War on Public Servants

For the last decade or so, it seems that there has been a war on teachers and public education. You can’t watch the news or open a newspaper without reading about how American students are failing to make the grade compared to students around the world, and how that is the fault of public schools and teachers.  Now, it seems like the war has expanded to include anything public and anyone who works for local, state, or the federal government. Some people seem to have decided that those who have dedicated their lives to public service are somehow living an easy life thanks to those who work in the private sector, for business. Maybe the two are related. Maybe our schools have failed to educate the public about the importance of government services and the necessary and valuable contributions made by public servants, including teachers, policemen, lawyers and others who work in courts and prison systems, road departments, highway and airline safety, health and human service agencies, public lands, diplomatic corps, and so on. 

We teachers have failed to teach the American public how to delve deeply into subjects, how to explore both sides of issues, how to analyze data, how to draw reasoned conclusions. For example, I heard a politician yesterday say that “salaries in the public sector are higher on average than in the private sector,” to make his argument that public servants should take pay and benefit cuts. A recent analysis of census data by Queens College demographers prepared for the New York Times shows that while that statement is true, the educational level of the average state employee is higher than that of the average employee in the private sector. When you compare state employee wages to private sector employees with similar educational levels, in almost all states, the public employees’ wages are lower. 

We all know factories have shut down and whole industries have moved overseas. The average salary for non-college educated Americans is either stagnant or decreasing, and their benefits are shrinking. Some argue that public employees should suffer equally. How will we attract and retain great teachers with reduced pay and benefits? A third of teachers don’t stay in the profession after three years as it is.

I’ve been teaching for a couple decades, and the teachers I meet are dedicated. They didn’t go into education primarily for the money or benefits, but with hopes to better the lives of their students. I suspect most state and federal employees have gone into public service because of their idealistic nature as well.  And I’ll bet they’ve felt the same sense of sympathy I have in recent years as we’ve seen people in private industry stripped of their promised pensions or laid off and unable to find a job that pays as well.

Republicans say they are against deficit spending. However, when they had the reins of power, they cut taxes in ways that mostly benefited the rich and ran up huge deficits. The current deficits we are now experiencing can be almost wholly attributed to the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession, which has lessened tax revenues. Because of deregulation of the financial industry, we are in the midst of the deepest, widest recession since the Great Depression. It would have been a depression had the Bush and Obama administrations not convinced Congress to pass legislation that saved the banks, the American auto industry, and kept people working and state governments afloat with stimulus spending. In Wisconsin and New Jersey, Republican governors give tax breaks to business and then scream that the deficits they’ve created need to come out of public employees.

The Republican majority elected in 2010 was put in place by an electorate impatient with the pace of the recovery and desperate for jobs. While still a minority, Republicans held out for extending  the Bush tax cuts for the rich, threatening to filibuster all legislation unless the Democrats agreed to the deficit-increasing measure. Since taking office and promising to concentrate on jobs, the Republicans in the house have not passed job measure one. Instead, they and Republican governors have been mounting attacks on programs for women and the poor, labor, and the middle class. They attack collective bargaining, threaten to shut down the government if their budget cuts are not passed.

There was a time when Republicans declared war on “welfare queens”, claiming that huge numbers of Americans were gaming the system to live a life of ease. Under Clinton, programs went into effect to help women with children find work, and offered them only temporary assistance. How does that work when unemployment rates hover near 10%? A few billion dollars are saved, though more Americans live in poverty and there is increasing income disparity. Now Republicans are coming after public employees. When they passed No Child Left Behind, they said by setting the bar high, achievement gaps would close, otherwise they would declare schools failing and fire the staff or send the children to other schools. What will they do when public employees don’t meet their unrealistic expectations?

This essay was publised as an op-ed by the Charleston Gazette (WV) on Monday, March 6, 2011  http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201103060431 

Tunisia and Egypt Prove the Neo-conservatives Wrong

Is it possible that the Neoconservative theories that George W. Bush and his gang implemented by invading Iraq are coming to fruition? They theorized that after deposing Sadaam Hussein the Iraqi people would rise up and create a democratic government that would protect their rights and open up the economy to all. One Arab democracy would then inspire other Arab people to rise up against dictators. Instead, Iraq has suffered eight years of sectarian violence, government gridlock, and economic stagnation on a bumpy road to what no one is sure will become a stable democracy or even a unified nation once the U.S. withdraws completely. Iran is poised to end up with more influence in Iraq than the U.S.

Iraq may have served a purpose as an example for reasonable people in Arab countries with dictators of what to avoid in demanding change. Like Iraq, for years, Tunisia and Egypt have been faux democracies, one party states led by a president for life. As American allies (as Iraq was until Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990), their leaders have benefited from American largesse by moderating Arab extremism toward Israel, and in Egypt’s case, maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. Mubarak has maintained power with an iron fist toward any political rivalry and against any sign of Muslim extremism. His police have used tactics including torture to maintain absolute power, but thirty years of a “state of emergency,” has finally come to an end by popular demand.

The protestors in Egypt and Tunisia have included broad swaths of the populace. They are not led by Muslim extremists, and their anger has been directed against the dictator and his police rather than Israel and the United States, anger that too often Arab dictators stoke for their own benefit. Unlike in Iraq, where Sadaam, our ally against Iran, had created an elite sectarian Sunni army to repress the majority Shiite and minority Kurds, the armies of both Egypt and Tunisia have stepped forward as defenders of the people against police forces that were viewed as the repressive arms of government.

Should these anti-dictator movements result in more democratic governments it is far from clear that they will be friendly to America and American interests let alone be willing to seek peaceful relations with Israel. And should they spark similar movements in Jordan, Yemen, or other Arab states with greater fundamentalist anti-Western constituencies, the Middle East may start looking more like Iran than Turkey, which  has a strong tradition of secular government.

President Obama has walked a tightrope in his response to the situation. To anyone who criticizes him for supporting Mubarak until now, you must give equal blame to every president going back to Jimmy Carter. Every one has pragmatically supported the Egyptian government while talking about the need to implement democratic reforms. At least Obama gave a stirring speech in Cairo in which he called on all Arab countries to implement democratic reforms. Combined with the evidence that he is keeping his word by pulling American troops out of Iraq, this may have something to do with the lack of anti-Americanism evident in these uprisings.

It seems our government is trying to support a peaceful transition to democracy, understanding that there is a long way to go from deposing a tyrant to full democracy. Mubarak ceded power first to a newly appointed vice-president, Omar Suleiman, former security chief, and then the top brass of the army. Egypt’s military is almost as much an economic force as a defense force, a secondary effect of peace with Israel which caused the Egyptian army to find creative ways of keeping it’s vast military employed. The army controls large swaths of various industries and resources: water, agriculture, gasoline, even automobiles.

Protestors should keep up the pressure, but let the country return to normalcy as the new leadership tries to design and implement a new constitution. The Egyptian people seem to have set their hopes on the army to carry out reforms and allow free and fair elections, but they should follow Ronald Reagan’s advice to “trust, but verify.” The people of Tunisia and Egypt have demonstrated to the world they are capable of peaceful protest and deserving of the opportunity to elect governments that will maintain their security while allowing them the full freedom of representative government and human rights. They may achieve democratic reform more quickly and with less loss of life and economic hardship than the “regime change” George W. Bush sought through preemptive war. Let us hope that these peaceful revolutions result in true democracies that play a role as moderating influences in the Arab world.

first published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail on Sunday, February 26, 2011 http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/201102251603 

Mind of a Murderer

Disclaimer: what follows is an exercise in fiction writing. Somewhere in America the next Jared Loughner or Seung-Hui Cho is mulling over his miserable life and choosing a target for his rage. Maybe this is what he's thinking. None of this is what I think--I love Charleston!

It has been such a long and gloomy winter, I think I’m going to explode. I’m stuck here in this nowhere little town, Charleston, West, by god, Virginia.. Nothing ever happens here. Once in awhile somebody kills somebody, but what do you expect, it’s America.  Downtown is two short blocks and a downtown shopping mall. Between them is the “transit mall” where the poor folk catch their busses to the west side or the east end, South Charleston, Dunbar, Marmet, Belle, all the little dead places that make up this chemical-laced, coal-built, state government financed river valley.

The Indians didn’t even want this place. They came here to hunt, but they lived in better places, flatter places where the sun doesn't sink behind a hill a couple hours after it clears the hill on the other side. Places where it doesn’t rain or snow every other day. Well, the snow isn’t too bad, but what’s getting to me is the clouds. I looked it up. It’s only sunny 65 days a year. That makes it cloudy 300 days of year. I need to get out of here, go someplace sunny. Groundhog day was just the other day. Guess what? It wasn’t sunny. Big surprise. But I have a feeling winter’s going to go on for a while.

I’m going to kill somebody. I haven’t decided who. Somebody famous. Thing is, not too many famous people come here. But eventually I’ll have my chance. People run for president. Forget killing a president, too hard. Even if you could get close, they’ve got him covered like a glove. Of course I could kill the governor, but that would be too easy. And who would care outside WV? I mean, I guess it would make a splash and be national news for a while, but in 50 years? Only the kids in WV History class would know, and they’d forget it. Of course, somebody running for president wouldn’t be all that famous either. I don’t know. Maybe I should kill the president. Or maybe I’ll kill a bunch of people. Like that guy Cho, the one that killed all the people at Virginia Tech.

But Cho killed himself. What a waste! I’m not saying I would expect to get away with it or anything. I don’t think I’d want to be like a serial killer, keeping everything secret, worrying about getting caught all the time, trying to outsmart the cops. Plus, I’m not into torture or anything. I wouldn't want to know anything about the people I kill. Well, I guess if it was a famous person, I’d know about him or her, but that’s different. I wouldn’t really know her. You’re probably thinking I just want to copycat Jared Loughner. Well, maybe I do. He is kind of my current hero. I mean, his mug shot, you know, the one with where he’s kind of looking up at the camera with that little smile and the wild eyes, fresh shaved head. He sort of went with the idea of a famous person, a congresswoman, but then he took out a whole bunch of others, too. He’ll be remembered for a while. Plus, he’s going to have a trial. That’ll put him in the news for years to come. I mean just look at Charles Manson. He still pops up once in a while. And he’s got it made – a lifetime of free meals and free medical care.

It’s not like I hate people. I don’t like them much, that’s all. And women, I guess you could say I’ve got a love/hate relationship with them. I’m always wishing I could find one that would, you know, hang out with me, but it just never seems to work out. I’m not going to do the dating thing. I can’t stand calling somebody and saying, like, you want to go out? Why can’t you just say what you mean? Hey, you want to do it with me? Ok, that is a little direct, but why can’t you say, “Hey, you think you might want to do it with me after a while?” No, you’ve got to go through that whole getting to know you thing, buy ‘em a meal, take ‘em to a movie, pretend to accidently touch their hand or their knee.  Screw that. So, I just do sex on the internet. Got a million women out there willing to take off their clothes and talk dirty to me. A lot of it’s free, too.

Hey, if anybody reads this, I just want you know I’m kidding. Really! It’s just idle thinking on a cloudy day. The sun will be out one of these days and I’ll feel better. Or maybe I’ll move to Arizona.

A Conversation About Guns

link to an animation using this script:  http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8309520/?listid=20729577 

Gun Lover: It's terrible the way the left-wing media is trying to say the latest rampage by a crazy shooter is because of my right wing political heroes and talk show hosts. Words don't make people use guns to kill other people. Only people kill. If everyone had a gun, we'd all be safe.

Concerned Citizen: That sounds wrong to me. I think we need laws to protect us from people who want to use guns to kill. Not everyone can be allowed to own guns that are made as people killing machines.

Gun Lover: Everyone in our country has a right to own any weapon they want. It's in the Constitution.

Concerned Citizen: Semi-automatic hand guns are dangerous in the hands of certain people. It should not be so easy for people to own them or carry them around concealed. I would like them to be banned for private ownership.

Gun Lover: You are trying to take away my freedom under the 2^nd amendment which says all Americans have a right to bear arms.

Concerned Citizen: Perhaps you are a sane and responsible citizen and should be allowed to use or even own such a weapon. If there were a licensed required, or limitations on where they can be carried, perhaps you would qualify for a license.

Gun Lover: The government cannot be trusted to decide who should carry a gun or not. The government is trying to take away our rights. Americans have a right to bear arms and serve in a militia and the government cannot take away that right. It says so in the Constitution.

Concerned Citizen: The government also has a responsibility to protect its citizens. The second amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This was written before the U.S. had standing armies or states with National Guards. Citizen soldiers had to have their weapons available in their homes in case they were called out to defend the community.


Gun Lover: It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. If the government tries to infringe my right to bear arms, it is taking away my constitutional rights.

Concerned Citizen: Since we have standing armies and our states have National Guards, we no longer need citizen soldiers to keep weapons in their homes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the rights of some citizens can be infringed if they represent a danger to the community, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons.

Gun Lover: If the government tries to infringe my right to bear arms, it is taking away my constitutional rights.

Concerned Citizen: Communities and states can also pass laws to restrict where guns can be carried. If the government lets every citizen own and carry any weapon he wants to, some people might want to own a nuclear weapon or a tank. Lines must be drawn about what kinds of weapons people should be allowed to own and where they can use them. Do you think every citizen should be allowed to have a tank or rocket launcher or machine guns?

 Gun Lover: If the government tries to infringe my right to bear arms, it is taking away my constitutional rights. You will have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers. It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government if it infringes on our rights. This is called a 2^nd Amendment remedy.


Concerned Citizen: That language is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. It said the people have the right to overthrow a government that is trying to deprive them of unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that governments derive power from the consent of the governed. Our government is a representative democracy. We elect our representatives, so they have our consent to pass laws. Some of the laws we have elected them to pass are to protect us from being shot on the street by machine gun wielding idiots.


Gun Lover: If the government tries to infringe my right to bear arms, it is taking away my constitutional rights. If the government does not follow the Constitution I have the right to form a militia to fight the government.


Concerned Citizen: That is treason. The Constitution does not give you that right. If you use your weapons to fight the government you are breaking the law.


Gun Lover: I have the right to free speech and I will kill you if you don’t shut up. You’re confusing me. I have the right to own this semi-automatic weapon and you can’t take away my rights.


Concerned Citizen: You do not have the right to make threats to kill me. That’s against the law. If you threaten to kill me or point that weapon at me you could have it taken away by the government and not be allowed to own weapons. Americans have the right to be protected from people like you.


Gun Lover: You are a socialist, anti-American, elitist who is ruining our country. People like you are making true-blue Americans who own guns mad and you deserve it if they use their 2^nd amendment rights to kill you.


Concerned Citizen: That is an example of the kind of legal, but uncivil speech that right wing radio and TV talk show hosts and some politicians have been using. Unfortunately, some crazies interpret that as an excuse to go out and kill law-abiding Americans or attack the government or its representatives. We must pass laws to protect us from the insanity of unregulated gun ownership. People should have to have a license to own certain weapons and the license should have to be renewed periodically. We should either figure out how to keep these weapons out of the hands of unstable people or ban them for private ownership.


Gun Lover: I’m going home to watch Fox News and listen to Rush while I read right-wing blogs that will tell me what I want to believe is true.

Who's Un-American?

I try to avoid paying attention to the increasingly hateful rhetoric of right wing talk radio and Fox News television personalities. I recognize they are in the business of making money by appealing to people who want to believe they are somehow more American than other Americans and that all the problems we face are caused by people who are not like them. Rush and others have a remarkable ability convince listeners right wing pundits have command of secret, inside knowledge, wisdom or mental agility to interpret events through a lens of conservative, libertarian, or patriotic principals. In their narrative all other media and points of view are biased, left wing, socialist, or just plain wrong. They are creating an alternative view of American history, an alternative view of the world. There is a word for what they are engaged in: propaganda.

It upsets me to hear untruths being presented as facts and to hear respectable, hard working Americans giving service to their country being maligned and nefarious motives being attributed to them. Targets are many and I won’t list them, but the biggest target is the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

There is, apparently, nothing President Obama can do that would meet with their approval. Limbaugh, on Thanksgiving Day expressed shock that Obama had the nerve to make a proclamation on Thanksgiving. Ronald Reagan made one, as did Clinton; before a bill establishing it as a national holiday in 1941, most presidents did. Obama should not have, in Limbaugh’s eyes, proclaimed Thanksgiving Day “a time each year, dating back to our founding, when we lay aside the troubles and disagreements of the day and bow our heads in humble recognition of the providence bestowed upon our Nation.”  Nor does Limbaugh think he should have asked us to “reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation's heritage.” Limbaugh lauds Washington’s proclamation in 1786, since it makes many references to thanking God, but doesn’t reference Native Americans (Reagan’s does). Interestingly, Limbaugh, who complains that Obama “believes America is fatally flawed” and shouldn’t “apologize for America,” doesn’t mention that Washington also recommends citizens ask God “to pardon our national and other transgressions” in his original Thanksgiving Proclamation.

Limbaugh calls the traditional Thanksgiving story in which we acknowledge the help given to the Pilgrims by Native Americans and applaud their joint celebration of the harvest a myth. “Is it possible he (Obama) actually believes it?” Limbaugh asks. “The true story of Thanksgiving,” Limbaugh says, “is socialism failed.”

If Jon Stewart or a Saturday Night Live sketch had made a similarly outrageous statement I’d be rolling on the floor laughing. Comedy uses the absurd for laughs, but people take Rush and others like him seriously. He influences the way people vote, the way members of congress and senators make decisions. Bill O’Reilly recently opined that Fox News is the most powerful news organization in the world. These guys aren’t looking for laughs, they want power, and radio and television are powerful instruments for promoting propaganda.

In talking about Thanksgiving, Limbaugh emphasizes that in the years following the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving feast, they learned that individuals would produce more if given their own plot of land than if working in a common plot. “Only when we turned capitalist did we have plenty. The Indians didn't teach us capitalism,” Rush observes.

But that we should worship unbridled capitalism is not Rush’s main point. He is upset that President Obama gives any credit to Native Americans for their contribution to America (instead of crediting self-reliant white Europeans). Rush mocks Obama’s words, saying the contribution of Native Americans is limited to their casinos and reservations. Rush and others like to scream that Obama hates America or is un-American. What’s un-American is Rush Limbaugh’s suggestion that the President of the United States should not be encouraging the American people to be thankful on Thanksgiving. What’s un-American is Rush Limbaugh’s racism towards Native Americans and other groups and his and others unending attack on the American government when it is in the hands of Democrats. What’s un-American is Republicans who with Rush’s encouragement make their first priority to regain power even if it means slowing the recovery, hurting those who have lost jobs in a severe recession by discontinuing their unemployment compensation, delaying important judicial and other needed government appointments, and putting the nation’s security at risk to do so (not ratifying the nuclear arms treaty). What’s un-American is resorting to propaganda instead of engaging in civil discourse.

In this holiday season, we should give thanks that we have access to many sources of information so we can seek a truly balanced viewpoint of the news of the day.

this essay was published December 18, 2010 in the Charleston Gazette http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201012171150 

Boehner's Tears

John Boehner’s Tears

I watched Boehner tear up in his victory speech and on 60 Minutes last Sunday during his interview with Leslie Stall. Gail Collins wrote a great op-ed on the subject in the NY Times yesterday ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/opinion/16collins.html ). I read the readers’ comments which followed, and believe many of them hit the mark perfectly. I agree with those who find his emotionality genuine, yet somewhat juvenile or self-centered. But, I believe others say it better than I can. Here are a few I agree with:

Gloria Endres, Philadelphia

If one did not know Boehner's legislative record, maybe his first display of emotion at "achieving the American dream" might be endearing. His background of scrubbing the floor of his dad's tavern is something almost Lincolnesque. So different from the silver spooned politicians like the Bushes, the Kennedys, or the Heintzes.

But his record does not compute with that biography at all. As Gail and many posters have commented, he has voted against the very class of people from which he emerged. His vote against help for the sickened 9/11 first responders is simply unfathomable…..

Jane, IL

My voice gets wobbly every year at the same spot in The Polar Express. It's because I remember how I once "believed" and it's an emotional moment to know that I'll never get that faith back. And that's what the Republican Party sells, belief in the beautiful story. But then they close the book and pitch it on the fire. It's easy to forget that part.

Philosophy Professor, Kent State, OH

"... beware of men who cry. It's true that men who cry are sensitive to and in touch with feelings, but the only feelings they tend to be sensitive to and in touch with are their own." -- Nora Ephron, quoted in An Uncommon Scold, ed. Abby Adams (Simon & Schuster, 1989), p. 155.

KC Bob, Kansas City, MO

John Boehner cries over his belief in the American Dream. All the while, he and his party have been pushing us into an American Nightmare of a declining middle class with lower pay and shrinking assets; a wealthier elite; and contempt for the poor among us. As this was being done to us, he was raising his wealth to over 5 million dollars while toiling as a "public servant".

Shouldn't we be crying instead?

Beata, Chicago, IL

Yep, the prospect of our incoming Speaker is enough to make this grown woman cry.

I'm crying real, wet, sad tears for my country, especially for the poor children who are denied education sufficient to make their own American dream come true, for the families who are denied the jobs that provide a living wage, for the ill who have no health care when a public option could do it so well, and for the loss of adequate governing we need to recover the American spirit.

I'm also crying "Foul!" Foul values, foul political maneuvering, foul policies that squash the ability of people to build sustainable lives while favoring the already rich. Foul, and reeking with dishonor as they pursue the starving of the beast while wrapping themselves in flags and pretended patriotism. Very foul.

Obama's Compromise Underscores Republican Hypocrisy

I count myself among those disgusted by the demand of Senate Republicans to reward millionaires with an extension of their current historically low tax rates before taking up anything else (START Treaty, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DREAM Act), yet I refuse to throw Obama and other Democrats who support the compromise tax proposal overboard as some progressive Democrats suggest.

I was angry early in Obama’s administration when Democrats agreed to extend those tax cuts, because that was the time to have the showdown over the false Republican claim that returning tax rates on the wealthy to Clinton era rates would slow the recovery. Of course, had they not extended them then, what do you think the slow recovery would have been blamed on?

To the extent that some of the concessions Obama got from Republicans will put more money in people’s pockets and stimulate growth, such as the cut in Social Security tax and the unemployment compensation extension, the package can be viewed as a back door stimulus that will produce or save jobs. For the past year did it look like there was any chance to get Republicans to support anything stimulative?

And does anyone out there think the next Congress is going to jump right in and start spending up a storm to improve our infrastructure or help struggling states and municipalities, to keep police on the streets and teachers in the classroom, to aid college students or hire more safety inspectors for coal mines and food safety?

It’s hard to celebrate a deficit increase, but it is worth putting it in perspective: the tax cuts for those families earning over $250,000 adds about $140 billion to the deficit over two years. For that, Obama got about $700 billion more for middle income families. Republicans agreed to this despite the deficit increase of nearly a trillion dollars.

To me, the story is not that a Democrat caved to Republican demands to reward the rich before doing any of the nation’s other important business. The story is that Republicans have shown once again that all their talk of concern for deficits is pure posturing.