At this point in time it's simple to see what drives Trump's statements reflecting his immigration impulses. I would say policy, but that would suggest that there is a policy. What Trump has in mind is to stem the inevitable changing demographics of the United Sates. The white majority is decreasing; the non-white population increasing. For him, and others like him, this change signals not just a tinting of pigmentation, but the eradication of American and Western culture.
To get a full view of what Trump fears as he envisions hordes of Hispanics flooding across the southern border one just has to listen to and read what Pat Buchanan (A Nixon unrepentant supporter) has to say on the subject. Last week on "The Laura Ingraham Show," Buchanan expressed in the clearest terms what he feels is at stake: "This is the great issue of our time. And, the real question is whether Europe has the will and the capacity, and America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character - political, social, racial, ethnic of the country entirely."
Rather than lamenting the cruel separation of children from their parents, Buchanan dredges up the old racist canard that migrants (foreigners) endanger the purity of a country's culture. In his language one even hears echoes of Germany in the 1930's, within his use of the word, "will." One wonders what inspires Buchanan to see these obviously desperate people who are either seeking asylum or escaping extreme poverty as a threat to the culture of America. Perhaps fear; perhaps malice. In a blog he wrote shortly before his interview with Ingraham he stated his approval of Trump's grasp of the migrant problem: "Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of the issue of separating migrant kids from their parents. But on the mega-issue--the third world invasion of the West--he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future."
For Buchanan, nothing less than the survival of "our civilization" is at stake. Buchanan has spouted similar anti-immigrant rhetoric before against the "Islamic invasion" of Europe. And while there is no doubt Europe has had difficulty assimilating some of the Muslims who settled there, most have integrated quite well into their new countries. As wrong as he is about the cultural calamity he foresees as a result of migrants settling in Europe, Buchanan's analysis of the effects migrants from Latin American countries will have on the United States couldn't be more inaccurate.
When Buchanan and Trump descry the adverse effects of migrants coming across the border, they ignore important facts or "truths" concerning who these people are and what they have to contribute to the United States. Research has established that more than anything else, those who come to America provide needed labor for American businesses. And although the initial strain on public resources that migrants place on local community schools and health services, these parents and their children, over time, give back in taxes more than they take from the system.
As to the threat migrant currently crossing the border pose, Buchanan might observe more closely the American culture and character he fears will be destroyed by these "non-whites." These invaders threatening American culture are in fact more closely aligned with the most rooted cultural practice of the West-religion. The overwhelming majority are Christians, with most professing to be Catholic. For a Catholic such as Buchanan, one would think he'd welcome more Catholics, given his history of animus against Muslims.
And what of this "western culture" Buchanan believes will be extinguished by the presence of these invaders? Western culture? Where? Does he fear for the fate of the American cultural "hegemony" that dominates the globe with its hip-hop music, its MacDonald and Starbucks franchises, its movies? Those who migrate to the United States already have absorbed our culture; they arrive preconditioned to be as American as those of us who have been living here for generations.
Maybe Buchanan worries that the new arrivals won't be steeped in the writings of the founding fathers. Then again, he should look around and discover that most Americans possess very little knowledge or understanding of the Enlightenment tenets upon which the country was founded. But they have what matters most: white skin.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
A Lifetime's Characterization in Just One Day
Before Trump was elected, Americans got a preview of what a Trump presidency might look like. Here was a man who issued racial slurs, ridiculed the handicapped and maligned all his political opponents with vulgar names and descriptions. His supporters defended him, in part, by asserting he would lose his coarse approach once he became president. In other words, he would become "presidential." Or, at least, his white house advisers would reign him in and polish the ragged personality that has always been Trump.
Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times. But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in." He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents. He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.
His die hard supporters must be very proud.
While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report. He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."
The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump's statement is a complete fabrication. Do his supporters know that? Do they care?
Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico. When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats: "I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law." Of course, this is a lie. There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents. This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" which was initiated in April of this year.
When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do. On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times. That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges. That's a statement to the phony New York Times." Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.
Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that. Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.
Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."
To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part. How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse. But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait. Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.
This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies. Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries. Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise. When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want mine to do the same."
What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does. He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it. Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality. If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting. After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."
I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.
Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times. But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in." He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents. He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.
His die hard supporters must be very proud.
While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report. He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated. There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."
The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump's statement is a complete fabrication. Do his supporters know that? Do they care?
Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico. When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats: "I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law." Of course, this is a lie. There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents. This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" which was initiated in April of this year.
When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do. On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times. That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges. That's a statement to the phony New York Times." Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.
Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that. Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.
Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."
To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part. How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse. But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait. Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.
This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies. Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries. Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise. When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want mine to do the same."
What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does. He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it. Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality. If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting. After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."
I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Is David Brooks"Woke"?
A retired New York City police officer, who is a friend of mine, complained recently about the number of young, able-bodied black men and women receiving welfare benefits. When I suggested that his understanding of why people were on "welfare" ( and who is on welfare: more whites than blacks; more single women than men; more elderly than young) might be inaccurate, he brushed aside my point. As a policeman he had seen many examples how inner city able-bodied young blacks lived off welfare. They spent their days lounging on apartment stoops talking and laughing the hours away. He was positive that these individuals took advantage of the system; that if they had the slightest desire to work, they could find jobs and provide for themselves. In his view, it was laziness that kept them dependent on government support. He then offered a specific example to illustrate his absolute certainty that he was right.
He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car. He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white. When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work. In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would. The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.
The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people. We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do. Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.
This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness." Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's. His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."
Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness." The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.
In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools. Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."
Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them. By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid." Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say. His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."
It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness. It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work. But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story. Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.
Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him. Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable. And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."
Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach. After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans. And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.
Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks, "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies. Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy." Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms." Does this view make Brooks un-woke?
Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time? That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes." He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence. I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists. His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color. Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.
He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car. He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white. When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work. In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would. The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.
The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people. We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do. Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.
This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness." Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's. His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."
Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness." The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.
In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools. Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."
Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them. By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid." Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say. His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."
It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness. It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work. But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story. Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.
Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him. Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable. And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."
Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach. After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans. And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.
Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks, "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies. Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy." Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms." Does this view make Brooks un-woke?
Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time? That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes." He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence. I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists. His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color. Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Possum or Weasel?
Scott The "Possum" Pruitt is a very religious man. In fact, he is so religious that religion informs his politics: "A Christian world view means that God has answers to our problems. And part of our responsibility is to convey to those in society that the answers that he has, as represented in Scripture, are important and should be followed, because they lead to freedom and liberty."
What does Pruitt mean by "freedom and liberty?" Does he mean "freedom" from congressional oversight into his ethics violations and corruption? Does he mean "liberty" to spent taxpayers' money on his travel, pens, phone-booth? It seems that this "freedom" may be slipping away. According to The New York Times, Pruitt instructed an aid to inquire about acquiring his wife a Chic-A-Fil franchise. Pruitt's behavior violates the ethics rule against having subordinates perform personal duties and might constitute the crime of using one's office to leverage a personal benefit. Congress is already conducting 12 investigations into Pruitt. We must hope the latest revelation finally sends this miscreant back to Oklahoma; sympathies to those in the Sooner state.
What does Pruitt mean by "freedom and liberty?" Does he mean "freedom" from congressional oversight into his ethics violations and corruption? Does he mean "liberty" to spent taxpayers' money on his travel, pens, phone-booth? It seems that this "freedom" may be slipping away. According to The New York Times, Pruitt instructed an aid to inquire about acquiring his wife a Chic-A-Fil franchise. Pruitt's behavior violates the ethics rule against having subordinates perform personal duties and might constitute the crime of using one's office to leverage a personal benefit. Congress is already conducting 12 investigations into Pruitt. We must hope the latest revelation finally sends this miscreant back to Oklahoma; sympathies to those in the Sooner state.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Patriotic Snowflakes
Finally, the fans of America's most violent team sport have been provided with safe space where they are protected from words or actions that offend their delicate sensibilities. Wednesday, 5/23/18, the NFL owners, defending the freedoms of all Americans, established a new policy fining teams whose players kneel, sit or show disrespect during the National Anthem. Players will be permitted, however, to remain in the locker room, if they choose to.
In explaining the league's new policy, the fearlessly principled NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell parsed the policy's details with Solomonic logic: "We want people to be respectful of the national anthem. We want people to stand-that's all personnel- and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion we think we owe. [But] we were also very sensitive to give the players' choices." How sensitive indeed.
The pressure by the league to end the players' protests against police brutality has nothing to do with respect or sensitivity. It is about money. A few years ago, the NFL management and owners feared revenues would decline as more scientific research revealed the degree of brain damage that results from even limited years of playing the game. Around the country, more parents began keeping their kids from joining "Pee-Wee" leagues or high school teams. Football's image as a means to inculcate discipline and masculinity in its young participants is being supplanted by images of middle-aged former players suffering the unbearable ravages of irreversible and progressive memory loss and cognitive impairment.
Then came Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick, formerly of the San Francisco 49ers, knelt to protest police violence and racial inequality. His action offended many fans; many other fans applauded his courage. President Trump, who himself skilfully evaded the draft five times during the Vietnam War, exploited the issue to incense white Americans against the "millionaire" (predominantly black) players. He called for any player kneeling to be fired if they continued to protest during the anthem, for the owners to "get that son-of-bitch off the field right now."
I can understand the pride many Americans feel when hearing the National Anthem. It is not the country's best patriotic piece of music and verse, but it stirs sentiments that America, despite its checkered history of Africans brought here in chains and Native Americans driven from their lands, embodies democratic principles of equality that were withheld too long from so many, will in time shelter all who live here. I can understand their anger when anyone seems to denigrate a symbol they love with an almost religious fervor. As with religion, the flag is inseparable from who they are . To protest it is to assail the essence of their being.
To African Americans, however, the flag can, and indeed must, signify centuries of bondage, torture, rape, and murder. And even to this day, no one can legitimately argue that despite the Civil War and the civil rights' legislation being black in American does not impose a distinction that invariably results in being disproportionately subjected to abuse and violence by the police.
Of course, crime rates among young black men does exceed those of their white counterparts. Whites often point to these statistics, and to the impoverished circumstances of "their ancestors" who had lower crime rates, to suggest that the higher percentage of African American incarceration results from some character or social defects in blacks and/or black family structure. If such defects do exist, then a logical question would be to ask how they came to affect or infect that population? The answer is simple and all around us.
When the civil rights laws codified legal equality, they didn't eradicate racial prejudice, segregation and hatred. They didn't displace the system that sentences blacks at much higher rates to jail for marijuana possessions than whites. They didn't homogenize skin pigment as time did the foreign accents which kept Italians and the Irish held down in the underclasses. The laws and the passage of time have improved race relations in America; but more time must pass for the lasting effects of slavery and racial prejudice to dissolve in the "melting pot" that American can become.
In the meantime, those of us who have always felt reassured when we have encountered the police, who have never been trailed in a department store, who haven ever feared for our lives during a traffic stop, or have found ourselves roughly patted down on the street, should imagine what those experiences must be like and exercise some patience for our fellow Americans who know what we have never known. Summoning empathy toward our fellow citizens could furnish us with greater insight into the anxiety and anger felt by young black males encountering all the subtle and overt forms of racism circulating through American life and culture.
The NFL owners might have the legal authority as employers to enforce the rule and impose the fines against teams whose players kneel during the anthem. When challenged by the players' association, the courts will have decide whether or not this restriction of speech is constitutional. If such a case reached the Supreme Court, how, I wonder, would the conservative justices rule? They have already made clear that corporations have the right to free speech; would the conservative justices extend that same privilege to the individuals constitute the working parts of that organization?
In explaining the league's new policy, the fearlessly principled NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell parsed the policy's details with Solomonic logic: "We want people to be respectful of the national anthem. We want people to stand-that's all personnel- and make sure they treat this moment in a respectful fashion we think we owe. [But] we were also very sensitive to give the players' choices." How sensitive indeed.
The pressure by the league to end the players' protests against police brutality has nothing to do with respect or sensitivity. It is about money. A few years ago, the NFL management and owners feared revenues would decline as more scientific research revealed the degree of brain damage that results from even limited years of playing the game. Around the country, more parents began keeping their kids from joining "Pee-Wee" leagues or high school teams. Football's image as a means to inculcate discipline and masculinity in its young participants is being supplanted by images of middle-aged former players suffering the unbearable ravages of irreversible and progressive memory loss and cognitive impairment.
Then came Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick, formerly of the San Francisco 49ers, knelt to protest police violence and racial inequality. His action offended many fans; many other fans applauded his courage. President Trump, who himself skilfully evaded the draft five times during the Vietnam War, exploited the issue to incense white Americans against the "millionaire" (predominantly black) players. He called for any player kneeling to be fired if they continued to protest during the anthem, for the owners to "get that son-of-bitch off the field right now."
I can understand the pride many Americans feel when hearing the National Anthem. It is not the country's best patriotic piece of music and verse, but it stirs sentiments that America, despite its checkered history of Africans brought here in chains and Native Americans driven from their lands, embodies democratic principles of equality that were withheld too long from so many, will in time shelter all who live here. I can understand their anger when anyone seems to denigrate a symbol they love with an almost religious fervor. As with religion, the flag is inseparable from who they are . To protest it is to assail the essence of their being.
To African Americans, however, the flag can, and indeed must, signify centuries of bondage, torture, rape, and murder. And even to this day, no one can legitimately argue that despite the Civil War and the civil rights' legislation being black in American does not impose a distinction that invariably results in being disproportionately subjected to abuse and violence by the police.
Of course, crime rates among young black men does exceed those of their white counterparts. Whites often point to these statistics, and to the impoverished circumstances of "their ancestors" who had lower crime rates, to suggest that the higher percentage of African American incarceration results from some character or social defects in blacks and/or black family structure. If such defects do exist, then a logical question would be to ask how they came to affect or infect that population? The answer is simple and all around us.
When the civil rights laws codified legal equality, they didn't eradicate racial prejudice, segregation and hatred. They didn't displace the system that sentences blacks at much higher rates to jail for marijuana possessions than whites. They didn't homogenize skin pigment as time did the foreign accents which kept Italians and the Irish held down in the underclasses. The laws and the passage of time have improved race relations in America; but more time must pass for the lasting effects of slavery and racial prejudice to dissolve in the "melting pot" that American can become.
In the meantime, those of us who have always felt reassured when we have encountered the police, who have never been trailed in a department store, who haven ever feared for our lives during a traffic stop, or have found ourselves roughly patted down on the street, should imagine what those experiences must be like and exercise some patience for our fellow Americans who know what we have never known. Summoning empathy toward our fellow citizens could furnish us with greater insight into the anxiety and anger felt by young black males encountering all the subtle and overt forms of racism circulating through American life and culture.
The NFL owners might have the legal authority as employers to enforce the rule and impose the fines against teams whose players kneel during the anthem. When challenged by the players' association, the courts will have decide whether or not this restriction of speech is constitutional. If such a case reached the Supreme Court, how, I wonder, would the conservative justices rule? They have already made clear that corporations have the right to free speech; would the conservative justices extend that same privilege to the individuals constitute the working parts of that organization?
Saturday, May 26, 2018
The Quality of Mercy
May 22, 2018
An editorial in The New York Times, "The Chutzpah of These Men," groaned that Mario Batali and Charlie Rose have been calculating ways to effect a resurrection of their careers. The Times' editors expressed astonishment that these men would have the gall to contemplate returning to their former public eminence after being fired for multiple accusations of harassing and abusing women. There certainly seems no question that they are guilty of what they are accused. After all, the witnesses against them comprise an extraordinary number of women.
So, how could either man think that anyone would be interested in working with them? Nevertheless, Batali has been "floating ideas, pondering timelines and examining whether there is a way for him to step back into his career" (NYT, 4/2/2018). And Tina Brown revealed "that she had been" asked to co-host a show with Rose featuring interviews with men "who had faced #MeToo allegations." (NYT, 5/22/2018)
Both men have expressed regret over their actions. Batali even offered a picture of a "holiday-inspired breakfast" of "Pizza Dough Cinnamon Rolls." Charlie Rose issued this soul searching statement: "I have learned a great deal as a result of these events and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives." And with his new, "profound" insight Rose would be perfect to host a talk show in which celebrities guilty of abusing women could commiserate with each other and begin to heal some of the pain THEY must being suffering in their various banishments. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/20/16682728/charlie-rose-apology-sexual-harassment
What does one say to men like Baltali and Rose who, frankly, sound more like are sexual predators than cads? Rose's behavior toward young women is simply unacceptable; if he were on the receiving end of what he attempted, would he argue that all should be forgiven and forgotten after such a brief and relatively mild punishment? To acknowledge responsibility, to express contrition, regret, remorse requires a something of a conscience and a willingness to accept his "just deserts." Contriving to use the "behavior" that got him fired as a scheme for a new television project truly adds insult to injury.
Rose and Batali are narcissists and lack the ability to see themselves for what and who they are. Their single focus is to gratify their appetites and their apologies are nothing more than calculated attempts to avoid being held accountable.
There are men who genuinely regret the way they have treated women, though it is not easy to judge which are and which are not. But there are cases in which the nature and number of complaints simply overwhelms. For Rose and Batali it is clear that the quality of mercy should be considerably strained.
An editorial in The New York Times, "The Chutzpah of These Men," groaned that Mario Batali and Charlie Rose have been calculating ways to effect a resurrection of their careers. The Times' editors expressed astonishment that these men would have the gall to contemplate returning to their former public eminence after being fired for multiple accusations of harassing and abusing women. There certainly seems no question that they are guilty of what they are accused. After all, the witnesses against them comprise an extraordinary number of women.
So, how could either man think that anyone would be interested in working with them? Nevertheless, Batali has been "floating ideas, pondering timelines and examining whether there is a way for him to step back into his career" (NYT, 4/2/2018). And Tina Brown revealed "that she had been" asked to co-host a show with Rose featuring interviews with men "who had faced #MeToo allegations." (NYT, 5/22/2018)
Both men have expressed regret over their actions. Batali even offered a picture of a "holiday-inspired breakfast" of "Pizza Dough Cinnamon Rolls." Charlie Rose issued this soul searching statement: "I have learned a great deal as a result of these events and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives." And with his new, "profound" insight Rose would be perfect to host a talk show in which celebrities guilty of abusing women could commiserate with each other and begin to heal some of the pain THEY must being suffering in their various banishments. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/20/16682728/charlie-rose-apology-sexual-harassment
What does one say to men like Baltali and Rose who, frankly, sound more like are sexual predators than cads? Rose's behavior toward young women is simply unacceptable; if he were on the receiving end of what he attempted, would he argue that all should be forgiven and forgotten after such a brief and relatively mild punishment? To acknowledge responsibility, to express contrition, regret, remorse requires a something of a conscience and a willingness to accept his "just deserts." Contriving to use the "behavior" that got him fired as a scheme for a new television project truly adds insult to injury.
Rose and Batali are narcissists and lack the ability to see themselves for what and who they are. Their single focus is to gratify their appetites and their apologies are nothing more than calculated attempts to avoid being held accountable.
There are men who genuinely regret the way they have treated women, though it is not easy to judge which are and which are not. But there are cases in which the nature and number of complaints simply overwhelms. For Rose and Batali it is clear that the quality of mercy should be considerably strained.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Decency
In his essay "George Will scorns Pence for the high crime of decency," William Bennett chastised Will for calling Mike Pence "America's most repulsive public figure." According to Bennett, Will's contempt for Pence comes from the vice president's "heinous crime of being a decent man." In his own column, Will aptly describes Pence's zealous reverence (In a December cabinet meeting, Pence praised Trump every 12 seconds for three 3 minutes running, Washington Post 5/9/18) for Donald Trump as "toadyism" and "obsequiousness." For Bennett, Pence is not the least bit obsequious, whereas Will is guilty of a "supercilious verbosity" intended to "validate his own sense of superiority."
Before explaining why he thinks Pence is a decent man, Bennett complains about Will's choice of words: "Will summons the depth of his ample thesaurus" to write a column "filled with big words that most Americans never use and can't even define." This charge has been made against Will over the years, as Will's dexterity with language has earned him both praise and criticism. Yet, it seems surprising that former education secretary William Bennett, whose own essay displays a knowledge of complex words (e.g., "savoir faire," "sesquipedalian," "obfuscates," "supercilious," "lamentations," "otiosity"), would approve of people being too lazy to look up words they do not know. Perhaps Bennett believes that most "Americans" should accept their intellectual limitations.
Beyond his censure of Will's rhetorical style, Bennett objects to Will depicting Pence as a toadying sycophant. In Pence's defense, Bennett argues that Will proves only that Pence is "very polite and proper." As Bennett sees it, someone who is "cordial and mannerly" need not distinguish between decent and indecent individuals. That is why it's fine for Bennett that Pence felt "honored" to have the lawbreaking goon Joe Arpaio among an audience he addressed in Arizona. And that is why it's fine for Bennett that the pious Pence, who refuses to be alone with any woman except his wife, bends and truckles to a man who asserts his privilege to grope women. Unlike Bennett, Will understands a simple truth: Pence lacks the decency and courage to spurn those who are indecent.
William Bennett edited The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories, The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey, and the author of The DEATH OF OUTRAGE: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals. In the last of these books Bennett assails the pathetic rationale of those who defended Clinton's behavior in the White House. For instance, he mockingly cites Wendy Kamine's observation that it is "childlike and potentially dangerous" to hold a president to a high moral standard. He admonishes Billy Graham for Graham's specious excuse that it is not Clinton's fault that he makes "the ladies just go wild." And he recounts how certain women's groups fought against Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, but remained silent about Clinton because Clinton supported the issues important to them.
More than twenty years have passed since Bennett's books published his moral outrage. Maybe such outrage no longer applies in 21st century. Or maybe such outrage is less important than what Bennett fears most: that criticism like Will's might produce the "ultimate consequence of...a return to power of the liberal establishment." Terrible as that result might be for Bennett, I should point out his own words to help him reset what surely is his broken moral compass: "In the end, the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President. Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectations."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050918.php3
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/12/william-bennett-george-will-scorns-pence-for-high-crime-decency.html
Before explaining why he thinks Pence is a decent man, Bennett complains about Will's choice of words: "Will summons the depth of his ample thesaurus" to write a column "filled with big words that most Americans never use and can't even define." This charge has been made against Will over the years, as Will's dexterity with language has earned him both praise and criticism. Yet, it seems surprising that former education secretary William Bennett, whose own essay displays a knowledge of complex words (e.g., "savoir faire," "sesquipedalian," "obfuscates," "supercilious," "lamentations," "otiosity"), would approve of people being too lazy to look up words they do not know. Perhaps Bennett believes that most "Americans" should accept their intellectual limitations.
Beyond his censure of Will's rhetorical style, Bennett objects to Will depicting Pence as a toadying sycophant. In Pence's defense, Bennett argues that Will proves only that Pence is "very polite and proper." As Bennett sees it, someone who is "cordial and mannerly" need not distinguish between decent and indecent individuals. That is why it's fine for Bennett that Pence felt "honored" to have the lawbreaking goon Joe Arpaio among an audience he addressed in Arizona. And that is why it's fine for Bennett that the pious Pence, who refuses to be alone with any woman except his wife, bends and truckles to a man who asserts his privilege to grope women. Unlike Bennett, Will understands a simple truth: Pence lacks the decency and courage to spurn those who are indecent.
William Bennett edited The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories, The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life's Journey, and the author of The DEATH OF OUTRAGE: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals. In the last of these books Bennett assails the pathetic rationale of those who defended Clinton's behavior in the White House. For instance, he mockingly cites Wendy Kamine's observation that it is "childlike and potentially dangerous" to hold a president to a high moral standard. He admonishes Billy Graham for Graham's specious excuse that it is not Clinton's fault that he makes "the ladies just go wild." And he recounts how certain women's groups fought against Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, but remained silent about Clinton because Clinton supported the issues important to them.
More than twenty years have passed since Bennett's books published his moral outrage. Maybe such outrage no longer applies in 21st century. Or maybe such outrage is less important than what Bennett fears most: that criticism like Will's might produce the "ultimate consequence of...a return to power of the liberal establishment." Terrible as that result might be for Bennett, I should point out his own words to help him reset what surely is his broken moral compass: "In the end, the President's apologists are attempting to redefine the standard of acceptable behavior for a President. Instead of upholding a high view of the office and the men who occupy it, they radically lower our expectations."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will050918.php3
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/12/william-bennett-george-will-scorns-pence-for-high-crime-decency.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)