Category Archives: Current Events

Beware The Pendulum.

Posted on by

As a creative director for ad agencies and as a part-time college instructor, I used to teach that social trends and fashions responded like a pendulum with a 360-degree axis. The pendulum freely swings, but never back to exactly the same place twice.

I was reminded of that description while watching the ceremonies marking the 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, the US seemed hopelessly racist. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were segregated from whites. African-Americans were denied the right to vote. Peaceful civil rights demonstrators were met with fire hoses, police dogs, beatings and murder.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to change that.

In the last two presidential elections, African-Americans voted in record numbers helping to elect the first US president of African-American heritage. (I’ve always marveled that his Irish-American heritage is seldom mentioned because of the color of his skin.)

Obviously, the pendulum has swung a long way from 1963. But it seems to be swinging back.

Since the election of President Obama, numerous states in both the North and the South have passed restrictive voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. No other US president has been subjected to such angry derision. No other president has been repeatedly asked to show his papers to prove that he is a citizen. No other president has been interrupted during a State of the Union speech by a “Congressman” calling him a liar. No other president has been met by such congressional obstruction.

Racism did not disappear in the sixties. It is just more subtle. There are fewer racist killings, beatings and other hate crimes. Today, the racism is economic and institutionalized. Unemployment for African-Americans is roughly double that for whites. Many of those who do have jobs are not paid a living wage. Schools in African-American communities are grossly underfunded compared to those in white communities. African-Americans are not only three times more likely to be arrested as whites, they receive longer sentences for similar crimes.

Indeed, young African-American and Latino males are seen as a source of profit for the private prison industry. They are also disproportionately represented in our military and asked to fight wars to protect the economic interests of large corporations that are almost exclusively owned and managed by wealthy white Americans.

News organizations, once again, insert race into stories of crime. Media commentators feel comfortable talking about the disintegration of African-American families while ignoring the disintegration of white families. When minorities bring up discrimination and other issues of race, white political pundits refer to it as “playing the race card.” They would like us to believe that racism no longer exists. (Of course, it doesn’t for them.)

Most disturbing is the fact that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and to undermine affirmative action.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, we should all take a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come. But only a moment. It’s time to get back to work to make sure the pendulum swings in the right direction again.

Rules Of War?

Posted on by

The assumed response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons raises an obvious question: Where do we draw the line in warfare?

Following World War I and World War II, the world came together at the Geneva Conventions which banned the use of chemical weapons and torture. They also provided for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions did not, however, ban nuclear weapons (the US is still the only nation to use them). They did not ban carpet bombing of cities. They did not prohibit incendiaries that can level cities in a firestorm. They did not ban attacks on food supplies and infrastructure that can turn large populations of civilians into starving refugees. In fact, they did not control many weapons and techniques that are now routinely used in modern warfare.

Why draw the line on one type of weapon of mass destruction while ignoring others? Are unarmed civilians any more dead from a chemical attack than from a remote-controlled bomb? Is it more painful to die from a nerve gas attack than from explosives?

Long ago, many cultures romanticized warfare and bound it by rules of honor. But, with the development of weapons of mass destruction (including automatic weapons, artillery, bombs, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear devices) today’s warfare has become a glorified video game in which those most at risk are unarmed, innocent civilians.

How absurd that it’s okay to kill masses of people in one way, but not another! How senseless that, although some forms of torture are banned, others are not! How idiotic that we can allow despots in Rwanda and Cambodia to murder tens of thousands, but draw the line in other countries.

Truth is, there has been no real honor between warriors for centuries. No country or culture that willingly participates in warfare has a corner on ethics and morality. The development of ever more lethal weapons has turned today’s warriors into breathing, bleeding killing machines. Is it any wonder, then, that these machines we create have such difficulty adapting to so-called polite society following their service?

What has happened in Syria is awful. But why is a red line drawn at the use of chemical weapons? If we level Damascus and its population with unseen missiles and bombs, is that better than allowing them to be killed by an unseen gas? What will be the outcome of our choosing to participate in this civil war? What will be the benefit?

Personally, I see none.

Do NSA Revelations Actually Surprise Anyone?

Posted on by

Ever since Edward Snowden announced that the National Security Agency is collecting phone and email records of US citizens before skipping the country, many in the media and in Congress have expressed surprise and outrage.

Really? How could anyone be surprised at this invasion of privacy?

Since the late nineties, there has been an explosion of surveillance cameras on city streets and in public buildings across the country. Large firms have been working on various forms of customer recognition since at least the mid-eighties. First, we saw the “smart” card – a credit card with a computer chip containing a wealth of personal information about the person carrying it. Then we saw efforts to “read” the magnetic strips on credit cards as you enter a store. And, following 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act giving the government sweeping powers to prevent terrorism.

Now, according to a story on CBS’ 60 Minutes, we are nearing an era of facial recognition which will allow governments, retail stores and other institutions to use security cameras to identify people from mug shots, driver’s licenses, passports and other forms of identification. Add to that the information already being collected by the three major credit agencies, along with the GPS feature in your cell phone and your car, and almost no aspect of your life will be private. Even your activities in the bedroom are potentially vulnerable to hackers through your computers, cell phones and smart TVs.

By comparison, that makes the activities of the NSA seem a lot less threatening doesn’t it?

Saber Rattling In Congress.

Posted on by

Following reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, some in Congress are demanding that President Obama intervene. Even though the use of chemical weapons have not yet been confirmed, some are calling the president “weak” for his failure to respond.

Such knee jerk reactions by the war hawks already have been responsible for far too many wars and far too many deaths.

In 1964, the war hawks used false reports of a North Vietnamese attack on US naval ships to ramp up the war leading to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands. In 1983, the Reagan administration not only turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran, there are indications the US actually supplied the weapons. And, in 2003, the Bush/Cheney war hawks were in such a hurry to invade Iraq, they used false information to convince Congress to vote for a war that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands Iraqis and 4,486 US soldiers.

One would think that, after such obvious and lethal mistakes, our congressional war hawks and media would be much more reluctant to engage in saber rattling. After all, there are far more questions in Syria than answers. Were chemical weapons actually used? Who used them? What are the goals of those opposing Assad? What will happen to Syria if Assad is defeated, especially since it has been reported that the opposition includes factions of al Qaeda? Will the opposition welcome our military assistance? Will the new Syria become an ally?

What will Russia, a long-time ally of Assad’s, do if we choose to intervene in Syria? What will be the impact on the already flammable Middle East since Syria shares a border with Israel?

Given all of these questions, exactly how is the US to respond? Do we provide more sophisticated arms to the rebels, including al Qaeda? Do we create a no-fly zone that may lead to a far more serious confrontation with Russia, and may not even accomplish the goal of overthrowing Assad? Do we bomb military targets in Syria that will almost certainly antagonize Russia? Do we insert US troops on the ground in what could be a more lethal and lengthy war than Iraq?

According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, about 60 percent of US citizens interviewed oppose intervention in Syria.  It would seem that ordinary Americans have far more common sense than their saber-rattling congressional representatives.

What Is Our Real Legacy For Future Generations?

Posted on by

Much has been written about the national debt that is being left to future generations; how that debt is the greatest threat to the future of our nation.

I beg to differ.

Not that the debt isn’t a serious issue, but our nation faces many more daunting problems. For example, our infrastructure is crumbling.  Roads and bridges are in disrepair. Our electric grid is woefully inefficient and unreliable – approximately half of all the electricity generated is lost in the grid. Our rail system is antiquated. Ports and canals need to be expanded and remodeled. And our computer systems are increasingly vulnerable to hackers.

In addition, the vast majority of the world’s scientists – real scientists – are sounding alarms about global climate change. Their computer models show that our dependence on burning fossil fuels will raise sea levels by as much as three feet by 2100, drowning some of the world’s largest cities, many of them in the US.

These scientists aren’t politically-motivated. They aren’t beholding to corporations. And they aren’t making unsubstantiated claims. They say that human-caused climate change is as proven as gravity.

Making the investments to address these issues now makes infinite sense. Not only are interest rates at all-time lows. Making changes would create an enormous number of high-paying jobs. And when more people make more money they purchase more and pay more taxes. All of which will help reduce the deficit and debt.

In fact, Nobel laureate economists tell us that such investments will do more to reduce our debt than austerity measures.

So what are we waiting for? Why do we listen to Wall Street-financed politicians instead of economists? Why do we listen to oil-soaked politicians instead of climate scientists? We have been shown a road map to the long-term health of the United States and the globe. These are not Democratic issues or Republican issues. They are human issues.

Isn’t it as important to leave future generations with a safe, efficient infrastructure as with a surplus? Isn’t it as important to bequeath them a sustainable planet as with a reduced debt?

Betrayal Of Public Trust.

Posted on by

Now that Michigan’s GOP governor has forced the City of Detroit into bankruptcy, it’s expected that retired city workers will have to settle for a fraction of the pensions they were awarded under contract.

As a result of the expected bankruptcy settlement, many of the retirees may be forced to file bankruptcy themselves and find jobs to make up for their lost pensions. The governor and his supporters responded to that news by saying that’s what bankruptcy does. It forces all creditors to settle for the same percentage of their claims.

This is a complete reversal of the GOP position regarding the failure of the too-big-to-fail banks. Back then, many GOP leaders argued that the very executives whose decisions led to the banks’ failure should not be denied the multi-million dollar bonuses that were written into their six and seven-figure contracts.

But many of those same GOP leaders now argue that city workers who had been paid salaries as little as $19,000/year should agree to voiding their contracts as part of the bankruptcy. These contracts were the result of negotiations with city managers during which they agreed to give up short-term salary gains in lieu of a secure retirement.

Indeed, long-term retirement benefits have always been the incentive for taking government jobs over equivalent jobs in the private sector. Taking away or reducing the pension payments after the fact is not only a violation of the workers’ contract. It’s a complete betrayal of public trust. The natural outcome of such a violation will be to make government workers at every level demand higher salaries knowing that they will no longer be able to trust governments to live up to their obligations.

We have long known that we can’t count on corporations and private companies to live up to their promises. But we should be able to count on our governments to live up to theirs.

Detroit Is Merely The Canary In The Coal Mine.

Posted on by

It’s popular for conservatives to blame the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit on a history of Democratic leadership. Indeed, the conservative commentators seem to revel in the city’s troubles. And since Detroit has a high percentage of African-Americans, the problems also conveniently fit their racist narrative.

The wingnuts believe that this simply couldn’t happen to a government run by white conservatives.

Hmmm…What about California? Following a government led by Ronald Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state was teetering on the abyss. But after a return to Democratic leadership, California is regaining economic health and running surpluses. The same can be said for Minnesota.

Detroit’s problems aren’t merely the fault of city leadership. The state of Michigan has failed to deliver the aid it promised. But the real problems are the result of national and international politics. As part of globalization, greedy corporations shipped Detroit’s manufacturing jobs out of state and out of country in order to avoid paying for employee health care and pensions. In addition, many of the city’s mostly white executives fled to the suburbs leaving the poor and the unemployed to pick up the tab for their excesses.

Given the many factors contributing to the city’s financial problems, it would have been virtually impossible for Detroit to overcome them by itself. Detroit didn’t create the problems on its own. It shouldn’t have to face them alone.

Moreover, Detroit may be just the first large city to declare bankruptcy. Other cities that were once home to large manufacturing plants are facing many of the same difficulties. And, depending on what happens in Detroit, they may follow its lead.

Sadly, the situation in Detroit reminds me of the aftermath of natural disasters. When the Midwest was devastated in the nineties by floods, many on the East Coast objected to paying for disaster relief. Many across the nation objected to paying to help New York City after 9/11. Many objected to the cost of rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina. And congressional representatives and senators from other states voted against funding to New Jersey and New York to pay for relief from Hurricane Sandy.

Far too many Americans lack compassion for their fellow Americans. Instead of looking for ways to help, they are more intent on affixing blame. They assume that they are so smart that such a disaster could never happen to them. Invariably, they are wrong.

GOP Is Racist? How Racist Of You To Bring It Up!

Posted on by

The right wing megaphone that is Fox News Channel and talk radio is in full throat defending the rodeo clown who appeared wearing an Obama mask. “It was just entertainment.” “The real racists are those who can’t take a joke,” say the wingnuts.

Really? It’s now racism for pointing out obvious racism?

Let’s review. The GOP committed to the Southern Strategy after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The whole idea was to appeal to white voters in the South who were angered by the end of Jim Crow.

Many Republicans have refused to accept that President Obama was born in the United States and claim that he is, therefore, not eligible to hold the office. In 2009, every Tea Party rally displayed racist signs such as “Send Obama Back To Kenya.”

In 2012, signs and bumper stickers were distributed saying “Put The White Back In The White House” and “Don’t Re-N—– in 2012.” During the Republican primaries, presidential candidates offered “self-deportation” as the only viable immigration reform. Some suggested that the border fence be electrified. And, at the RNC national convention, some Republican attendees threw nuts at a black cameraman who was covering the event.

Even worse, Republican-controlled states have passed a variety of new laws aimed at suppressing the votes of minorities and students even though there have been only a handful of documented cases of voter fraud nationally.

Across the country, there have been numerous examples of blatant racism displayed by Republican elected officials, such as Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe who called the rodeo clown “crowd pleasing.” He also tweeted “Why is Holder now soft on crime? Perhaps: blacks = 12%-13% US population, but make up 40.1% (2.1 million) of male inmates in jail or prison!”

Being all too familiar with Thorpe, I can assure you the tweet was intended to demean African-Americans. But, in a way, Bad Bob demonstrates the consequences of racial discrimination by law enforcement and the courts. New York City’s “Stop & Frisk” program is far from unique, as most cities have similar, but unofficial programs. (Ask any African-American how often they have been stopped for “driving while black.”)

If the GOP and its Tea Party parasites want to shed the label of racism, it’s easy. All they have to do is stop doing and saying racist things!

Stop & Frisk Old White Men.

Posted on by

Since dimwits like Bill O’Reilly think the NYC Stop & Frisk program is so great, I propose it be redirected for a year or so. Instead of targeting minorities, let the police target white guys around Wall Street. After all, they have been responsible for far greater crimes than minorities, having stolen trillions of dollars over the past 30 years.

The bad guys are easy to spot. Instead of hoodies, they wear expensive suits and lounge in the back of black limos.

I, for one, would love to see them forced to spread their legs and arms, patted down and asked what they’re doing in the neighborhood and where they’re going. Then, if they object, they could be slammed to the ground, cuffed and taken to jail to be booked for obstructing an officer in his, or her, duties. Let them be held overnight and assigned a public defender (no overpaid Wall Street attorneys allowed).

Just for good measure, the police should also patrol the neighborhood of Fox News. After all, it has been the center of crimes against reality and facts. And don’t forget to include balding, angry white guys in the profile. Then they would be certain to catch O’Reilly in the dragnet.

Seriously, why not?

It would do the nation a lot of good, and it would almost certainly put an end to other senseless, racist measures. And as long as we’re on the subject let’s force cavity searches or similarly invasive procedures on all white male legislators. That might give them pause before voting for more mandatory invasive procedures on pregnant women.

Finally, let’s limit voting centers and voting hours in wealthy white neighborhoods forcing voters to stand in line for six, seven, eight hours or more. Then when they eventually get to the head of the line, they could have their IDs questioned and given a provisional ballot that may or may not be counted.

Who Says The Tea Party Is Racist?

Posted on by

Well, actually the Tea Party does.

When President Obama recently visited Arizona, he was met by a demonstration organized, in part, by the Tea Party. In addition to the inevitable “Obama is a Fascist” and “Impeach Obama” signs, the protesters sang “Bye Bye Black Sheep.” They carried signs that read “Impeach the Half-White Muslim” and “47 Percent Negro.” They shouted that our president is “un-American;” that he’s “destroying American values.”

These pathetic morons are cut from the same cloth as the rodeo clown who mocked our president by wearing an Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair.

At least the clown was told he could never work at the fair again. Apparently the same punishment was not meted out to the obnoxious public address announcer who asked how many wanted to see Obama run down by a bull, the clown who played with the mask’s lips, or the rodeo organizers who likely knew about the plans in advance.

It’s nothing new to see detractors protest a president or make fun of a president. But it crosses the line when those detractors veer into racial taunts. Such taunts do more to offend others than the president himself.

It should come as no surprise to the old white men controlling the Tea Party that African-Americans and other minorities identify with President Obama; that they view him as a role model; that his success is a source of great pride to young African-Americans and for whites who stood alongside blacks during their fight for civil rights.

Here’s some free advice for the Republican Party and your Tea Party parasites. Your racist slogans and taunts will not harm President Obama. They will not change his policies. They will not cause him to be impeached or leave office early. Your behavior simply galvanizes minorities (soon to become the majority) against you.

Therefore, your offensive, demeaning and divisive behavior will only ensure your future failure at the polls. It will only result in future presidents who oppose your so-called values. And those presidents may not be as inclusive and as tolerant as President Obama.