Will The Real Tea Party Please Stand Up...?

Note:  Apologies to those who are regular readers to BTPS.  I have been working on a few projects to be published soon.  Needless to say that these projects have kept me noticeably absent from regular blogging. However, I promise that I will soon be back to full-blogging strength here and on my various other blogs.

When you’re dead, you don’t actually know you’re dead; it just affects those around you. Being a political extremist in America is a lot like being dead; you don’t know you’re an extremist, but it affects those around you just the same. One of two major differences between the two realities is that the dead cannot convince themselves that they are dead—as they are absent of consciousness—while those who make their intellectual homes with the margins of political fringe thinking can routinely convince themselves that they are “true patriots” or “real Americans.” The rest of us apparently are self-delusional, intellectual dullards who took the blue pill.
Now that Congress has successfully kicked the budget can down the road until early next year, it should become apparent that this is the reality of the state of politics within our government. Egged-on by the “real Americans” known as the Tea Party, favorite party son, Senator Ted Cruz of Florida led a doomed-from-the-start effort to tie creating a federal budget deal to continue to run the government’s day-to-day business with his (and the Tea Party’s) disdain for President Obama’s signature health care reform law, hoping to get the last defunded—or revoked entirely. Ostensibly, this effort on the part of Cruz to revoke funding for the health care law was to trim the budget and curtail federal spending by the government. If it were the true motive, it would indeed be laudable. However (and at the risk of painting all Tea Party-backed

                     Florida Republican Senator (and Tea Party favorite) Ted Cruz

Congressmen with a broad paintbrush), most of the grandstanding on the part of Cruz and his Congressional cohorts was mostly political, a transparent effort to garner favor with the “real Americans” back in their home districts (although I will concede the benefit of the doubt and grant that not every member of the Tea Party caucus in Congress are as self-interests-driven as Cruz and the other “patriots”). Needless to say, despite being cheered on by supporters, the effort failed miserably. In fact, this effort on Cruz and the Tea Party’s part to avoid compromising on any budget proposal in exchange revoking funding for Obama’s (bad attempt to reform) health care failed to not only trim government spending, but the resulting government shutdown cost the country some $24 billion in lost economic output according to the Standard and Poor’s ratings agency (see: “How Much Did the Shutdown Cost The Economy?”). Even anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist called

Cruz and his allies as “defund terrorists.” Norquist previously slammed those who tried to use the government shutdown to roll back the Affordable Care Act by saying, “They hurt the conservative movement, they hurt people’s health care, they hurt the country’s economic situation and they hurt the Republican Party” (“Grover Norquist Slams Ted Cruz”).

Already, Cruz and many within the Tea party have attributed the failure of the effort to defund Obamacare and the lack of any tangible results—at least by their standards—to “turncoat” mainstream Republicans who dared to strike a compromise rather than support the Tea party’s failed effort. Of course it would never cross their minds of Cruz and the Tea Party that they represent an extreme point of view, that they lack general support because of this, or that they are on the fringes of political ideology…it’s the rest of us. It's what they "see," not how they see it that's at fault.  Of course!
Part of their philosophy (and political strategy) is to "prove" how “overstated” forced spending cuts like those from the sequester from earlier this year, the shutdown from 2 weeks ago, and failure to raise the deficit ceiling is, and that such sudden spending halts would be more beneficial to the nation’s fiscal solvency than the harm that almost every reputable economist has projected.  But to Tea Partiers, the more level-headed among the rest of us are either “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only), “liberals,” “brainwashed by the media,” or “socialists.” Their mantra is simply to “stop government spending,” with no hint or reasonable suggestion as to how.
A proposed Balanced Budget Amendment wouldn’t work simply because inflexible requirements to spend within a budgetary limit every year are not realistic—they do not account for cycles of economic boom and bust and the need to readjust spending to compensate. And inserting provisions to allow for exceeding budget spending limits based on exigent circumstances wouldn’t work because—as we have seen—the two major parties can’t even agree on what day of the week it is, yet along be expected to compromise on major spending issues such as what defines extenuating circumstances that calls for more (or less) spending.
All-out cutting much needed programs would harm those who need them (although I will admit that some programs are surely riddled with costly lack of oversight and (as a result) abuse.  And besides that, austerity spending measures worked so "well" in Europe... (sarcasm alert).
Reforming entitlements is a good start, but let’s face it…neither party wants to give up any sacred cows that might cost their membership(or their party) an election or legislative control. What will work? Unfortunately I don’t have all the answers, but holding policymaking hostage to ideological demands, and basing policy on ideology rather than the reality of need and pragmatism is definitely not the way.  However, the most logical start to balancing the budget would be a combination of taxes and hard-choice spending cuts (which includes accounting for every paperclip or errant piece of paper if necessary).
The Tea Party has proven itself capable of exerting political pressure, getting their favorite elected officials to office, and organizing itself into a formidable political force. But its extremist views and rigid adherence to ideology (rather than reality) does not benefit all Americans (deny if you will, but it’s the truth). This organized group counts among its membership (and supports) the most intolerant and xenophobic of Americans. Those who have kept up with their various marches, rallies, and public protests have seen the pictures and heard the quotes—they are present at almost every numerically significant Tea Party rally (I provided a few in the event that denies attempt to portray these appearances as aberrations with the organization).

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch (a conservative political advocacy group) and Tea Party ally during the government shutdown. According to Klayman, American is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'" "I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out" (see: “Larry Klayman Defends Obama-Islam Link”). 

Its funny how being dead and being a political extremist in America seem to have some things in common. The other major difference between the two is that it seems to be easier to convince of a dead person of their station in life than to convince one of these so-called “real Americans” that they are not purveyors of true American ideas, but are obstructionists who could refocus their goals and energy on something that could benefit all Americans, and not just those who they deem as “real Americans”—their rhetoric about “personal rights” notwithstanding.

Tea Party supporter and protester Michael Ashmore stands in front of the White House recently during the Congressional breakdown in budget talks and the attempt to defund Obamacare by Senator Ted Cruz the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. 

Read More

Opinion: "I'm So Sick of "Crazy" People!"

I have a big problem with individuals with a past history of some sort of mental illness—diagnosed or otherwise—committing mass shootings or other crimes involving mass casualties. More to the point, it’s mass shootings involving “troubled individuals” that causes me to lose my objectivity and riles my dander.
In many cases, such “troubled” individuals seem to have an innate urge to inflict mass casualties on the youngest, most vulnerable of us—children or adults gathered public places such as schools, houses of worship, or other centers of public accommodation. Yesterday, another such instance was averted in Decatur, Georgia. During the incident, 20-year-old Michael Brandon Hill walked into the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy with an AK-47 assault rifle and other weapons. Hill held staff members in the front office captive, all the while terrorizing the campus by firing his rifle into the air and at arriving police officers. One of the captives, a bookkeeper talked Hill down from what by all indications was his attempt to commit a mass casualty shooting at the school. He eventually gave himself up before going through with his telegraphed intent (See: “Michael Brandon Hill, Accused Georgia School Gunman, Threatened to Kill Brother, Police Say”).

 

Would-be school shooter and mass-murderer Michael Brandon Hill Booking Photo

During the time he held the staff captive, Hill indicated that he had wanted to die, and that he “was sorry for what he was doing.” And of course, it was revealed after Hill’s arrest that he had past issues of “mental issues.” I take umbrage with the issue of “mental issues” being the cause of such offenses. I simply refuse to believe that such individuals are not “crazy” as such. They have enough presence of mind to know that attacking children would tug at the heartstrings of most Americans in the worst way. They seem to have a sense that hurting innocent children (or innocent adults) inflicts emotional pain, outrage, and grief on their loved ones, and pretty much garners the nation’s attention. 

I would submit that this need to attention, even infamy, speaks to a reality that such individuals are not so divorced from reality or even lucid thinking that they are not aware of their actions.
We have become a nation mental and emotional hypochondriacs, ever-ready to blame our deep-seated unresolved emotional and mental/”mental” issues on whatever malady gives us a pass to excuse our own negative behaviors.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I can recall a time when people would embrace denial about mental and emotional issues that only slightly impaired their social functionality and ability to interact; most would do anything to avoid such labels (and their social implications). But somewhere along the line, we lowered our aversion to being stigmatized by mental/emotional impairments. It’s now gotten to the point where we as a nation are hair-trigger quick to use such impairments as an excuse for our lack of self-restraint and discipline. I can recall once during my years as a long-term substitute teachers working with at-risk (read: “mentally/emotionally-impaired”) youth where one such labeled student told me, “You can’t make me do that…I’m ‘Special Ed.’”
I would think that those with true debilitating mental and emotional issues would be offended by so many claiming to be so “impaired.” It’s like when a persistent man enamored with a woman pursues her for a date; many so pursued women will threaten legal action for being “stalked.” Labeling every infatuated man looking for a date as a “stalker” weakens the impact and legitimacy of the offense. It’s the same with calling every personal issue a debilitating “emotional-” or “mental issue;” it weakens the legitimacy of those who suffer from true mental impairment.
I’ve seen kids and adults with supposed “anger-management issues,” who “take drugs for my issues” manage to control those same supposed “issues” when confronted with truly angry individuals who have no scruples about teaching them their place on the social pecking order. It’s both laughable and quite annoying at the same time.
Bradley Manning, the former army soldier who was sentenced yesterday to 35 years in prison for leaking classified military information to the online whistleblower site, WikiLakes, asserted his "gender-identity issues" as a contributing factor for his actions.
In 2005, an armed federal air marshal shot and killed a man on an airplane in Miami because he had claimed to "have a bomb in his carry-on backpack," while running up and down the aisle of the airplane frantically. Despite his history of "bi-polar" issues (as revealed by family members), he had enough of a grasp on reality to know that saying "bomb" on an airplane in a post 9/11, still-alarmed America would garner a response of panic among those on board.
We truly need to stop allowing people to use supposed “mental” and “emotional” issues as an excuse for engaging in behavior which is fully within their ability to control. We tend to criticize those with self-restraint and discipline as being “uptight” and/or “prudish.” But there is a great deal we can learn from such individuals, such as self-control and personal responsibility for one's own actions.
There is “crazy” and there is crazy. What Michael Hill did Tuesday was not “crazy;” it was a calculated action, despite his history of bi-polar issues. “Crazy” would be Hill or some other “disturbed” individual walking onto a military base or inside a police station full of armed and trained men more than willing to shoot back if threatened in the same manner school children occasionally are.

Read More

The Health Care Conundrum – A Personal Narrative

Note: I realize that Beyond The Political Spectrum has many readers from various European countries. And in acknowledge of this fact, I have taken the liberty of converting American dollar values to Euros in order to give this issue some contextual clarification.

There’s a young man with whom I work with—let’s call him “John”—who happens to share the same predicament which thousands, if not millions of Americans are forced to endure. Twenty-something year-old “John” has a wife and two young children. As the only current breadwinner in his family, John is looking to purchase health insurance coverage for his entire family. The problem “John” has is that he only earns $9.00 an hour (approximately €6.70), while the health insurance offered by his employer is prohibitively expensive.
How expensive? According to the prices listed on the copy of the Benefits (Plan) Selection I obtained, the cost to “John” to cover his family of four with the basic, no-frills plan (with a high deductable between $2,500 and $5,000/€3356 and €6712) is $420.76 (€318.63), deducted from his paycheck bi-weekly. Those of you with a firm grasp of math can immediately see the problem. Earning only $9.00 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week, “John” brings home approximately $720 bi-weekly (€536). That means that over half of his take home pay would go to pay for health care coverage for himself and his family. From what’s left over, he has to cover rent, utilities, and basics like food. Because the particular health care option—the only option—the employer offers is so expensive, “John” and other employees have opted to go without.

This personal anecdote came to mind as I took note of the recent vote in the House of Representatives in Congress. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority in Congress’ lower chamber voted for the 40-somethingth time to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act we know as “Obamacare.” Ignoring for the moment that the majority of these same opponents of the new health care law were shouting to the top of their collective lungs during last year’s presidential elections that the economy was the biggest concern of the American people, it’s pretty hard for anyone to rationally reconcile how trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act jives with fixing our broken economy. Among some Republican leadership, this dim reality had been acknowledged. Old School Republican and former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently chided the current Republican legislators in Congress when he reminded them that “congressional Republicans would have ‘zero answer’ for how to replace the president's health care overhaul when asked, despite their having voted repeatedly to repeal the measure” (See: “GOP Pushes Rising Stars Amid Calls For Solutions”).
Sure, there‘s a lot of rhetoric being bandied around about how Obamacare is a “job-killer” (and yes, there is some anecdotal instances that some jobs may be adversely affected by implementation of the new law), but the lack of any Republican-sponsored alternative to reforming the current economically unsustainable health care finance model indicates that simple economics is not at the heart of opposition to reform. It’s more likely that not allowing the president and his Democratic allies a policy victory is at the center of the opposition.
If in fact, reforming how we pay for health care in this country were an actual priority, then simply cutting government spending in expendable areas is the most obvious place to start. Both people and the leadership we elect have to consider making the hard choices when it comes to spending priorities. Do we want the ability to be able to pay for healthcare, or is funding programs like Head Start—a program whose overall effectiveness as a kick start to fostering positive childhood experiences in school (and in life) is still a matter of debate—more important? Do we take steps to eliminate the chief reason for Americans filing bankruptcy year-to-year—the inability to pay prohibitively costly medical bills—or do we continue to pay for wars on countries that aren’t an actual threat to our nation’s security and interests? Do we create an atmosphere whereby people like “John” can afford to cover his families with health insurance, or do we continue to give “job-generating” tax breaks to “job creators.” Job Creators…you know, those people who provide people like “John” with $9.00 an hour jobs that offer us health insurance options that we cannot afford to pay for?
As I think of “John” in the context of political opposition to health care affordability, it’s hard to ignore the irony that the officials we elect to craft policies such as health care affordability are comfortably covered by the government-sponsored insurance which “John’s” taxes pay for.

See also: “Universal Healthcare - How Other Countries Do It” and “The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Look At The Industry”

Read More

National Security, Electronic Surveillance, And Civil Liberties - A Rational Perspective

Last post, I touched on the issue of electronic domestic surveillance by the federal government. I focused primarily on Edward Snowden, and his now international—for want of a better term—crusade to bring the extent of the government’s efforts to the attention of the American people (See: "Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?"). Yes, I agree that Snowden’s since then escapades on the global stage have turned the issue more into a focus on his celebrity more than the issue itself, but there is a bigger picture within the “Edward Snowden Show” that needs attention. That often overlooked issue is that of the complexity of maintaining the balance between preserving the civil liberties and privacy concerns of Americans and working to preserve the security of the nation on the whole in the post-9/11 world.
How can Americans understand the necessity of this balance, and appreciate the need to go to extraordinary lengths in extraordinary times…especially when half of the people see the government in the worst light, and the other half rely too much on it? For the record, there are checks and balances built into the government’s efforts with regard to using electronic surveillance to thwart would-be terrorists. The information gathered tends to be peripheral rather than detailed content acquisition. Secondly, the focus is on those within the nation’s borders who might have contact with those outside the country, who are of questionable intent (yes, I’m fully aware and understand that those who might be able to cognitively process this concept may still harbor mistrust of the government—without a basis—based on preconceived thinking, some from the “they’re going to take our gun crowd” and some from the “this is another way the rich maintain power” crowd)
Now, with that being said, Friday night on HBO’S “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the comedian/social critic used the final segment of his weekly “New Rules” segment to speak a great level of level-headed sense into how we should approach the issue of the government’s eavesdropping policies. If you are willing to suspend your ability to be irritated by delivery and focus on the message (not the messenger), please give Maher’s cold-water perspective the government’s electronic surveillance a look…and maybe come away with something other than a bumper-sticker slogan about policy.

Read More

Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?

I am as concerned about the potential for federal government overreach as any rational citizen—when such concern is warranted. I add that last qualification because I know that we share the country with those who seem to represent the paranoid fringe—that see every government action as an infringement on personal liberties. Yes, I am very much concerned about the issue of the federal government potentially snooping through my e-mails, listening in on my cell phone calls, or watching where I surf online. To that point, I thank former government National Security Agency (NSA) contracted employee Edward Snowden for bringing such concerns to the American public.
However, I also realize that maintaining the national security is a lot like making sausage; its best to know how not it’s done if you want to continue to enjoy what comes with living in a free society. Before Snowden opted to turn the issue of electronic domestic spying by our government into the “The Edward Snowden Reality Show,” it was easier to view him favorably as a “whistleblower” on questionable government activities. But since his initial revelations about the government’s electronic eavesdropping policy, Snowden has decided to reveal himself (i.e., his identity) to the world as the source of these revelations. In addition, he—in the mistaken, self-centered belief that he would be greeted with flowers and hailed as an information liberator—has been found to have collected other sensitive information materials related to the American government’s clandestine activities with regard electronic surveillance on the nation’s allies and adversaries alike. Some of this information has been subsequently leaked to the international press.

                                                       Edward Snowden

And instead of remaining anonymous as a source of issue concern to the American people, Snowden has seemingly gone out of his way to cultivate a cult of self-importance around himself and his actions. What’s more, Snowden is feeding his narcissism by seeking approval from and asylum in countries whose record of human rights and civil liberties abuses make electronic eavesdropping by the feds seem harmless by comparison. These countries—Russia, China, and Ecuador among them—have wasted little time in using Snowden’s high-profile status and revelations as a cause célèbre to bludgeon America over the head in the realm of geopolitical public relations. These countries can now assert that America is in no position to lecture others about apparent civil liberties violations as they point to the country’s domestic spying…thus giving them a free hand to act without the strength of international condemnation for questionable actions.
And with all of the trouble Snowden has caused for the government both domestically and internationally, the authorities would like to talk with Snowden and “discuss” the legalities of collecting classified information, abusing his security clearance, and (potentially) sharing information with countries the government considers less-than-friendly to the interests of America.  Ironically, these countries don't seem to want the headaches that come accepting Snowden's request for political asylum, as he travels the world seeking refuge from an infuriated U.S. government. In addition, the country’s adversaries now know that, with confirmation, how the U.S. uses electronic surveillance to keep tabs on any moves which might conflict with the nation’s security and global interests.

At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden (See: "Edward Snowden's Father Says Son May Return If Conditions Met") . Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden. Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. It might be easy to dismiss the senior Snowden’s galling gesture as a father’s protecting his son were it not for also for an open letter he’d subsequently written to the Obama Administration. In the letter, Leo Snowden compared his son’s raising the alarm over domestic electronic spying to Paul Revere’s midnight ride warning Americans of the impending arrival of the invading British Redcoats. In the letter, authored with his lawyer’s help, Snowden presumes to be warning “the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government” (See:  "Edward Snowden’s Father, In Letter, Compares Son To Paul Revere, Assails Administration").  The grandiose comparison was all I needed to know in order to understand that the apple indeed doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
Now, ignoring the fact that if Snowden had engaged in such actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 or during the Cold War, there would have been a unanimous call for his head on a silver platter—including from his own family—Snowden’s “well-intentioned” (?) actions were lost as he interjected too much of his own self-importance into the mix. Some might agree with such a hyperbolic comparison, but what separates Snowden’s actions from the grandiose delusions both he and his father harbor is that, unlike Paul Revere, very few are listening to Edward Snowden. Ideally, I would like to attribute such silence to the realization by most Americans that fear of a “tyrannical federal government” is a fringe paranoia of those who place too much emphasis on “states rights” as a gateway to imposing laws at that particular level of government which more than would (ironically) infringe on the rights of others (those seeking open access to abortions, those of the same gender seeking marriage recognition, etc.). However, I know better. The lack of a vocal wholehearted support for Snowden is probably a silent acknowledgement of such unfounded fears.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats. Warning Americans of egregious violations of civil liberties and illegal activities by our government is laudable, but Snowden’s actions not only obscured his intentions, but his narcissism blinded him to the very real world ramifications of his actions to our government’s ability to function in order to maintain national security. Subsequent explanations by the government of its actions revealed that detailed information is not being accumulated in ways such as those depicted in the 1990’s espionage thriller “Enemy of the State.” If revelations of true and real threats by our government are to be considered, they should be done so by someone with more altruistic intentions, and less self-centeredness than an Edward Snowden.

Read More

The Zimmerman Verdict And Our Dueling Perspectives

Congratulations Black America…you’ve just gotten your very own “O.J.” moment! And why should we be shocked? George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin yesterday in a Florida courtroom resonated with many white suburbanites and gated-community types. Such individuals—rightfully or not—harbor fears of creeping “thuggery” from the inner-city areas that they see as chronically infected with socioeconomic pathologies and dysfunctions that they would rather not see in their own well-manicured backyards.
As expected, early opinions about the verdict have come along racial-ethnic lines. Most of those who supported Zimmerman are white, while the majority of those feeling sympathetic toward the death of Martin are black. The verdict speaks to two ongoing issues in our culture: race and guns.
The verdict reflects the fact that America has never truly came to any substantive resolution with regard to its racial past. We see this in the different perspectives that whites and blacks have on many issues, not just the outlook on the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. Blacks were surprised by the verdict; it’s not a stretch to think that whites were not. Black parents did not see a stranger in Trayvon Martin, they saw their own potential sons being gunned down. This is why riots broke out in the wake of the 1992 verdict in the videotaped beating of Rodney King in California. The acquittal of four white policemen—caught red-handed on tape—beating an unarmed and apparently unthreatening black male resonated with many with the black community; they saw themselves being beaten. This ability that identify and sympathize with the Trayvon Martins and Rodney Kings among black Americans is due to the reality that more than a few African-Americans have either experienced or personally know of someone who have had similar experiences with regard to race. Each of these (relatively) recent high-profile racially-charged incidents were, in turn, based on the century’s long patterns of all-white juries acquitting whites—authority or laymen—of crimes against blacks. This is what President Obama meant with his remark, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” What’s sad is the fact that this has to be explained to whites in this country; the president’s remarks were more in line with the resonance such incidents have in the collective black memory and mindset than the political response that many whites felt the president’s remark were.

The assumption by whites that the president’s remarks to the Trayvon Martin shooting was a political statement rather than a statement of personal interest reveals that America has two histories—one white and one black. This duality of perception comes to bear anything such racially-charged incidents arise in the news. During these times, the effects of not coming to terms with the past usually finds blacks and whites talking at and not to one another. The white conservative stance tends to be one based absolution, which minimizes the reality of racial and ethnic privilege, and downplays the propensity for insensitivity to our historical racial past (and present). The white liberal stance is usually an attempt to express sympathy on a weak understanding of the black experience. Am I saying that all whites cannot be sympathetic or understanding of what it’s like to be black in the context of America’s racial history? Of course not; I’m sure there are many. What I speak of are valid generalities that our disparate perspectives support. We see this whenever blacks demand some level of recompense for racial slights that align with historical patterns, such as lawsuits or reparations. Whites tend to see such demands are a handout. These same whites, whom like most Americans of any ethnic, cultural or economic persuasion, have a poor sense (and interest) in history that keeps them seeing any validity in black claims that their actions might fit a pattern of racial insensitivity. And why not? The past is the past…unless it exalts one’s place of self-importance. Americans are quite fond of remembering Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the rag-tag American military over the British superpower in the Revolution, and the triumph of Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders of the Spanish Army. But our history of formerly all-black towns and counties purged or sacked (Tulsa in 1921, Rosewood in 1923) by white mobs, mass lynchings, and race-based laws are not allowed to be the bad taken with the good in American history. Insomuch as the black experience, many whites have then somewhat valid (if not ethnocentric) point that blacks have not taken advantage of the socioeconomic and political environment of self-determination that relative freedom in America affords. Large cities with large numbers of African-Americans are plagued with issues across the socioeconomic scale, from high percentages of public school dropout rates, high crime rates, high unemployment, to high incidents of single-parenthood, incarceration rates, etc. In many instances, whether or not such conditions are exacerbated by legislative policy, the majority of these pathologies can alleviated by personal responsibility. But when blacks view issues of race tied incidents such as the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman’s acquittal, they tend to see these socioeconomic pathologies as either perpetuated by the forces of racism and bias, or by absolute design of "The Man." Blacks see that the police drug-tested Trayvon after the incident, and not George Zimmerman. Blacks wonder why whites who live in relatively safe—very much so in comparison to many areas that blacks reside—gated communities feel the need to carry guns under a “stand your ground” law? Whites point to the Second Amendment and being “prudent” as a justification to carry arms against would-be “criminals” such as Trayvon Martin and the underneath-the-surface fear of rioting in the wake of the verdict. Blacks see whites as being paranoid in carrying guns when many of them don’t in areas with actual (as opposed to perceived) threats to life and property.  Blacks see in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman verdict, more of the same old institutional biases and advantages of racial privilege from America's legacy of unresolved racial attitudes.  And Whites ask themselves, "Why can't they pull themselves up like everybody else does?"
These different perspectives speak to the American infatuation with guns. Many of us are too quick to see guns as the solution to crime, fear, the need for personal protection under all circumstances, and as an expression of a “God-given right.” Many law-abiding black Americans are more fatalistic than whites in terms accepting one’s fate, and dealing with reality. This is one of the ways by which many are able to live in virtual war-zones, not to say that they do not have fears about death, dying, and being victimized by crimes. It’s just reality to black Americans. Many law-abiding white Americans tend to adopt the mantra of preparation and anticipation. We see this in not only the various variation of “stand your ground” laws, but the increasing legislation around the country enabling the carrying of guns in school, on college campuses, in churches, and even in bars. What makes one wake up in the morning and decide to carry a gun in much the same way as one would presume to carry a pocketbook? It’s surely not the same thing that makes one get up in the morning knowing they are taking their chances in a high-crime, high poverty area.
Gun sales soared when President Obama was elected back in 2008, and again after his re-election last year, driven mostly by a thinking fear that our precious gun might be "taken away by the government."  Gun sales continue to soar, even as we are seeing a train of high-profile mass shootings. Owning a gun for “protection” is both pathology and a delusion. What such a justification ignores is that for many citizens (law abiding or otherwise), the firing lethal weapons is legitimate entertainment. Our love of shoot-‘em-up movies, rabid defense of the Second Amendment, violent video games, and fear of urban crime testifies to an immersion in a culture of gun fascination. It’s no wonder that individuals on the edge are so quick to take up arms and shoot up malls, schools, and even churches. Zimmerman represents this pathological fetish with weapons that we attempt to write off as a means of “self-defense.”
Why? Because most neighborhood watch volunteers don’t carry weapons—even those who bravely volunteer in areas of higher crime and threat levels than Zimmerman’s neighborhood (See:  Zimmerman's 911 Transcripts). For whatever reasons, Americans don’t seem ready to let go of either negative attitudes or its pathological reliance on guns for a feeling of emotional and personal security. And until such a thing happens, there will continue to be Trayvon Martins, George Zimmermans, and the two Americas divided by perceptions they represent.

Read More

The Dope on Voter Identification

On the face of the issue, there is nothing wrong with and adult and having an ID to vote. After all, what kind of responsible person walks around without a form of identification? However, as more recent times have revealed, laws in America are political…not legal. And based on this reality—especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week to weaken a major provision of the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act—it’s hard not to at least view the issue of requiring voter identification to vote with some bit of skepticism.
What makes this issue so contentious is that who support the various initiatives in various states to require identification vote have just enough reason and logic on their side to give their view some credibility. Even I believe its sound reasoning for someone to have an ID to vote. However, when you look at the issue more closely, it’s hard not to question the overall motive—if not the timing—of these initiatives. These new voter requirements have been proposed, passed, and now validated in approximately 15 different states, most initiated by Republican officials. Most proponents argue that the new laws “help prevent voter fraud.” But given that voter fraud, outside of 1 or 2 anecdotal cases, is not an overt or major factor in either statewide or national elections in this country. These proponents will point questionable actions by left-leaning organizations like the now-defunct ACORN to support their assertions. However, a Justice Department of the period of time between 2002 and 2007 showed that out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility (See: “The GOP War on Voting”). The takeaway is that voter fraud is such a statistically low occurrence, low impact happenstance in elections in America it the notion of requiring IDs to counter it amounts to a solution looking for a problem. So how is it that so many states are passing voter ID laws when actual cases of voter fraud amount to a political paranoia rather than an actual criminal threat (See: “The Truth About Voter Fraud”)? That is where the question of timing for these voter ID new requirements come in.

Given the unexpected defeat that Republicans received in last year’s presidential elections, many within the party began to see that the major reason for the defeat was the reality of shifting ethnic demographics in America favoring Democrats. All major minority groups overwhelmingly supported President Obama in last year’s elections. Republicans, despite their best efforts at appealing to racial minority groups, became aware of this. And given the party’s intransigence with regard to many of its social policies (policies that many minorities do not outwardly support), this shift has been seen as potentially problematic for Republicans in future elections.
While I am not explicitly stating that the sole reason for these laws is to counter demographic shifts and changing views on social issues (like gay marriage), the timing is questionable. It would have made more sense to institute voter ID laws in the immediate aftermath of the 2000 election—the most contentious and closest presidential election in the nation’s history… but these laws weren’t. Most were proposed being instituted in the wake of the election nation's first black president, and reality of solid ethnic minority backing. Sounds kind of questionable when you think about it. And being a policy with political implications, it’s a sure bet that many who have proposed these new laws are not oblivious to these realities.

Last year’s controversial press conference by the Republican Leader of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, Mike Turzai goes a long way to supporting that it’s at least known who would benefit and who would not from instituting these new laws (see video below).

Whether you support voter ID or not, it’s one of those issues that supporters don’t bother to scrutinize enough to consider its political rationale or motives. It’s one of those things that—although it sounds good on the surface—needs to be examined beyond openly supporting or condemning. However, the reality one is left forced to accept, given reason rather than passion, is that voter identification laws are a backdoor attempt to suppress the vote of entire voting blocks.

Read More