Category Archives: Culture

The Moral Cost Of Food.

Posted on by

This past week, a couple of announcements stood out to me. One was that scientists were having a taste test of their “test tube” burger…meat that was grown from stem cells. Two was the announcement that the world is pretty much “maxed out” when it comes to meat and dairy production.

These announcements happened to coincide with a party I attended in which we were served beef that had a name. The host had grown the steer from a calf; feeding it and caring for it as part of the family.

All of this caused me to reflect on how far we have come with regard to food production since I left the family farm.

When I left the farm in the 1960’s, most farm animals had not yet become a commodity. Cattle were still allowed to graze in pastures. Milk was a by-product of breeding cattle to replace and enlarge the herd. Hogs were given room to roam. Sheep became self-propelled lawnmowers that also provided wool once a year. And poultry were allowed to roam the homestead before being locked up each night to protect them from predators.

How things have changed!

Today, calves are scarcely weaned from their mothers before being crammed into a feedlot with feed troughs fed by automated augers. Dairy cattle are confined in enormous barns and bred for one thing – milk production. They are given hormones to increase production. Their calves are now a by-product of milk to be confined and sold as veal. Hogs are born into confinement and live out their short lives with little room to even turn around. Chickens destined to produce eggs are crammed into tiny cages stacked as much as eight high to more efficiently use available space. They have no room to stand up, let alone turn around and those on the bottom are covered in the feces from those above. And chickens raised for meat are crammed into large rooms with thousands of others.

All of this is the result of animals being raised by corporations rather than people. And as awful as these conditions seem, they’re actually pleasant when compared to their conveyor-style slaughter.

Our treatment of animals should be disturbing to any person with a half a heart and respect for the beings with which we share this planet. We may never all become vegetarians or vegans, but that doesn’t mean we have to treat animals as a commodity…an unfeeling slab of meat.

Native Americans and other indigenous cultures ate meat, but they treated the victims of their hunts with respect. We would be wise to do the same. Failure to do so should weigh heavily on our minds and souls. The simple act of reducing our intake of meat and dairy each week would have a large impact on the sustainability of our planet. It would improve our overall health. And if enough people purchased locally-grown, organic foods, it would have an impact on factory farms.

But don’t count on the food industry to improve conditions on its own. Very few corporations have a conscience.

Race Or Economics?

Posted on by

Following the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the ensuing discussion of race by President Obama, conservative race-baiters have gleefully blamed the victims. “It wasn’t Zimmerman’s fault. Trayvon Martin was a young, black thug high on marijuana who had it coming. There’s no race problem. The real problem is the black culture of dependency. Black people are violent…just look at black-on-black violence. Obama is playing the race card to distract people from his failures. Yadda, yadda, yadda…”

Yes, there has been a breakdown of the African-American family unit…just like the breakdown of the white family unit. More and more people are having children out of wedlock, and more married couples are getting divorced.

Still, the race-baiters have a point. According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 73 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock as compared to 29 percent of non-Hispanic white babies. On the surface, those numbers would seem to support racist loudmouths like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. But if you delve deeper, you learn that 66 percent of Native American children and 53 percent of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock, while just 17 percent of Asian children are born outside of a traditional family.

Hmmmm…

That would seem to disprove the right wing talking point that the problem is a lack of Christian values. After all, Hispanics and African-Americans tend to be the most devout Christians of the lot, while Asians tend to represent other faiths, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

So if the problem isn’t religion, what next?

Right wingers suggest that the issue is IQ. You may remember that Teapublicans recently seized upon a Heritage Foundation “study” that claimed Hispanics have lower IQ than whites. The “study” was the basis of a report that assimilating such low IQ people into the US would cost us trillions. Then some academics examined the “study” and found that its racist conclusions were completely fraudulent. Not only is there NOT a difference in IQ, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that the Senate immigration bill would shrink the nation’s deficit by $897 billion over 20 years.

That leaves only one possible conclusion from the birth data…economics. The cultures with the highest percentage of single-parent households are the cultures that were systematically destroyed by the Euro-American concept of Manifest Destiny; that caucasians were destined to rule; that white people were superior to people of color; that people of color were incapable of taking care of themselves.

Using this despicable philosophy, whites enslaved blacks. Whites committed genocide on Native Americans, leaving them defeated, broken and poor. And whites have routinely discriminated against all other races, denying them the vote, good-paying jobs, safe neighborhoods, and respect. Such conditions have a negative impact on all races. For example, where there are large concentrations of impoverished white people, the percentage of white, unwed mothers dramatically increases, along with violence.

People of color didn’t choose to live in poverty. They didn’t choose to work at meaningless, minimum wage jobs. They didn’t choose to live in slums, poor barrios and on reservations. They didn’t choose to send their children to under-financed schools. They didn’t choose to have greedy gun dealers import weapons into their communities.

They didn’t choose these things anymore than Trayvon Martin chose to take on a gun-toting vigilante with nothing more than a bag of Skittles.

Growth Of The “Moocher” Class.

Posted on by

During the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney was famously caught on camera talking about the 47 percent he claimed pay no taxes. That led to the conservative media referring to the 47 percent as the  “moocher” class; those people whose votes could be bought with promises of free “stuff,” such as food stamps, unemployment insurance and access to healthcare.

According to a new survey exclusive to The Associated Press, Romney had the numbers wrong. The survey shows that 80 percent of adults in the US face near-poverty and unemployment at some point in their lives. You read that correctly…80 percent!

In addition, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 22 percent of Americans have been significantly affected by the sequester budget cuts. And those who earn less than $30,000 per year have been hardest hit. Moreover, 1 in 6 (50 million) Americans face food insecurity, including 17 million children.

The vast majority of these people work full-time jobs; some work two jobs or more and still can’t make ends meet. Yet conservatives call these people “moochers” and “takers.” Fox News Channel and conservative radio hosts vilify and ridicule the working poor. Instead of placing the blame where it belongs…on greedy corporations and an economy that no longer offers the majority of Americans an opportunity to realize the American Dream…Congressional Teapublicans blame the problem on labor unions, pensions, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They have voted to cut food stamps and unemployment insurance benefits. They have voted 39 times to repeal Obamacare, denying access to healthcare for more than 50 million poor Americans. And, instead of voting to fund projects that would rebuild our infrastructure and create good-paying jobs, they vote to cut taxes for the wealthy.

In the two and a half years since regaining control of the House by promising to focus on jobs, Teapublicans continue to push for budget cuts and to place obstacles in the way of our economic recovery.

As a result of their indifference to the plight of ordinary Americans, our economy continues its slow recovery. We continue to see the loss of good-paying jobs to other countries. We continue to see the loss of pensions and income security for the elderly. And we continue to see a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Teapublicans are right to talk about the “givers” and “takers” in our society. But they have things backwards. The “givers” are the working people who pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes, including payroll deductions and sales taxes. And the “takers” are the very wealthy and large corporations who benefit from corporate welfare and record profits.

Oh Boy!

Posted on by

Each day, approximately 370,000 babies are born into our world. Some of them will become world-renowned scientists. Some will become democratically-elected leaders. Some will work to end disease and hunger. Some will work to end poverty. Most will simply work to survive.

Of all these babies, only one captured the attention of US and European media. Only one boy, with the incredible good fortune to be born into a life of extreme wealth and privilege, caused young women to swoon; aristocrats to break out their best bottles of bubbly; and ordinary adults to interrupt their own lives in order to await news of the delivery and the baby’s gender.

No single event could better demonstrate the problems we face.

This is not just a matter of ordinary citizens being captivated by celebrity. This baby, his parents and most of his ancestors have done nothing to earn celebrity status. They are not accomplished at music, acting, sports, science, medicine or politics. They have no lengthy list of accomplishments. They are merely expert at collecting and spending money, and living like royalty.

What lies at the heart of their celebrity is the romanticism of every young girl wanting to be a princess; of every adult wanting to know what it’s like to be King or Queen.

This, after all, is the real talent of the privileged: Making you believe that you somehow benefit from their wealth and power. Making you believe that if you continue to support them, they may eventually recognize you. Making you believe that you will eventually share in their good fortune.

Of course, it never happens.

This phenomenon is at the heart of all class warfare. It’s what keeps all of the wealthy and the privileged in power. Corporate CEOs convince shareholders that supporting their enormous salaries will lead to higher share prices. Multinational corporations convince voters that cutting regulations will lower prices and create jobs. Billionaires convince voters that offering them tax breaks will improve the economy.

The reasoning is as phony as the societal value of monarchs (the gem-infused bloodlines, not the butterflies). But naive voters accept it and continue to make the rich richer and themselves poorer.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can level the playing field for all of the babies born into the world. We can vote to improve our own fortunes rather than those of the privileged. It begins by recognizing a “prince” for what he really is…just another baby.

The New American Royalty?

Posted on by

Last week, Liz Cheney announced that she is running for US Senate from the State of Wyoming. If elected, she will likely walk the same dark path as her father, former Vice-President Richard “The Dick” Cheney. Liz has long been her father’s most outspoken defender and apologist. Like her father, virtually every word that escapes her mouth oozes with hatefulness and contempt for others.

At the same time, some Republicans are clamoring for Jeb Bush to run for President of the United States. If he does run, and wins, he will be the third Bush to be president. In addition, his grandfather Prescott Bush was a US Senator.

On the other side, the presumed presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. Although I very much like Hillary and I think she would be a wonderful president, I’m troubled that she already spent eight years in the White House. Wouldn’t it be better if another popular candidate, especially a woman, stepped forward?

Is this the future of our nation? Are we so enamored with celebrity that we vote for the name instead of the person? Are we more interested in genetics than ideas? Were the last Bush and the last Cheney such great leaders we can’t wait to have another set in power?Politicians are not like software. As we learned from “W”, the succeeding generation is not necessarily version 2.0, 1.5 or even 1.0.

Nepotism is banned in most successful organizations, why not in government?

If this trend continues, how long before we simply proclaim a royal family or families and do away with elections altogether? Then we, too, could breathlessly await the birth of a new monarch.

I may not be an expert on history, but I seem to recall that we fought a war to get away from royalty.

Playing The Race Card!

Posted on by

On Friday, President Obama held an unannounced press conference during which he spoke personally and sensitively about race in hopes of generating an adult conversation about racism in the US. Of course, his remarks were met with derision and anger by many conservatives and their media mouthpieces. (I’m looking at you, Rush Limbaugh and anyone who has ever worked at Fox News Channel!)

Keep in mind that our nation just watched a white adult who had stalked and murdered an unarmed black teenager be acquitted of all charges. Despite the verdict, Trayvon Martin’s parents have handled themselves with class…much more class than the conservative pundits who have pilloried the young man who was murdered.

Not content with accepting the verdict and hoisting George Zimmerman onto their proverbial shoulders, the right wing nitwits have attacked those who took to the streets to protest the verdict. They have also seemed to delight in attacking Martin’s character. “He shouldn’t have been walking through the neighborhood at night. He shouldn’t have been wearing a hoodie. He was smoking pot earlier in the day. He called Zimmerman a cracker during his phone conversation with a friend. He shouldn’t have defended himself against Zimmerman. Etc., etc., etc.”

These are the very same people who have glorified the Tea Party parasites who carry signs with racist depictions of our president. The same people who have questioned the president’s birthplace and eligibility to be president. The same people who applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act that protected minority votes. The same people who applaud legislative bills that would suppress African-American and Latino votes then accuse those who object of “playing the race card.”

Following the Zimmerman verdict, the president was not only justified in raising the subject of race. He was obligated to do so.

Anyone with dark skin, or anyone with a friend or relative who has dark skin, understands the problems. And they absolutely must be addressed! I have personally seen black people unlawfully beaten by police. I have seen a white cop set fire to an apartment building then blame it on his black neighbors. I have seen a cop chain his dog in a black neighborhood, so that it could attack any unsuspecting man, woman or child who walked down the sidewalk. Every one of my black friends has been repeatedly pulled over by police for driving while black. A young, black male co-worker and close friend was stopped by police, guns drawn, just for walking down the street.

I have seen the statistics showing the disproportionate number of black men and women in prison. I’ve seen how differently black people who become addicted to crack cocaine are treated compared to white people who are addicted to powder cocaine. I’ve seen how the War on Drugs is used to harass and imprison minorities. I’ve listened to conservative politicians call Latinos dirty, stupid and disrespectful of our culture. And I’ve seen young white men parade through the streets with Confederate flags following President Obama’s election.

There are thousands of George Zimmermans out there, some in uniforms, who are armed and assume everyone with dark skin is a criminal or a welfare moocher, living off the hard work of others. That image is perpetuated by loudmouths like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. And even though race wasn’t mentioned, it was most certainly implied by Mitt Romney in his off-the-record comments about the 47 percent.

Certainly, not every right winger is going to act on their misguided beliefs. But a few armed racists will undoubtedly be encouraged to act as vigilantes thanks to the insane Stand Your Ground law that the NRA and ALEC have pushed through legislatures throughout the country – especially in the South.

Yes, President Obama needed to talk about race. Race has been an issue in our country for 3 centuries. It’s long past time for us to learn how to live with each other, treating all of our neighbors with dignity and respect.

The issues facing our nation have never improved by refusing to discuss them.

Getting Away With Murder.

Posted on by

George Zimmerman isn’t the first person that the courts have allowed to get away with murder. But he is one of the few to be acquitted after admitting to intentionally shooting an unarmed person. Zimmerman can thank Florida’s ill-conceived “Stand Your Ground” law for that, along with an inept prosecution and seemingly naive jurors.

The “Stand Your Ground” law was created as “model” legislation by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) then introduced to state legislatures throughout the country. Designed to protect rootin’ tootin’, gun totin’, cowboy wannabes from prosecution, the law removes any obligation for gun owners to back away from a confrontation. If a pistol packin’ nitwit fears that his or her life is endangered or fears great bodily harm (an arbitrary standard as demonstrated by the Zimmerman trial) it appears that it is now legal to blast away.

Without this law, Zimmerman would have been forced to demonstrate that he tried to avoid a lethal confrontation. Without this law, the jury would have been obligated to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. In other words, the fact that Zimmerman stalked his victim against the advice of a police dispatcher would have been reason enough to find him guilty.

The ensuing comments of juror B37 also demonstrate a lack of understanding of violent confrontations by the all female jury. The jurors apparently do not understand the difference between a fistfight and a life-endangering situation. Zimmerman’s wounds (and I use the term loosely) were consistent with the effects of a single punch. In no way do they meet the criteria of life-threatening or great bodily harm. Almost everyone who has ever been in a schoolyard fight has suffered worse.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman’s head had been repeatedly slammed onto concrete as he claimed. And that was just one of the flaws in Zimmerman’s story exposed during the trial.

The worst was Zimmerman’s claim that, when Martin was on top of him, Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun. If the situation was as Zimmerman claimed, Martin could not have seen the gun behind Zimmerman’s right hip, let alone reached for it. Moreover, in the situation described, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to have reached for it. Martin’s lower leg would have blocked access to it. (Having taught martial arts, including ground fighting, I have been in a similar position many times.)

The prosecution failed to clearly demonstrate this critical point. Had they done so, the jury might have reached a very different verdict.

Even more troubling than the outcome of the trial are the inconsistencies of our justice system and the perverse voyeurism of our media. As Zimmerman was getting away with murder, a Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for merely firing a warning shot to keep her estranged husband from attacking her. No one was shot. No one was hurt. The clear message is that, if you’re going to fire your gun during a confrontation, you better make sure the shot is fatal. And since the woman is black, the two incidents demonstrate the duality of our justice system.

Such inconsistency, especially the appearance of racism, deserves a serious public discussion…one free of the sensationalism demonstrated by media coverage of the “trial du jour.” Unfortunately, in search of ratings, our media would rather treat our judicial system as a series of reality shows.

What Happened To Creativity?

Posted on by

After the conclusion of the past TV season and viewing the latest sample of so-called blockbuster (emphasis on bust) movies, I must conclude that creativity in the US is either dead or on life support.

As a former advertising creative director, for the first time since the early 1960’s, I ignore most of the commercials. It seems that most US commercials are bland compared to their international counterparts. It’s not for lack of budget. Large US advertisers are literally throwing money at production and getting little in return. That’s because the ideas are mostly formulaic and stunted by research.

Much of the TV programming is worse than the advertising. Except for HBO, “Reality” TV has replaced comedy and drama. We have Survivor, Big Brother, Storage Wars, Swamp People, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, The Apprentice, The Amazing Race…ad nauseum. Unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight for the dumbing down of American TV (hard to imagine it could get worse that the vast wasteland of the 60’s and 70’s). Because reality TV is cheap to produce, some industry insiders are predicting the end of scripted television.

Our movies are no better. Hollywood has abandoned stories in favor of bombastic production. Most of the movies are devoted to disasters of one kind of another. Those that aren’t, are remakes of old classics. The reason?  Lynda Obst, in her book Sleepless in Hollywood, argues that the movie industry is driven by foreign demand. She says that foreign movie sales now account for 80 percent of all movie income; that movies with complex stories relying on dialogue simply don’t draw movie audiences in Europe and Asia. As a result, American movie-goers are forced to suffer through movies that are long on action and short on story. Of course, that fits into the video game psyche of American youth.

To my mind, these industries are only indicators of a distressing lack of creativity throughout the US. More and more, we’re falling behind other nations when it comes to creativity and invention. Now that the hedonistic yuppies of the 80’s are running our corporations, we’re good at making money. But not much else.

Hedge fun managers are creative in finding new ways to rip off unsuspecting investors. Mortgage lenders are creative in finding ways to foreclose on homes. Multinational corporations are creative in avoiding taxes, increasing productivity while cutting costs, and socializing their financial losses.

I believe the US won’t reclaim its leadership role until we, once again, value products, design and people over profits; creativity over productivity; customer service over sales; and craftsmanship over cost-cutting.

Until then, we can watch our nation’s demise on our screens in 3D and HD.

A Divided Nation.

Posted on by

I began this blog several years ago with a post “Why We’re Divided.” The point was that our political divide is not merely the result of differing ideologies. It’s the result of differing “facts.”

Never has that been more clearly demonstrated than by two competing advertising campaigns running on this Independence Day. In my state’s largest newspaper, there is an ad bearing the headline “In God We Trust.” Paid for by a company that is owned by a religious zealot, the ad uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was founded on Christianity.

A few pages later, there is an ad bearing the headline “Celebrate Our Godless Constitution.” Paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it, too, uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was built on the principle of separation of Church and State.

This is a classic example of proof-texting – selectively choosing quotes that support a particular point of view. This technique is often used by the religious to justify actions or beliefs. Religious leaders use verses from the Bible to justify war, to rationalize genocide, to discriminate against gays and others, to ignore – indeed blame – the poor for struggling as the result of policies they didn’t create, etc.

No matter how ugly your point of view, you can find a verse in the Bible, the Torah or the Qur’an to justify an action or inaction.

The same is true when it comes to quotes by our Founding Fathers. As Michael Austin writes in his book That’s Not What They Meant! Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America’s Right Wing, the Founders were so diverse, you can find a quote from one of them to support almost any point of view. Among the Founders were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. There were idealists and slave owners. There were farmers, plantation owners, printers, attorneys, inventors, ship owners and many others.

There were Founders in favor of a strong central government and those who believed the power should reside exclusively with the states.

So which ad is correct? Both of them. And neither of them.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, who authored our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, strongly believed in separation of Church and State. The majority at the Constitutional Convention agreed. However, many of the Founders spoke of “divine providence” and the “principles of Christianity.”

More important, the ads demonstrate the growing divide between Americans; between the Federalists and those who believe in states’ rights; between the devoutly religious and the agnostics; between science and religion; between those who trust government and those who despise it; between the wealthy and the poor; between red and blue; between black, brown, red and white; between the educated and the uneducated; and between those who believe the US is the greatest nation on Earth and those who recognize its faults and intend to change them.

I think it no exaggeration to write that our nation is at a crossroads, more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Independence Day is the perfect time to consider the consequences of such a divide. Committing to compromise and finding common ground are imperative to the future of our nation.

The War Within.

Posted on by

During the Cold War of the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the US and Soviet Union armed proxy nations with the world’s most sophisticated weapons. It was good business for the defense industries of both participants. And when the proxy nations went to war with one another, business got even better.

Now we’re seeing a similar phenomenon within the US.

Arms makers such as Glock, Sturm-Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Winchester continue to design and produce increasingly more lethal weapons. Thanks to the NRA, semi-automatic handguns, tactical shotguns and assault rifles are readily available to all Americans…criminals and the mentally unstable included. These weapons are aggressively marketed through dozens of magazines, TV networks and action movies.

The gun makers even promote guns that are currently banned in the US. Ads for semi-automatic weapons are placed directly across from ads offering kits to convert the semi-automatics into illegal, fully-automatic weapons. (Of course small type in the ads note that the conversion of guns is illegal.)

But that’s not the height of the cynicism of these murder-for-sale businesses.

In addition to marketing weapons to the criminal element, the weapons industry markets even more lethal weapons (including tanks) to police and security forces. That way, they profit from both sides in an ever-escalating war of lethality. The criminally insane obtain more and better weapons. Then the police increase their armaments. And so it goes.

I’m reminded of the game played by the manufacturers of radar guns for police. Once they had upgraded the majority of police departments to the latest technology, they began selling radar detectors to help motorists avoid speeding tickets. Then they introduced improved technology for the police.

The only ones to benefit from such policies are the manufacturers.