The New Sex

Terror is the new sex.

We’ve bought toothpaste for decades because it will get that special someone to notice us. Anna Nicole Smith actually got Joe Six-Pack to pay attention to the Supreme Court for a day. But terror, that really sells. If the powers that be can scare Joe Six-Pack enough, they can cherry pick every possible advantage and go home with ALL the goodies.

Terror brought us the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that was passed without thorough consideration in Congress, but which has gotten Americans used to the idea that the government might “need” to watch them or “need” to curtail their constitutional rights. Terror brought us wars on two fronts, neither of which the United States was in a position to win when it entered them; it brought public acquiescence to the deaths of more than 2,000 Americans and tolerance for public racial slurs when they come from slender blonde women.

Terror is better than sex when it comes to selling some things. No one would ever believe that we let New Orleans drown because we were having a romance, but since we were off “fighting terror,” all those poor black people could just tread water during hurricane Katrina. Terror turned public attention away from corporate looting on an unprecedented scale, and has undoubtedly created a goldmine for Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, and ExxonMobil. Somehow the fact that the price of petroleum was stable for years before we invaded Iraq has escaped public notice; and terror equals money for those who own stock in defense contractors.

Terror has been such a fine sales tool that CEO Bush has managed to pack the Supreme Court in such a way that as it considers partisan gerrymandering in Texas, it completely ignores the question of whether partisan redistricting deprives people of representation, as long as the party in power is now correcting wrongs perpetrated when it was not in power. One man, one vote? Fuggedaboudit.

This week, the Democrats have discovered terror. Suddenly, awakened by the mid-term elections, and a little news that operations of U.S. ports have been sold to a Middle Eastern company, our honorable representatives have come over to the Vertebrate Party. They can finally call Bush soft on terror. Hallelujah!

These are the same Democrats who failed to impeach Bush, failed to prevent the United States from taking military action against two sovereign nations that did not attack us, failed to hold the executive branch accountable for torture, spying, lying, obstructing justice, acting in bad faith, or any other wrong. Now these Democrats are going to ask for our votes. They are now telling us how they will protect us.

The question is, if they didn’t protect us from the Republicans, the Right-wing wacko religious wing-nuts, or the likes of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, what makes us think they’ll protect us from anybody else?

Bush and friends sold the operations of our ports, along with their souls to the highest bidders. The Democrats are unlikely to do much different, except they might get a better price.

The Real Vice

Vice-President Cheney shot one of his buddies on a hunting trip last week, and his Republican spin-doctors are howling with glee at the outraged screams that he is a cretin for hunting. Of course he’s a cretin; anyone who thinks that this is news has been in a coma.

The fact that so many liberal bloggers seem to think that hunting is the trouble trivializes the entire situation, and that smells like help from the Neocons. After all, a good pickpocket does not keep you from seeing him, just from seeing what he is doing. While everyone is wringing their hands about the poor baby birds that Cheyney is sending to kingdom come, nobody is paying attention to the game. The first rule of many games is “keep your eye on the ball.” This kind of news is tailor-made to prevent more important things from getting the attention they deserve.

Few pundits are screaming that Cheyney broke the law by not having a hunting license. The law, in case anyone is interested, is what the president and vice-president swear to uphold in this country, and this administration has shown a disdain for law that rivals that of many felons. Okay, and not buying a hunting license is not such a big deal, punishable a fine that Cheyney can loose and never miss.

But what about the fact that Condo-sleeza Rice was on TV saying that “We” whoever that is, are attuned to the “hopes and dreams of the Iranian people”. For those who like things laid out plainly: These are very similar to words that heralded the beginning of the present morass in Iraq. In about 6 weeks, Iran plans to begin trading oil in Euros, rather than in dollars. And the “we” for whom Rice was speaking are the sons and daughters of working-class people who are going to be herded off to become cannon fodder so the rich can get richer, and the poor can get the hell out of their way.

People disgusted with the current political climate look to 2008 with hope. If the best we can do is censure the vice-president for hunting in the press, there is no hope.

Many people look to Hillary Clinton as the candidate. When the honorable Senator from New York grows a spine and stands up to the Neocons, she can have my vote, and not a minute before. We have 100 senators. Why is it that out of those one hundred senators, there was not a single one who would stand up to the Republican election fraud in 2000? The House of Representatives were outraged by the mis-doings in that election. Not a single senator would stand behind them and demand an investigation. Why was that? Could it be because our United States Senators are loath to risk their cushy jobs by doing them and standing up for the people who hired them in the first place?

Why is it that of 100 senators, none is willing to ask for impeachment? Does anyone honestly believe that Bush acted in good faith when he engineered our invasion of Iraq? Does anyone write representatives anymore? I do it regularly, and I get the same answer every time: “Thanks for writing. I’m going to continue doing what I damned well please.”

We are willing to look the other way when our leaders break laws. We like to pretend that there is nothing we can do about all the powerful bad guys in Washington. As long as we stay comfortable and safe, we are going to have the same profit-driven, busybody government without change or end.

Personally, I am angry with Cheyney for shooting the wrong rich, white, middle-aged, male, dominionist Neocon. Also, the dumbass should have used a deer rifle.

An Open Letter to God

Dear God,

Please don’t take this personally, but I really think I have had quite enough of your followers. They all seem like nice people until I get to watching them, and then it all falls apart. Granted, I am not perfect, and I do not claim to be a lot better, but these followers of yours, well, they seem downright dangerous.

Take, for example, Christians. They all want me to hang out with them, until I express an opinion that they do not agree with. Then they call me a sinner. I don’t get it. Because I think a really bad marriage ought not be a life sentence, I am sinful. Then there was this man at church who was called to help a woman who saw a snake. His solution to the woman’s fear was to kill it. When I pointed out that snakes eat rodents, and therefore have a place in the environment, he answered, “That snake had two [places in the environment].” Very funny, but not for the snake.

And then there are these Muslims. They seem nice enough, except they say bad things about me (like that I’m a loose woman) because I don’t cover my hair. You gave me red hair. Why would I want to hide that? They also have this thing about blowing things and people up. If I get bummed about dead snakes, You can imagine how bummed I am about busloads of dead people. And they have this other thing about the Jews that just drives me bonkers. They are all cousins, but anyone would think they were fighting for the last crust of bread on earth, the way they carry on. And of course, if I think there should be Jews, then I am a Zionist, and deserve to die. If I go around India way, I have to be careful not to hang out with or befriend either Sikhs or Hindus, because they are also good-for-nothing infidels.

Now the Jews think I am okay, as long as I do not hang out with any Muslims. If I do that, I become scum and deserve to be exterminated. Last week, I heard that some Hindu women, not willing to be outdone, were pissed about St. Valentine’s Day, because it is not a Hindu holy day. Today, Valentine's day, some Muslim women had the same idea. No shit, girls, it’s a Hallmark holy day. Some people are just dense.

We have these dumb asses in government running the world, claiming to be your good friends. I have a lot of trouble with someone who says, “God is my friend, so please send your son to my war so he can die.” The more they claim to be your buddy, the worse their records look. We have these other dumb asses in government who refuse to do anything about the first dumb asses running amok with our money, our kids, and our standing in the world.

Like I said before, please don’t take any of this personally. I know that your friends are not You. I just do not like to hang out with people who destroy for the fun of it, whether it is a snake or an environment, an office building full of people, or young soldiers’ lives. I always pictured You as being creative and nurturing. So what’s with your friends?

Forgive Us Our Tresspasses

About 12 years ago, I joined an organization where I met a man I’ll call “Joe”. Joe is one of those people everyone knows, because he’s nothing if not memorable. A generally happy fellow, he works hard, plays hard, and speaks gently. Joe never met a stranger. His cheerfulness is matched by vigor and generosity.

Joe is no great intellect, and he doesn’t apologize for it. He has a place in the world, knows what that place is, and fulfills his station in life admirably. He aims to be the best technician he can possibly be, and by all accounts, he is.

Several years ago, Joe quit his good job to take care of a sick family member. When the family member died, Joe went back to work. To hear him talk, it was a privilege to care for the person, not a chore.

Joe works hard for the organization we belong to. He helps people whenever he can, and makes newcomers welcome. He does whatever the organization asks him to do without complaint, often doing jobs others avoid.

Probably the most enlightening thing to be said about Joe is this: In all the years I’ve known him, I have never heard him say an unkind word to anyone or about anyone.

About two years ago, Joe came to me because I am a writer. He was discouraged because his application for pardon had been denied for the second time.

Joe had not always been the pillar of society he is now. At one time, he suffered from an addiction that all but ruined his life. His guilt over hurting his mother made him turn his life around, but not before he was convicted of a felony.

Turning his life around was not a walk in the park; he had legal complications to deal with, and he dealt with them. He had to work to regain the trust of his family and the few friends he had left after years of addiction. Then he had to learn how to live life in the real world, the world those of us without addictions take for granted. And he did.

Patiently, day by day, Joe paid his debt to society and made a new life. He learned to pay his bills, work at a job, and be a member of society. It wasn’t easy, but he did it. At 15 years of sobriety, Joe decided that the one thing he wanted was for the State of Texas to forgive him. He was not looking for a pat on the back. He just wanted the state to tell him that it was true—he was one of those rare gems of the criminal justice system—a fully rehabilitated member of society.

The Texas State Board of Pardons and Paroles did not see it his way.

Joe is not alone. In the last four years, the full board has considered 895 petitions for full pardons. It has recommended clemency in 191 of those cases, or just over 21 percent. The governor is not bound by the recommendation of the board, and Governor Rick Perry, that bastion of rectitude, has seen fit to pardon a mere 76 souls. That is fewer than 9 percent of all applications for pardons. God might forgive Joe for his misdeeds, but the State of Texas will not.

One can understand taking a tough stance on crime, but where does tough become overbearing? Joe paid his debt to society, and then some. He is a contributing member of society who pays taxes, supports charities, and helps his neighbors. He has never been in trouble with the law since the day he decided to make his change, but none of this is good enough for the state.

What kind of place cannot recognize rehabilitation after more than 10 years of spotless, indeed exemplary, behavior? One run by politicians whose only concern is staying in office. One where pardoning such a person is perceived as being “soft on crime”. One run by the neo-conservative Republican Party. One I’d like to see changed.

© 2005

When in Rome, Don't Smuggle Drugs

According to reports from the Associated Press, Singapore hanged a 25-year–old Australian man this morning for drug trafficking. The execution came amid pleas for clemency from all over the world, and accusations that the clemency process in Singapore lacks transparency.

While the death penalty is arguably one of humankind’s more barbaric customs, it is rather difficult to support a claim that the government of Singapore should have done something different, or in the future should do something different.

The man, Nguyen Tuong Van, was caught leaving Singapore with nearly a pound of heroin 3 years ago. Singaporean law dictates that drug smuggling of this sort is a capital offense. Nguyen knew, or should have known that heroin was illegal in Singapore. Failing to know and understand the laws of a country where one travels is reckless at best.

The man broke the law of a sovereign nation and got caught. The nation has established its own laws, which is part of the right of sovereignty. The penalty attaches to the act, not the person, which is to say that Nguyen was hanged because of his crime, not because he was Nguyen.

The young man’s lawyer complained that he was “completely rehabilitated,” and therefore should not receive the full punishment, especially because he was so young. Of all the people who should understand the matter, the lawyer is the most surprising. Of course the young man was rehabilitated. Under pain of death, many persons have acquired virtue they otherwise lacked. There was no guarantee that this young man would have remained rehabilitated. In fact, having eluded the penalty would as likely make him bolder as keep him in the straight-and-narrow path. There is one guarantee, however; Nguyen Truong Van will not be smuggling any more heroin anywhere, ever.

His youth is even less reason to refrain from punishment. The world needs many things, but more young men to whom the laws do not apply is not among those needs. Singapore is very clear about where it stands. They hang drug smugglers. Young, old, rehabilitated or not. Their rationale is that while “dead men build no fences,” neither do they traffic in drugs.

The government of Singapore has been criticized for having a clemency process that lacks transparency. The process does not need transparency. The law has transparency aplenty: Smuggle drugs, get caught, get hanged. A five-year-old could understand it. The point of the harsh penalty is to discourage the drug trade. It works, but it takes an occasional high-profile case like this one to make it work.

Some find fault with the clemency process because during the last 40 years, all the prisoners granted clemency were Singaporean. These fault-finders might also note that all of those Singaporeans could fit in an elevator at once—there have only been six.

The outrage expressed by the Australian government is the hardest thing to understand. Australians’ choice not to impose the death penalty seems slender grounds to ask another country to break its own laws. The Australians may think Singaporean law harsh and barbaric; judging from the outcry, they do. Nevertheless, Australians are subject to the laws on the ground. One wonders if Nguyen might have had more respect for the drug laws of Singapore if those of Australia were harsher.

Persons of foreign nationality who disagree with the laws of Singapore are under no duress to visit. The concept of civil disobedience takes on another dimension here. Anyone who goes to a foreign country and decides that the laws that country do not apply to him or her, for whatever reason, takes a life-or-death chance.

Nguyen gambled and lost. Asians have a very different way of looking at things from westerners. They see that there are many, many people in the world, and that laws are the dikes that keep chaos out. Asia is so heavily populated that three children were born before Nguyen’s body was cut down from the gallows. He was replaceable. There is room enough for those who do not disturb the tranquility of society, but little room for those who do.

Nguyen is now deceased. It seems unlikely that anyone is lining up to try to succeed where he failed. From that point of view, who could argue that the law does not work? No one has to applaud the law or like the law. Laws are not made for celebrating, but for keeping order. In this case, it seems to be doing exactly that.
© 2005

Freedom of Agreement

George Bush went to church today in Beijing. As usual, he had an agenda. The Washington Post reports that Bush spoke to reporters after the service, saying, "My hope is that the government of China will not fear Christians who gather to worship openly. A healthy society is a society that welcomes all faiths."

It is interesting that Bush was silent when the Chinese government was cracking down on the Falun Gong. As neo-conservatives mis-label themselves pro-life when they are actually pro-birth, when Bush campaigns for religious freedom, it is only the freedom to agree with him. I’ve been accused of Bush-bashing in the past, so I want to make it clear that my disdain for his actions have little or nothing to do with my disdain for the man.

For the leader of the United States, whose party is doing its level best to abolish the first amendment, to lecture another country on the importance of freedom of religious expression is hypocrisy at its most bald-faced. The religious right have decided that it is time to take over the United States of America, and give it some morals.

Several years ago, a family of our acquaintance decided to “live the Christian values” they held. They home schooled their children, dressed their daughters exclusively in frumpy dresses, never allowed them to cut their hair, and attended church. They also swore off birth control. The mother of the family worked at taking care of the family, which grew by one member each year.

The children were not allowed to watch TV, go to movies that did not have a “G” rating or even look at Pokemon cards. That’s right: they were not allowed to look at or touch Pokemon trading cards. Naturally, nothing was more inviting than those forbidden playthings, which the parents continually derided as the ruination of the soul, as “pocket devils.” The crowning rejection of secular society was when the family (read: parents) decided not to exchange presents at Christmas.

The family,never rich by any standards, descended deeper into poverty with each passing year, as they continued to tithe their stagnant income to their church and add a member to its ranks. The older children, products of previous marriages, quickly bailed out of the family as their lives became more and more constricted.

The parents expressed sadness that their children did not embrace their Christian values, and continued on the path. Their son began to rebel in subtle ways. At eight, he could fearlessly tell me that my buying a single lottery ticket was gambling, then walk into my house and steal Pokemon cards, that soul-scourge of the devil.

The point is that this brand of Christian values has more to do with bondage to a system that preys on the weakest than with freedom. Those on whom it is imposed from above will inevitably rebel. Bush encourages the Chinese to be tolerant of religion, but only the brand of religion endorsed by the neo-conservatives.

When an Episcopal priest preached that the war in Iraq was at root sinful, the church where he preached was promptly (for the government) investigated by the IRS. Religion that encourages people to think about things in the light of their own consciences has not earned the neo-con seal of approval.

Religion is a wonderful tool for keeping people in line. The fear of eternal damnation is a powerful incentive to follow the rules. The founders were well aware of the tyrannical uses of religion, and attempted to short-circuit their implementation by forbidding the establishment of a state religion. Arguments that separation of church and state is an invention of the Supreme Court, rather than a tenet of the U.S. Constitution are not difficult to find these days. Unfortunately, although they are easy to refute logically, those advancing such arguments are not susceptible to logic.
© 2005

A Voice in the Wilderness

President Jimmy Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis renews my faith that the United States can turn the ship of state around before it runs aground on the shoals of fascism. His essay in the LA Times yesterday sums up much of what I have been trying to say since I started this blog.

Mr. Carter speaks clearly and unsentimentally about the detour our great country has taken from the course charted for it over 200 years ago. His words have the unmistakable ring of truth and the warrant of Carter's personal integrity to back them up.

Carter admonishes us about the erosion of our first amendment rights. That first amendment is the mother of all civil rights. It begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Churches have turned political, and an alarming number of politicians are exhibiting an unsavory tendency to run on the platform of their personal religious beliefs. In many countries, clergy may not hold parliamentary office. Not so in the United States, but it may be time to consider creating such a law.

". . .or abridging the freedom of speech. . ." While no one has yet attempted the direct public abrogation of free speech, Valerie Plame is certainly an example of the wages of unapologetic refusal to toe the party line. Intimidating against the use of free speech critical of the government is no different in practical terms from making it illegal. The right was not legislated out, but the freedom was still abridged.

" . . .or of the press. . ." Judith Miller recently ended a 2-month jail stay for refusing to name her journalistic sources. While protection of journalistic sources is not a constitutional right, without the ability to assure the anonymity of a source, journalists face the possibility of having access to the party line only. Big Brother hasn't tried to control the press overtly, but nary a journalist in this country missed the handwriting on the wall over Valerie Plame.

". . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . ." this right is also an endangered species. The government did not attack it directly; preferring simply to fail to protect it from private-sector poachers. Wal-Mart has usurped their employees' right to associate with others who think building a business empire by cheating employees is wrong. The fastest way to get fired from Wal-Mart is to repeat the magic words aloud: "Labor Union."

“. . . and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The current trend known as tort reform is the final aspect of the abolishment of the first amendment. When persons are limited in their ability to petition the government for relief of wrongs, which is the point of award caps, and other tort reform devices, the government is no longer obligated to protect the weak against the strong. Here, certain power brokers are trying to get Americans to support laws that violate their rights with alarmist chatter about frivolous lawsuits. Certain interests think that the right of American citizens to ask the government to protect them from well-funded commercial enterprises is frivolous. The first thing people seem to think of when tort reform comes up is the woman who sued McDonalds because she got burnt with hot coffee. The last thing they seem to think of, because this part is kept out of the discussion by the tort-reform champions, is that the woman who filed the lawsuit was injured so badly she needed skin grafts. It only sounds frivolous before the facts come out. Tort reform is the final nail in the first amendment’s coffin.

Americans are the only ones who can save the first amendment. It is not the whole of American civil liberties, but without it, maintaining the rest will be difficult, if not impossible. It is good that Mr. Carter has taken the time to warn of the impending crisis. I hope everyone who reads this can find a copy of his book and the time to read it.
© 2005

Name It. Claim It. Dump it

There are times when I feel like the world’s biggest failure. I read the display ads in The Economist for managers to administer UN projects to feed the poor, minimum qualifications, a doctorate in international affairs and 10 years experience in international aid programs, and I know I won’t ever get there.

But sometimes, every once in a great while, I read the paper and get a glimpse of my life in relation to the “movers and shakers” out there, and I may be puny, but at least I still have a spine.

Recently, ABC ran a story on national TV about getting some interns into a number of nuclear facilities at colleges and universities, without having to pass a background check, or even be searched. The evidence was incontrovertible. There were sound and video recordings of the deeds in progress.

The program had an effect here at Texas A&M University. Everyone and the president is standing up to cover their collective butt. “It’s not my arse,” you can almost hear them say, but friends, it really is somebody’s arse.

Compare this to the conversation I had with my daughter about the dent in her motorcycle gas tank.

“Where’d that come from?” said I.

“Remember you dropped it? You put it there, Mom,” says she.

“Sorry,” I replied.

The PR guys at the university are still spinning. There was an article denying the seriousness of the charges in the Battalion on Friday. Arguments ad hominum are quite the thing when facts are indisputable.

Somebody, some lowly nobody, somewhere in the bowels of the university has already suggested the following as a course of action and been severely rebuked for it: Name it. Claim it. Dump it.

Name it: we let god-knows-who into our nuclear reactor without taking proper steps to ensure that they were not bad people. Claim it: yup, it was wrong. A lot of people could have been hurt. We did it. Oops, our bad. Dump it: That’s why nobody gets into our facility anymore without making an appointment a week in advance, filling out a form, and passing a background check.

Sadly, that is not what is happening. Instead, a bunch of grown people are standing around, trying to outdo each other with their claims: It’s not my fault. It’s not my weenie showing. In the meantime, everything is just as ABC found it last summer. Unfortunately, someone is likely to come along and barbecue all those weenies that aren’t showing. We will all know who owns them then, because our collective goose gets cooked when something big goes wrong.

All this, so a couple of guys, who already have life by the tail, can save face. I’m sure glad they have their priorities straight.

The speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America is under indictment in Austin, Texas for money laundering and racketeering. That trial will be the greatest arse-covering Olympics of all time.

Few people name Richard Nixon as a role-model, but when he painted himself into a corner, he did the only honorable thing he could do; he resigned. It may be the last honorable act any politician ever does during my lifetime.

We did not scramble jet fighters on 9/11. It must be the jets’ fault, since the politicians are not owning up to anything.

We did not intervene in Darfour. It must be the fault of the army, or perhaps the fault of the corpses rotting in the African sun. It certainly cannot be because our priorities are skewed. Keeping gasoline prices below $3 a gallon is much more important than genocide.

We could not get to New Orleans when it flooded. It must be the fault of the poor people who were stranded there. They should have worked harder so they could have bass boats in which to leave the city we couldn’t get to because it was flooded at the mouth of a river on the Gulf of Mexico. Bad poor people. And what a stupid place to build a port, in the middle of all that water.

The Iraqis are sending our kids home in boxes at a steady rate of way too many. It must be because they are evil, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with invading a sovereign country without cause. Or maybe it’s the kids’ fault. . .

Name it: Neoconservatism. Claim it: What a monumental mistake. Okay, now dump it.
© 2005

Anybody Home?

On September 8, the Baltimore Sun printed a column by Gordon Adams calling for the impeachment of our illustrious president. Adams gives us a bevy of good reasons to "throw the bum out," but he seems to have missed a crucial point. The public has been calling the current administration to task in for its misdeeds for four years. In all that time, the word impeachment has been bandied about, but in the Senate, where the job must get done, it seems to be the elephant in the living room.

While it is certain that many Americans would like to see George W. Bush impeached, it is equally certain that few in Congress have the political will to do so. In fact, senators who have served their country long and well and have been betrayed by the duplicitous promises of the president himself refused to take him on. Perhaps they believe that biding their time for three more years will preserve their political standing. Meanwhile, regular folk wonder if there will be a political system in three years.

The larger public is becoming increasingly impatient with the president, but an increasing number are also becoming impatient with politicians who do nothing in the face of the rape of this country. If a single party was attempting to dismantle all regulations that prevented it from establishing absolute hegemony with respect to the economic system, it would be unfortunate. However as time goes by, and the Democrats continue to do nothing, one begins to suspect them of complicity.

There is no "working with" this administration. Democrats who use this as an excuse for inaction are liars. Democratic senators and representatives who receive letters and petitions from their constituents calling for impeachment and do nothing about them have failed to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them when they were elected.

A president was impeached for lying about a consensual sexual act. His successor lied to Congress, the press, the public, and the United Nations in order to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States, causing the death of nearly 2000 U.S. citizens, and the word impeachment has not come up. Is extramarital sex really that much more important than the thousands of lives that have been lost as a result of Bush policies? Judging by the actions of Congress, it is.

Talk of class warfare in politics is discouraged, but in the current situation, where no one is standing up against the establishment of a plutocracy, such talk is nearly inevitable. People are rarely motivated to do things to others; they do things to benefit themselves. Why would Democratic representatives ignore calls for impeachment, unless they had something to gain from doing so? While Democrats have always considered themselves the "people's party," Democratic politicians typically derive from the same socioeconomic stratosphere as their Republican counterparts.

The first concern of the wealthy and powerful is to secure and maintain wealth and power. In light of the policies enacted over the last five years, the gutting of federal agencies intended to protect ordinary people, and the blatant profiteering seen at the highest levels of government, Democrats would be hard-pressed to prove they were doing anything other than securing and maintaining their own positions.
© 2005

A New Venture

As much as I think about the state of the government in this country, I have come to realize that almost all of my opinions and thoughts are colored solely by my knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And while these may be two of the most seminal documents in modern history, they are the result of a great deal of deep thought on the part of their authors. In general, my education has tended to assume that what scholars have to say about primary sources is somehow more intelligible or more important than the primary sources themselves. The reasons for this tendency are unimportant; the results, however, are quite important because this tendency has left me in ignorance of the thinking and motivations of the founders of this country, except as interpreted by others.

I have undertaken a careful reading of the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and published in 1787-1788. For my own benefit, I will attempt to apply my understanding to our government in general, and the current political state of affairs. I invite readers to join in a lively discussion, to comment, and benefit in any way they can from this venture.

Each posting will include a link to the document discussed.

The Federalist Papers, No.1, by Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers was a series of newspaper columns published between the Fall of 1787 and the Spring of 1788. Their authors were the movers and shakers of the day. They were the best educated men of their day, the products of an educational system that placed more emphasis on discovering knowledge than on rote learning.

The first of the Federalist Papers was a preamble to the rest and an explanation of their purpose and scope. By no means, however, does it lack substance. The United States of America has often been called the "great experiment." Hamilton was aware of the experimental status of this country and its government and took it seriously:

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

Many of the founders subscribed to a belief called Deism. Deists believed that the world had been created by a Supreme Being, who set it in motion, then sat back and watched, without interfering further. In many ways, this is what the founders did with our government. Perhaps they believed that once we had made a conscious choice, the government we created would continue on its course carried by momentum. Surely they never foresaw the country we live in today.

It is possible that they envisioned a government that would evolve as the country matured. However it is almost certain that the trust they placed in their successors in government was predicated on their successors having a similar education to their own. Such is not and has not been the case. The founders were schooled in philosophy, logic, and mathematics; they studied Aristotle, Plato, and Euclid. Today, many students do not know these authors, and fewer have read them. If my own case is typical, they have had much more exposure to commentators than to the great thinkers themselves.

Hamilton discusses the factors that would motivate voters to accept or reject the Constitution. His words on the subject are almost prophetic:

“Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.”

Hamilton hoped for public service; he anticipated self-service, and we got what he expected, in spades. Hamilton noted that the establishment of a federal government would affect people of this country in a fundamental way, but he expressed the hope that they would consider the Constitution based on its merits rather than on their fears or selfishness. He was also aware of what he called "a class of men" who were hungry for power. This class of men still exists, unfortunately many of them have satisfied their hunger, often with the aid of others much like themselves. Nevertheless, Hamilton thought that the founders' vision for this country was viable, noble and good.

“So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.”

Hamilton was careful not to demonize dissenters. His was a more genteel time; his interest was in abolishing tyranny, and his education conditioned him to engage them in rational discussion to help them discover the truth for themselves. Just as the Bill of Rights would decree that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, Hamilton generously assumes that those who disagree with him are good, if misled.

“...nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”

Again prophetically, Hamilton warns readers that those who disagree with them are not their enemies and should be tolerated. It is interesting how many political movements have completely disregarded Hamilton's advice. Names like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung spring to mind. Sadly, this has become the dominant feature of political discussion in the United States today. Politicians play an all-or-nothing game, even if compromise is appropriate. It is not uncommon for the minority party to search relentlessly for something with which to discredit members of the other party in positions of authority. At times, this has the effect of preventing such persons from doing their jobs, from being effective, and from carrying out their own or their party's agenda, whether or not it is the perpetrators' intention.
© 2005

Chooser's Choice

I have known several people who made a practice of deceiving others without telling any "lies." Their method-of-choice invariably involved selective truth-telling. Such persons would respond to the question" Where's Mary?" with, "She's not here," thus leaving the interrogator with the impression that Mary's whereabouts were unknown, when in fact they were known to them. These same people would all vigorously object to being called liars. They followed the letter of the law, while breaking the spirit.

Neoconservatives seem intent on destroying of the Bill of Rights using the same methods. The state school board in Kansas supplied a prime example this week when they approved a measure allowing science teachers in Kansas schools to teach "intelligent design theory," as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Intelligent design theory posits that the world as we know it is too complex to have come about through evolution, and therefore reflects the existence of a divine being or higher intelligence.

The intelligent design camp pushes a thinly veiled agenda in offering this explanation in place of a theory that works just as well with a higher intelligence motivating it as it does without one. It never seems to cross our friends' minds that it is certainly possible that the higher intelligence they are so desperate to prove could have caused evolution.

Perhaps the Neocons find this explanation of the origin of life on our earth unacceptable because they did not imagine it; it is more likely, however, that this explanation is unacceptable because the definition of "God" is left to the individual.

No Neocon would ever admit to attempting to establish a state religion, much less to dismantling the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, words notwithstanding, this is the very thing they are doing. It is not difficult to see why individual freedoms are so threatening to them. After all, who would choose to be without a choice?

Ironically, one of the chief tenets of evangelical Christianity (to which most Neocons subscribe) is that their Creator endowed human beings with free will. Not so ironically, the first sin consisted of humans serving their own wills rather than God's.
© 2005

Headed for the Ditch

Cindy Sheehan has made the most difficult sacrifice any mother can for her country. Her son, 24-year-old Army Specialist Casey Sheehan died in Sadr City in April 2004, prosecuting a war that Ms. Sheehan no longer believes in.

She has now traveled to Crawford, Texas to ask the president why her son died. She and about 50 other protesters arrived in Crawford on Saturday, with plans to stay for the month of August if necessary.

She and her fellow protesters have been kept well away from Bush; they were stopped four miles from the entrance to the Bush ranch, because they walked on the roadway rather than in the tall grass in the bar ditch beside it. The McLennan County Sheriff ordered the demonstrators to stop because they broke “their part of the bargain.”

The protesters had reasons for not walking in the ditch, although non-Texans could hardly know what they are. Rattlesnakes come to mind first, but the Great State of Texas’ Department of Transportation rarely mows country roads, and never ever picks up road-kill. It’s probably a safe bet that a middle-aged woman from Vacaville, California wore tennis shoes (bad) and shorts (really bad) for her stroll through aforementioned bar ditch.

Texas has some really interesting flora with very descriptive names: spear grass, devil’s claw, bull nettle. Some of the fauna can be rather unpleasant as well, including red wasps, scorpions, chiggers, and horse flies. Of course, if Ms. Sheehan must make a scene, the least she can do is walk in the ditch in 100-degree heat and not complain.

The Sheriff claims to be concerned that the protest was disrupting traffic; however representatives of the news media were only ordered off the road when the demonstrators were stopped.

There are two forces operating here. First, the sheriff sets up a requirement for protesters to walk where a sensible person would not walk, where common sense dictates that one is safer on the right-of-way than in the grass. Second, after the protesters failed the requirement, as law enforcement officers knew they would, the protest was stopped, and the media was out-waited for the story.

There are no main-stream media stories about Cindy Sheehan in today’s news. The media went away, rather than cover the story that the president of the United States left this mother of a dead soldier waiting for answers on the side of the road in the Texas sun in August.
© 2005 Ann Weaver Hart

Abortion Foes Find New Ways to Inflict Pain

The lucky gals in Minnesota got a special break from the state legislature last week. Now both they and Arkansan women will be offered anesthesia for their fetuses if they elect to have an abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

Nobody objected, once they removed the part about it being a felony for a doctor to fail to tell a woman that the fetus she was aborting could feel pain. Bad move. This is how we got into the mess we have now in so many other sectors of our society.

It affects a very few abortions, so it should be okay. Wrong. In the grand neo-con tradition of turning a given inch into a taken mile, the righteous wrong have gotten their collective foot in the door. They will continue to nibble, pick and scratch at women’s right to choose, until they have gotten rid of it completely.

It is not that I like abortion. Nobody thinks abortion is an ideal answer for anything. But in their crusade to mind everyone’s business but their own, the Right-to-Lifers have found a way to inflict some more anguish on a woman when she is already up to her eyeballs in the stuff. There’s some real compassionate conservatism.

“We do want people to know that these are unborn children, and they can feel pain,” says Jackie Moen, of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. Someone should let Ms. Moen in on the secret: most women having abortions are feeling plenty of pain already. The fetal pain law only adds insult to injury.

The Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act is part of a larger law, the Women’s Right to Know Law. True to neo-con methods, this law is mis-named. Truth in advertising would require it to be called something like the “Our Right to Tell You Law.”

Those who do not think a woman should have the right to choose have never had to choose themselves.

The righteous wrong spend untold hours picketing family planning clinics and harassing women who come for check-ups, when they could be using their time and energies for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Not only do they not support women in what is probably the hardest decision of their lives, they will not even support women trying to keep themselves from getting into that spot. Sadly, women will continue to choose after abortion is outlawed completely, but it will kill a lot more of them than it does today.
© 2005

Making Peer Pressure Work

When I heard on the news last week that a group of imams had issued a fatwa against terrorism in the wake of the London tube bombings, I thought it was about time. Now, not even a week later, there are more bombings and attempted bombings, and I discover that the imams have issued lots of fatwas against terrorism. Unfortunately, it seems that, just like Christians, Muslims have a tendency to obey the rules that please them and ignore those that displease them.

In an article in the Tablet, Abdal Hakim Murad acknowledges the problems of using censure and public condemnation against disaffected young Muslims. The trouble lies in a schism in Islam. A group called Wahabis regards everyone else as infidels: Christians, Jews, other religions, and most importantly, other Muslims. The Wahabis are the Aunt Maudes of Islam. Aunt Maude was a Pentecostal who was confident that everyone except Pentecostals was going to hell. The Wahabis have given themselves permission to stamp our tickets and send us there.

At times, tolerance is overrated, particularly the tolerance of intolerance. If every imam and mufti in every country not only condemned the violence of the Wahabis, but also exposed their plans for terrorism to the authorities, there might be a chance to control the violence. Exposing extremists to the authorities is both the crucial factor and the sticking point. Because Wahabis consider mainstream Muslims infidels, mainstream imam’s fatwas are ignored. Mainstream imams, aware of being ignored, or worse, of becoming targets of violence themselves, increasingly shrink from criticizing Wahabism.

No one likes the prospect of living where anyone could call the authorities and make allegations that would cause the victim’s incarceration. But who wants to live in a society where anyone standing next to you could blow themselves to kingdom come and take you with them?

One of the key precepts of the radical fundamentalist fringe is the principle of dissembling. Simply put, it is acceptable to pretend to live at peace with your neighbors if they are unbelievers and your goal is to spread Islam. Perhaps Muslim elders could take a page out of that book and use it for the goal of repairing the reputation of Islam in the world.

© 2005

DO Something

While it is obvious that there has been a great deal of wrongdoing in the current administration in Washington, it may not be obvious why no one seems willing to do anything about it. Aside from the fact that the first mission of the rich and powerful is to preserve both their riches and power, surely someone hears the voices in the crowd screaming “Impeach them!”

Yes, people are hearing, but she who pays the piper gets to call the tune. Friends, we may be paying someone, but it ain’t the piper. The goal of the neo-conservative movement is to allow business to run everything. Without a doubt, they have achieved that goal, but they want absolute freedom for businesses to do anything it takes to make a buck, or rather, lots of bucks.

The biggest supporter of political campaigns is not the average Joe, nor is it the U.S. government, but it should be. Corporations, those make-believe beings that get all the respect and autonomy of people with half the rules and none of the punishments are the big campaign contributors. And politician’s claims to the contrary be damned, money buys access and votes. Always has; always will.
The only way to topple the current regime is to launch a massive call-fax-email-write campaign to deluge the U.S. House and Senate with calls for impeachment. I have already written both my senators and my representative in the House of Representatives. Have you? If you haven’t, and you want to, click the link below. Hell, write the president and demand his resignation, while you are at it. He is your employee, in case you forgot.

But wait. Before you write, you should realize that your activism could get you in trouble. Your boss, if you have one, and your clients may object to your politics, particularly if they are a business concern.

A year ago, I put a graphic from ImpeachBush.org in my email signature. A client, one who supplied about 75% of my business last year asked me to remove the graphic from my emails. The client cited the reason that it might give an impression of bias. Political speech is, by its nature, biased. I resisted until it became clear that to refuse was to wave goodbye to a lot of income. In the end, I capitulated. I may be opinionated, and I may be brave, but my family needs to eat, just like everyone else.

If your corporation is actively practicing union-busting, encouraging political contributions to one party or another, or telling you that political activism is incompatible with employment with them, you are caught in the same bind. So, keep it outside work, but keep at it. Unless, of course you like the way things are going.

If you are happy at the prospect that you or your child could be drafted to go to Iraq and get blown up, keep your mouth shut. If you like paying for health-care services for employees of companies that do not pay their employees a living wage, stay mum. If the prospect of warmer summers in Texas (which are already 10 degrees hotter than hell) with more hurricanes appeals to you, by all means stand behind your commander-in-chief. Just remember the fate of lemmings.

Maybe there are too many cynics in this country. “They’ll just do whatever they want to do anyway,” they think. Maybe so, but the least we can do is try to keep the country from self-immolation. We may get a bum deal; we might tick people off, but at least the niggling knowledge that we could have tried, but did not will be laid to rest. I sin much more often by omission than by commission.

Maybe people are waiting for the "pendulum to swing the other way," politically speaking. Um, the pendulum is more like a see-saw. Until our side balances the 50 kids on their side by getting 50 kids on our side, we will be left high and dry. Agreeing is great, but acting is crucial.

To find the addresses and the names of your representatives in Congress, click
here.
© 2005

Stopping the Terror

"On the one hand, you have people working to alleviate poverty and rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and ways to have a clean environment and, on the other hand, you have people working to kill people," he said. "The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks." Mr. Bush said. "The war on terror goes on."

—George W. Bush, speaking about terrorist bombings during the G8 Summit in Scotland, quoted in the New York Times, July 8, 2005.

“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
—Bob Dylan

Londoners got a taste of the reward of the deluded this week, as a series of coordinated bombings ripped through the public transit system at rush hour. While the Brits are stoic, and Mr. Bush is trying to make some international political hay, believing the fairy tale becomes more dangerous by the day.

George Bush continues to spout the by-words that have kept him in power—terrorism, Al Quaeda, War on Terror, etc.—while remaining absolutely blind to the fact that the terrorists are using the only tool they have that gets international attention. There is a quick way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, and one so simple that even Mr. Bush could grasp it if he tried. The solution lies in allowing the U.N. to issue an ultimatum to Israel: either create an equitable situation for the Palestinians or suffer the consequences. The United States has a part to play in the solution as well: minding its own business, which means doing nothing. Allowing the aggrieved parties to engage in whatever means necessary to resolve their conflict is not some privilege we can grant. It is the right of the peoples involved.

Because our government has tipped the balance of power for so long, Israel would likely face military conflict with many of its Arab neighbors. Not surprising, when one considers that the typical Palestinian/Israeli confrontation finds rocks and bottles pitted against automatic weapons.

Westerners have become the targets of terrorism because their governments have supported Israel unconditionally, without regard to the problems of the Palestinians. The fact that during the creation of Israel, half the population of Palestine was evicted from lands it had inhabited for generations never seems to appear on Westerners’ radar screens.

What other possible motivations could the terrorists have? They admit publicly that they carry out these attacks in solidarity and sympathy with the Palestinians. Why would they lie about their aims?

Karl Rove calls this point of view “offer[ing] therapy and understanding [to] our attackers.” Rove may be a king-maker, but he cannot have thought very deeply on the motivations of the conflict, or he would have to admit that the United States has thrown its lot in with the wrong side this time. Turning around and asking for directions are not within the repertoire of men like Rove and Bush. Being wrong is not an option, so admitting the fact is less of an option.

While Westerners can deplore their methods, honesty dictates admitting the just cause of the perpetrators. The things Islamic terrorists are demanding are only their just due. Talk about nation building and alleviating poverty rings hollow when an entire ethnic group is denied the right of self-determination with our cooperation and aid. Worse than empty, it becomes hypocritical.

Westerners have been so wracked with guilt since the holocaust that they have been unwilling to see the parallels between the actions of the Nazis and those of the Israelis. While the Israelis stopped short of the despicable genocide of the Nazis, their practices have been discriminatory and unjust. Not a fitting posture for a people who were rescued from total destruction themselves only 60 years ago.

It is not the right of the United States to decide which nations may exist and which may not. The U.S. government has taken to throwing its weight around with such abandon that one wonders why we have not been the target of more terrorism. Until Israel is stripped of its sacred cow status in U.S. foreign policy, little will change, except that eventually, countries that are less afraid of the truth will cease supporting us, and we will find ourselves alone with Israel facing a hostile world. Such a prospect bodes ill for our own right of self-determination.

© 2005

The Good Fight

I had words with an Army recruiter last week. He called for my 18-year-old daughter. I knew very well what he wanted, and I told him he could speak to her “over my dead body.”

“Enjoy your freedom,” he replied snidely.

I think I will. Not the first volley of words to be exchanged with military recruiters over my children, it is unlikely to be the last.

I do love my country. I would sacrifice my own life, or even that of my child to defend my country and to make it possible for Americans to continue to enjoy their freedom, but the situation in Iraq is another thing entirely.

The neo-cons have a way with words that really bothers me. Their talent lies in calling things something other than what they are, and then convincing the public that the sow’s ear in its hand is really a silk purse. The purposefulness of their distortions is nothing short of diabolical. Most distressing of all is the American public’s willingness to swallow whatever they say.

The Army sergeant who told me to enjoy my freedom honestly believes that he recruits soldiers to defend it. He hears that the war defends freedom, and cannot or will not see it for the expeditionary excursion it is.

At the Independence Day celebration I attended, one of the emcees announced a tribute to our armed forces, and told the audience to “Thank them for defending us.” Defending? I am grateful that there are men and women willing to risk life and limb to protect me. I have nothing against the armed forces. They are merely a tool. Unfortunately, the tool is being misused, with the result that we become less safe by the day.

Every soldier who dies or suffers grave injury is one less protecting us. Every soldier who goes overseas and does Bush’s bidding makes us enemies in the Arab world with each non-combatant he or she kills, mistreats, or injures. Death and injury are the stock and trade of war. Participation in war injures the spirit in such ways that soldiers come to mistreat those seen as “others”. The consequences are inevitable. More enemies plus fewer defenders equals less safe, a case of simple arithmetic.

Then we have the young people who return from the grimness of war so spiritually wounded that they no longer have any ability to know right from wrong, who become predatory, violent people with little to check their antisocial impulses. These are not theoretical people. They are not maybes. They came home from Vietnam and Korea and World War II, and they come home today from Afghanistan and Iraq. Veterans’ Administration hospitals will be busy with them for decades.

Poor kids are dying for the right of rich kids’ moms to drive them around in Hummers. Poor kids are paying for their education with their blood and with body parts. No children of legislators are in harm’s way, depend upon it. No matter how much they sing their praises and proclaim the heroism of the dead, they continue to be dead, and their deaths continue to have been wasted.

Am I unwilling to sacrifice my child for the “American way of life”? You bet your ass I’m unwilling. My children were not born to die so that corporate tyrants can let their CEOs live like kings. My children will not give their lives so that I can drive around for $1 a gallon in an SUV that passes everything but the gas station. My children will not die in some trumped-up excuse of a war that is nothing more than a grab for petroleum-rich land, even if I have to die or go to prison to prevent it.

The American way of life has become so corrupted by political collusion with corporate greed that my grandmother would not recognize it. She risked her son to stop the spread of fascism. Bush is not doing the same with our children; rather he ensures the spread of terrorism with their lives. It is time to ask if this is an appropriate use of our children’s blood.
© 2005

Of Haves and Housemaids

They are at it again in Bryan, Texas and thousands of other places all over the country. “They” are the neo-cons, and “it” is widening the divide between the master and serving classes.

In case that sounds odd, consider Steamboat Springs, Colorado. There are two classes of people living there: the haves and the housemaids. The haves are rich, mostly white, thin, tanned, and dripping in jewelry. The housemaids are mostly brown immigrants of questionable legality. The housemaids take what the haves give, because it beats ducking bullets in their home countries. The haves give them jobs without benefits, and a chance to wait on them while they enjoy working out at the gym, bicycling mountain roads in spring and summer, and skiing in fall and winter.

The haves believe that they are doing the housemaids a favor by giving them almost enough to live on. The system works because the housemaids are ignorant of, and therefore do not assert, their rights.

Bryan, Texas is cultivating the same system, but instead of exporting those housemaid jobs, they are creating them here at home. It will be a wonderful system, just like the one in Steamboat Springs. And since neo-cons are focused on the long term, they do not mind that it will take 12 years to put in place. They have time.

What is this dastardly plan? What could the neo-cons have up their sleeve, and how can it be averted? Remember No Child Left Behind? NCLB is code for forcing the neo-con agenda for the educational system. NCLB forces failing schools to shut down, or use funding for bringing students performance on standardized tests up to par. It gives principals in failing schools, who often face nearly insurmountable odds, their walking papers. Those principals who end up on the losing side of the equation end up with ruined careers, as they go from bad schools to worse schools, and then find themselves unemployed.

Enter Bryan Independent School District and its popular mentoring program, known as HOSTS, which stands for Help One Student To Succeed.

HOSTS was begun at Bryan’s Kemp elementary school by a community activist. The program supplies community mentors to at-risk students to help them with school work and help motivate them to complete their educations. Hundreds of volunteers spend an hour or two a week with students. The program works, and both volunteers and students value it.

Someone at Kemp decided that by cutting the program, the school could save $80,000 a year. The money is spent on hiring a volunteer coordinator and an assistant and paying a licensing fee to the HOSTS, Inc. Regardless, the powers that be have decided that the money would be better spent on teachers’ salaries. That way, the school would have the benefit of two full-time mentors.

Hold up. Two? That is correct. $80,000 buys two full-time teachers. The plan is to replace 300 mentors with 2 teachers. To make the math easy, if each mentor only spends 30 minutes working with a kid, Kemp will be replacing 150 hours of individualized instruction with 80 of classroom instruction.

A little bit of explaining is in order. The proposition of bringing in professional teachers sounds credible and laudable, until a closer examination reveals that the quality of teachers that can be had is hit or miss at best. First of all, few teachers, or anyone else for that matter, are beating down the doors for full-time jobs that pay $33,000 a year. Most graduates of Texas A&M University, from which HOSTS draws many of its volunteers, would laugh at such an offer and continue on down the road.

Second, Kemp is not the suburbs. In fact, Kemp does not inhabit the same universe as the suburbs. The students are overwhelmingly Black and Latino and poor. They live in one of the poorest parts of Bryan, the children of laborers who struggle to make ends meet, many of them on minimum wage, many of them working for Wal-Mart. The teachers looking to fill the new jobs at Kemp are likely to be looking for “a foot in the door.” Most will be gone at the first sign of an opening anywhere else in the district. So they add insult to injury—a high turnover rate in teachers who really want to be somewhere else, but who will put in their time until they can get a job at a “decent” school, where the kids’ parents have degrees and live in nice houses.

And how does all that tie in with neo-cons and housemaids? If the teachers are not connecting with the students, the students suffer. LNCB will mandate that the school be closed or money be spent on supplemental—read “private”—help. The children will not be left behind; they will be swept into the housemaid class, where they will happily work in the homes of the haves, because they are ignorant of their rights.

© 2005

The Consent of the Governed

There are a few things most Americans want from the government, and the current administration withholds most of these things as a matter of principle. All kinds of “reasons” and “facts” provide rationale for withholding those things, but nothing provides an excuse.

A doctor works for an HMO for more than 10 years. At 38, she is the most senior person in her department. She is also one of the oldest. When the HMO begins to see her personal politics and her practice of medicine as being at odds with their bottom line, she is summarily fired. The HMO claims to have dismissed her because of her bad recordkeeping, but no one really believes that. She has been fired because of the combination of her age and her refusal to blow with the corporate wind.

A homemaker spends her twenties and thirties raising a family and then returns to school. Upon graduation, she discovers that 40 is too old to get an entry-level job anywhere. One employer, in its effort to avert accusations of age discrimination, interviews her for five hours before offering a terminal position outside of her field, even though they advertise openings in her field. Later, she hires on with a company that claims to be family-oriented, but which penalizes her for lateness beyond 3 minutes, has no sick time or family leave, and insists that she take her lunch “hour” promptly from 11:00 to 11:45 each day. When she chafes under the micromanagement of her time, they fire her.

A chemist with a Ph.D. and 30 years experience as a university professor and researcher fails to obtain grant support for his position. The university dissolves his position. He spends the next four years looking for work, before reaching retirement age and giving up to draw his social security.

No one believes that shiftless workers should be guaranteed jobs. By the same token, most people object to being used and discarded like so much toilet paper by corporations whose sole motive is profit. The reason corporations get away with it is simple, people do not want to see the hand writing on the wall.

Thirty years ago, at a General Electric manufacturing facility in Philadelphia, workers routinely and voluntarily took shorter hours to prevent layoffs. The company only laid workers off when the entire shop would have to drop below 32 hours per week to maintain a full crew. The same facility shut down for 2 weeks every summer, so employees could vacation with their families.

GE is not small potatoes. The company survived these worker-friendly policies and others, and continued to pay dividends to its stockholders. Now, rather than have humane policies toward workers, or pay them fairly, big business out-sources positions to other lax-lawed countries where $5 is a handsome price for a day’s work.

The neo-cons promise on a daily basis to protect us from terrorists. Perhaps it is time for us to tell them exactly which terrorists we wish protection against. If spilling oil all over Prince William Sound and taking a tax deduction for the clean-up costs is not terrorism, what is? If disenfranchising large portions of the population by creating 5-hour lines on Election Day is not terrorism, find some. If big business re-instituting the sweat-shop as standard operating procedure is not terrorism, please someone, enlighten me. These are wrongs that need to be righted.

The challenge is to get the scales to fall from the eyes of corporate serfdom. The cubicle-dwellers of this country have suffered wrongs while wrongs were sufferable, but they need someone to help them connect the dots. They must understand that they need not consent to abuse in order to feed their families. Most of all, they need to see that their employers do indeed abuse them and their families, and that the stories the employers tell about profitability and what dire straits the corporations inhabit are exactly that—fairy tales about things that go bump in the night.

For millennia, humans have carried on trade without abusing their brethren. Where do corporations get the idea that using people as “human capital” is acceptable? If the purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong, as some believe, then government’s failure to do so is grounds for the governed to withdraw their consent.