-wing theories.