Fifty years ago today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech to a throng of 250,000 people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It is perhaps the finest speech ever given, especially when you consider that the famous "I have a dream" refrain was improvised on the spot. There's no doubt that the speech galvanized the civil rights movement. Less than a year after King spoke at the March on Washington, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which once and for all outlawed racial discrimination in this country. And a year after that, the Voting Rights Act became law. Clearly, King's speech made a lasting difference. But 50 years later, I think it's fair to ask if King's dream -- an inspiring vision of racial harmony and equality -- has yet been fully realized. Sadly, I think the answer is still "no."
A lot has changed for the better in the past half century. Today, blacks and other minorities enjoy opportunities undreamed of by their parents and grandparents. Today, every American, regardless of race, has a chance to receive a quality education. Universities and other institutions of higher learning that once were closed to everyone but whites are now open to everyone. Today, blacks and other minorities serve in all levels of government -- something unheard of a half century ago. In 2008, our nation celebrated a milestone by electing our first black president in Barack Obama. That's something that many Americans -- including me -- never thought we'd see in our lifetimes.
Today, anyone with a dream and the drive to make it happen can succeed, if only they take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. Still, as much as things have changed for the better in the past 50 years, now is no time to become complacent. A lot has been accomplished, yes. But we still have a long way to go to fully realize King's vision.
We know we still have a long way to go when we have those who would rather sit on their front porch drinking their beer and blaming "the system" for keeping them down and in poverty instead of getting up and taking advantage of the opportunities that their parents and grandparents fought to provide them. We know we still have a long way to go when the prevailing attitudes in some communities is that becoming educated is "too white," and therefore a bad thing. We know we still have a long way to go when racial profiling is still a problem and innocent young black men such as Trayvon Martin can't walk down the street without fearing for their lives. And we know we still have a long way to go when the U.S. Supreme Court blindly assumes that time alone has healed the racial divide in America and guts the Voting Rights Act. Still need proof that "the dream" is not yet fully realized? Consider what happened after the Court announced its ruling on the Voting Rights Act. Texas, and a handful of other states immediately began enacting laws that had once been rejected by the Justice Department which will have the effect of disenfranchising a large number of minority voters.
Don't misunderstand me. A lot has been accomplished since that hot August day in 1963. And we owe a huge debt of gratitude to those brave civil rights warriors who fought, sometimes even died, to ensure a better future for themselves, their children and their children's children. But if we think that King's dream has been accomplished because of a handful of laws and because we finally elected a black president, we are only fooling ourselves.
King's dream can never be fully realized until every last vestige of racism has been stamped out of the minds and the hearts of every American. Until we can stop looking at each other with fear and suspicion, King's dream must live on. Until we can learn to learn to look at each other honestly -- not as black, white, Asian, Hispanic or Native American, but as people -- King's dream must live on. Until we can divest ourselves of hatred and finally put to rest the stereotypes that divide us, King's dream must live on. In short, until we can "judge each other, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," we cannot honestly say that King's dream has been fully realized.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
'One-size-fits-all' justice not appropriate in every case
The news has been all awash this week with news about baseball's Biogenesis scandal, and, in particular, Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Major League Baseball has been fighting for a decade now to rid itself of the taint of performance-enhancing drugs, and Monday, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig took a major step in the right direction when he lowered the boom on 13 players, including All-Stars Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers and Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers. Twelve players received suspensions of 50 games. And Rodriguez? He was hit with the stiffest penalty since Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban from the game two decades ago after it was found he bet on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds. Rodriguez was suspended for 211 games -- the remainder of this season and all of next year. He's appealing, refusing to admit he did anything wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In my mind, he needs to shut up and go away. The more he talks, the more he's hurting the game he claims to love so much. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised by Rodriguez' actions. He is, after all, the most selfish player of his generation.
One of the interesting debates that has arisen out of the Biogenesis mess is the role our professional athletes play in our society as role models to today's youth. There are many who feel that Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban from baseball. I agree, but it isn't just because he cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban because he's a repeat offender. He admitted he used PEDs between 2001-2003 while a member of the Texas Rangers. At the time he finally came clean about that, he promised that he would steer clear of PEDs from then on. As we now know, he lied.
Rodriguez also deserves a lifetime ban because he lied to investigators after MLB began looking into allegations surrounding Biogenesis in January. Worse, according to the commissioner's office, he actively sought to hinder the investigation. Rodriguez is a selfish, self-centered narcissist. Through his words, and more important, through his actions, he has shown himself unworthy to play baseball. He should be banned, and every one of his records, including his 647 home runs should be stricken from the record books.
Unfortunately, not every case is as clear-cut as Rodriguez'. There are many who believe that the only way to clean up the game is for MLB to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy -- one time getting caught using PEDs or other illegal substances and you're automatically gone for life. While that sounds good in theory, I don't think a "one-size-fits-all" approach to justice works here.
To begin with, baseball's history is littered with big names that probably would never have seen the light of day in today's game. Babe Ruth, besides being one of the greatest home run hitters ever, was a known drunk womanizer and carouser. Ty Cobb, though he didn't start drinking until after his playing days, was allegedly a violent racist. More recently, Steve Howe violated MLB's anti-drug policy seven times while fighting a cocaine addiction. And both Dwight "Doc" Gooden and Darryl Strawberry -- two of the most famous players of modern times -- have struggled with addiction issues for years. Should these players have been banned for life because of their personal demons? That depends.
I understand, and fundamentally agree with the idea that professional athletes -- because they're in the public eye and make so much money -- should be held to a higher standard. Professional athletes DO need to understand that with their fame comes the responsibility of being role models to millions of impressionable youths. I also agree that today's youth need to be made to understand that bad choices have real consequences.
But those who are focused only on the punishment aspect of the Biogenesis case are missing the other valuable lesson that can come out of this mess: The power of forgiveness and redemption. Yes, young people do need to be taught that their actions have consequences. And athletes who transgress by using illegal substances such as cocaine SHOULD be punished. But here's the truth: Athletes, for all their otherworldly skills, are human. And as humans, they make mistakes, just like the rest of us. If we are going to expect perfection from our athletes with a "zero tolerance" policy, it won't be long before there are very few professional athletes left.
A better approach would be to judge each case on an individual basis. If you have an athlete that tests positive for cocaine, for instance, offer that player a chance to get treatment at MLB's expense. If he accepts, send him to treatment and when he returns, drug test him regularly and require that he attend counseling. On a second offense, again extend the olive branch of treatment, but this time, tack on a suspension of a minimum 100 games. When he returns, double the frequency of drug testing and continue with the counseling. On his third offense, ban him for life. This approach not only recognizes that a player has a real, definable illness, but puts the responsibility for getting better and continuing his career squarely on the player's shoulders, where it belongs. In my mind, it is the right mix of compassion and consequences.
As for those caught using PEDs, again each case should be judged individually and on its own merits. In this case, it all revolves around a player's intent. If a player tests positive for steroids, but can show a legitimate reason for the positive test -- receiving a steroid shot as part of a legitimate medical treatment, for instance -- then no foul. If, however, it can be conclusively shown that the player took PEDs to try and gain an unfair competitive advantage -- as in Rodriguez' case, then ban them for life and wipe any records they might have set from the record books.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater and a disgrace to the game of baseball. He has more than earned his suspension, and I sincerely hope it puts and end to his career and keeps him from ever getting into the Hall of Fame. But for every Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, there are plenty of great players who are struggling with their personal demons. Those people deserve punishment for their transgressions, yes, but they also are deserving of our compassion and an opportunity to get their lives and career back on track.
It's that sense of compassion that I hope doesn't get lost in all the controversy surrounding Biogenesis and Rodriguez. Yes, those who got caught deserve to be punished, even to be banned for life. But as important as it is to teach the next generation that actions have consequences, it's equally important to teach them that one mistake doesn't have to define your entire life. It's important to teach them that forgiveness, and even redemption, is possible.
One of the interesting debates that has arisen out of the Biogenesis mess is the role our professional athletes play in our society as role models to today's youth. There are many who feel that Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban from baseball. I agree, but it isn't just because he cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez deserved a lifetime ban because he's a repeat offender. He admitted he used PEDs between 2001-2003 while a member of the Texas Rangers. At the time he finally came clean about that, he promised that he would steer clear of PEDs from then on. As we now know, he lied.
Rodriguez also deserves a lifetime ban because he lied to investigators after MLB began looking into allegations surrounding Biogenesis in January. Worse, according to the commissioner's office, he actively sought to hinder the investigation. Rodriguez is a selfish, self-centered narcissist. Through his words, and more important, through his actions, he has shown himself unworthy to play baseball. He should be banned, and every one of his records, including his 647 home runs should be stricken from the record books.
Unfortunately, not every case is as clear-cut as Rodriguez'. There are many who believe that the only way to clean up the game is for MLB to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy -- one time getting caught using PEDs or other illegal substances and you're automatically gone for life. While that sounds good in theory, I don't think a "one-size-fits-all" approach to justice works here.
To begin with, baseball's history is littered with big names that probably would never have seen the light of day in today's game. Babe Ruth, besides being one of the greatest home run hitters ever, was a known drunk womanizer and carouser. Ty Cobb, though he didn't start drinking until after his playing days, was allegedly a violent racist. More recently, Steve Howe violated MLB's anti-drug policy seven times while fighting a cocaine addiction. And both Dwight "Doc" Gooden and Darryl Strawberry -- two of the most famous players of modern times -- have struggled with addiction issues for years. Should these players have been banned for life because of their personal demons? That depends.
I understand, and fundamentally agree with the idea that professional athletes -- because they're in the public eye and make so much money -- should be held to a higher standard. Professional athletes DO need to understand that with their fame comes the responsibility of being role models to millions of impressionable youths. I also agree that today's youth need to be made to understand that bad choices have real consequences.
But those who are focused only on the punishment aspect of the Biogenesis case are missing the other valuable lesson that can come out of this mess: The power of forgiveness and redemption. Yes, young people do need to be taught that their actions have consequences. And athletes who transgress by using illegal substances such as cocaine SHOULD be punished. But here's the truth: Athletes, for all their otherworldly skills, are human. And as humans, they make mistakes, just like the rest of us. If we are going to expect perfection from our athletes with a "zero tolerance" policy, it won't be long before there are very few professional athletes left.
A better approach would be to judge each case on an individual basis. If you have an athlete that tests positive for cocaine, for instance, offer that player a chance to get treatment at MLB's expense. If he accepts, send him to treatment and when he returns, drug test him regularly and require that he attend counseling. On a second offense, again extend the olive branch of treatment, but this time, tack on a suspension of a minimum 100 games. When he returns, double the frequency of drug testing and continue with the counseling. On his third offense, ban him for life. This approach not only recognizes that a player has a real, definable illness, but puts the responsibility for getting better and continuing his career squarely on the player's shoulders, where it belongs. In my mind, it is the right mix of compassion and consequences.
As for those caught using PEDs, again each case should be judged individually and on its own merits. In this case, it all revolves around a player's intent. If a player tests positive for steroids, but can show a legitimate reason for the positive test -- receiving a steroid shot as part of a legitimate medical treatment, for instance -- then no foul. If, however, it can be conclusively shown that the player took PEDs to try and gain an unfair competitive advantage -- as in Rodriguez' case, then ban them for life and wipe any records they might have set from the record books.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater and a disgrace to the game of baseball. He has more than earned his suspension, and I sincerely hope it puts and end to his career and keeps him from ever getting into the Hall of Fame. But for every Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, there are plenty of great players who are struggling with their personal demons. Those people deserve punishment for their transgressions, yes, but they also are deserving of our compassion and an opportunity to get their lives and career back on track.
It's that sense of compassion that I hope doesn't get lost in all the controversy surrounding Biogenesis and Rodriguez. Yes, those who got caught deserve to be punished, even to be banned for life. But as important as it is to teach the next generation that actions have consequences, it's equally important to teach them that one mistake doesn't have to define your entire life. It's important to teach them that forgiveness, and even redemption, is possible.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Is Bradley Manning a traitor?
Yesterday, a verdict finally came down in the trial of Pfc, Bradley Manning, who stood accused of releasing thousands of pages of classified documents to WikiLeaks, a Web site dedicated to exposing government secrets. Not surprisingly, Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy -- after all, it's impossible to get inside his head and know for certain what his intent was in leaking the documents -- but he still faces up to 136 years in prison on a host of other charges, including espionage and theft. The verdict, though not the potential sentence, seems fair to me. After all, it is indisputable that Manning did steal classified documents. He admitted as much himself. It's also indisputable that some of what he released did end up on a laptop used by former al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden.
It's too early to tell what impact Manning's actions will ultimately have on our national security, yet many Americans have already branded Manning a traitor. Is Manning a traitor? Or is he, as some claim, a folk hero, a martyr who is paying the price for exposing government corruption? That's an interesting question for which there are no easy answers.
On the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and it's clear, by his own admission, that Manning knowingly and willfully broke those laws. He knew the risk involved in taking and releasing those documents and he chose to do it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, the Espionage Act under which he was tried serves to protect sensitive government secrets from falling into the hands of those who wish to harm us.
But Manning's case is anything but typical. He claimed that his motives were altruistic, that he was acting as a patriot in exposing wrongdoing by our government. If this is, in fact, the case -- and who's to say it's not, since we can't get inside his head and ever really know his motives -- is he still a traitor?
Our history is replete with instances of well-meaning, patriotic Americans risking everything to expose government corruption. There's Edward Snowden, the so-called "NSA leaker," who earlier this year revealed that the government had programs in place to spy on average Americans and, in fact, had been doing so. In the 1970s, you had Daniel Ellsberg, who released classified documents, collectively known as "The Pentagon Papers" showing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knew early on that the Vietnam War was likely a lost cause, and that it would involve far greater casualties than they ever admitted publicly. Those papers also showed conclusively that President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied not only to Congress, but also to the American people. And now you have Bradley Manning. So is Manning a traitor? That depends on how you interpret his actions.
If you take a strict "law and order" approach in viewing Manning's actions, then he is, without question a traitor who wrongly stole classified documents and released them without permission, But just as in most things in life, this is hardly a "black and white" issue. Manning claims he had altruistic motives for his actions, a claim bolstered by two now-famous video clips which show two different mistaken attacks on civilians by U.S. forces. Experts claim that Manning's actions helped lead to the "Arab Spring" uprisings in 2011, which, among other things, led to the overthrow of dictators Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, So if something good came out of Manning's actions, and since we can't disprove his claims of altruism as his motive, is Manning a traitor? The short answer, I think, is, "It depends."
I think it is impossible to apply a uniform standard of justice to each and every espionage case. In most cases, where the mole is seeking only to enrich himself at the expense of our national security, then the harsh penalties prescribed under the Espionage Act are justified. In cases like Manning's, though, where undeniable good came from his actions, it's harder to judge. Should the government be able to hide the fact that it mistakenly attacked two different groups of civilians? Or does the public have a right to know? Snowden's disclosures exposed a government so riddled with paranoia that it was spying on its own citizens in the name of national security. It smacks a little too much of Communist Russia and other dictatorships throughout history for my taste, and should never happen in a free society. And Ellsberg? By releasing the Pentagon Papers, he helped bring an end to our ill-advised involvement in the Vietnam War and saved countless American lives. It's a conflict we should never have gotten involved with in the first place.
In short, I don't think every case of "espionage" can be judged by the same uniform standard. While some, who are just in it for themselves and what they can get out of it, deserve the full wrath of the law thrown at them, I believe "whistleblowers" such as Ellsberg, Snowden, and yes, Manning, have a place, heck are even essential, in a free, democratic society. The material released by these men might make us uncomfortable. It might embarrass others. But having men and women who are brave enough to expose government lies and corruption is an important part of holding our leaders accountable. Is Bradley Manning a traitor? For my money, the answer is no. In fact, I admire his willingness to stand up and pull back the curtain, even just a little, on the clandestine goings on in our government. He stood on a principle, and now, it has likely cost him the rest of his life in prison. Far from being a traitor, he is someone to be admired, someone who had the courage of his convictions and was willing to pay the price for them. We should all have such strength of conviction. If we did, and were willing to go to the mat doing what was right, our country, if not the entire world, would be a better place.
It's too early to tell what impact Manning's actions will ultimately have on our national security, yet many Americans have already branded Manning a traitor. Is Manning a traitor? Or is he, as some claim, a folk hero, a martyr who is paying the price for exposing government corruption? That's an interesting question for which there are no easy answers.
On the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and it's clear, by his own admission, that Manning knowingly and willfully broke those laws. He knew the risk involved in taking and releasing those documents and he chose to do it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, the Espionage Act under which he was tried serves to protect sensitive government secrets from falling into the hands of those who wish to harm us.
But Manning's case is anything but typical. He claimed that his motives were altruistic, that he was acting as a patriot in exposing wrongdoing by our government. If this is, in fact, the case -- and who's to say it's not, since we can't get inside his head and ever really know his motives -- is he still a traitor?
Our history is replete with instances of well-meaning, patriotic Americans risking everything to expose government corruption. There's Edward Snowden, the so-called "NSA leaker," who earlier this year revealed that the government had programs in place to spy on average Americans and, in fact, had been doing so. In the 1970s, you had Daniel Ellsberg, who released classified documents, collectively known as "The Pentagon Papers" showing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knew early on that the Vietnam War was likely a lost cause, and that it would involve far greater casualties than they ever admitted publicly. Those papers also showed conclusively that President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied not only to Congress, but also to the American people. And now you have Bradley Manning. So is Manning a traitor? That depends on how you interpret his actions.
If you take a strict "law and order" approach in viewing Manning's actions, then he is, without question a traitor who wrongly stole classified documents and released them without permission, But just as in most things in life, this is hardly a "black and white" issue. Manning claims he had altruistic motives for his actions, a claim bolstered by two now-famous video clips which show two different mistaken attacks on civilians by U.S. forces. Experts claim that Manning's actions helped lead to the "Arab Spring" uprisings in 2011, which, among other things, led to the overthrow of dictators Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, So if something good came out of Manning's actions, and since we can't disprove his claims of altruism as his motive, is Manning a traitor? The short answer, I think, is, "It depends."
I think it is impossible to apply a uniform standard of justice to each and every espionage case. In most cases, where the mole is seeking only to enrich himself at the expense of our national security, then the harsh penalties prescribed under the Espionage Act are justified. In cases like Manning's, though, where undeniable good came from his actions, it's harder to judge. Should the government be able to hide the fact that it mistakenly attacked two different groups of civilians? Or does the public have a right to know? Snowden's disclosures exposed a government so riddled with paranoia that it was spying on its own citizens in the name of national security. It smacks a little too much of Communist Russia and other dictatorships throughout history for my taste, and should never happen in a free society. And Ellsberg? By releasing the Pentagon Papers, he helped bring an end to our ill-advised involvement in the Vietnam War and saved countless American lives. It's a conflict we should never have gotten involved with in the first place.
In short, I don't think every case of "espionage" can be judged by the same uniform standard. While some, who are just in it for themselves and what they can get out of it, deserve the full wrath of the law thrown at them, I believe "whistleblowers" such as Ellsberg, Snowden, and yes, Manning, have a place, heck are even essential, in a free, democratic society. The material released by these men might make us uncomfortable. It might embarrass others. But having men and women who are brave enough to expose government lies and corruption is an important part of holding our leaders accountable. Is Bradley Manning a traitor? For my money, the answer is no. In fact, I admire his willingness to stand up and pull back the curtain, even just a little, on the clandestine goings on in our government. He stood on a principle, and now, it has likely cost him the rest of his life in prison. Far from being a traitor, he is someone to be admired, someone who had the courage of his convictions and was willing to pay the price for them. We should all have such strength of conviction. If we did, and were willing to go to the mat doing what was right, our country, if not the entire world, would be a better place.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Zimmerman travesty shows we have a long way still to go
I was shocked and angered Saturday night by the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who stood accused of killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin 18 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zimmerman got away with murder. His claims of self-defense are laughable, at best. At the very least, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. As it stands now, an innocent 17-year-old is dead, and there's no justice for his family, who now has to watch his killer walk free. It's a tragedy. No, it's a travesty.
For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying, so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
Under our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.
For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying, so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
Under our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Supreme Court did right thing for nation's gay community
The U.S. Supreme Court ended its latest session with a bang on Wednesday with a pair of landmark rulings that finally did the right thing for this nation's gay community.
In a pair of 5-4 rulings, justices overturned a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Justices also ruled the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 case lacked the standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. That got justices off the hook from having to rule on the controversial issue, but it also had the effect of sending the case back to California. Both the trial courts and the appeals courts there, even the state Supreme Court, had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. That opens the door for gay marriages to resume for the first time since 2008.
To me, these decisions represented a pair of no-brainers for the Court. Should gay couples have the right to commit their lives to each other, to leave property to each other if one of them dies or to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is gravely ill? Of course they should. Should they be able to file taxes jointly, or collect their partner's Social Security if they die? Of course. Like I said, this is a no-brainer for any fair-minded, compassionate person. Still, I was surprised that these decisions came from this largely conservative court at this time. Frankly, I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I'm glad I was wrong.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the Court's ruling. Opponents of gay marriage -- mostly religious fundamentalists and members of this nation's Religious Right, view the rulings as the latest sign of our nation's moral decay. They see granting equality to gay couples as "redefining marriage," or undercutting the very moral foundation of our nation. These people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Let me point out a couple of things.
First, gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriages at all. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and start families, just as they always have. In granting marriage rights to gays, the definition of marriage hasn't been "redefined." It's simply been expanded to include a group of people who should always have been included to begin with.
Second, if you want to talk about which group has done more harm to the institution of marriage, we need look no further than heterosexuals. Today, about half of straight marriages end in divorce. Compare that to the gay community, which is filled with couples who have been in committed relationships for years, even decades. So which group is it again that understands the meaning of commitment? (Hint: It's NOT the straight community.)
The problem in discussing gay marriage is that people too often let their religious beliefs get tangled up in the discussion. They look at gay marriage as "an abomination," or otherwise sinful. They actually think that people CHOOSE whether or not to be gay. If you believe that, no wonder you are opposed to gay marriage. Here's the truth.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. This isn't just my opinion, either. There's a growing body of evidence showing that there are real, discernible differences between the brains of gay people and straight people. There's a growing body of evidence that our sexual orientation is hardwired, that it's genetic. In religious terms, homosexuality is just one more bit of diversity in God's amazing, breathtaking creation. In simplest terms, ask yourself: "What person in his or her right mind would wake up one morning and just decide to be gay? What person would knowingly make themselves part of a group that is so hated and misunderstood?" Right. No logical person would.
Once you look at homosexuality that way; once you realize that gay people are normal, with one tiny difference, it's easy to see that the issue isn't about religion. Nor is it an issue of morality. The issue decided by the court was one of basic fairness and equality. The Court's decision might not be popular with all groups, but justices undeniably made the right decision. They made the only decision they could, and our entire nation will benefit from that far-reaching vision.
In a pair of 5-4 rulings, justices overturned a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Justices also ruled the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 case lacked the standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. That got justices off the hook from having to rule on the controversial issue, but it also had the effect of sending the case back to California. Both the trial courts and the appeals courts there, even the state Supreme Court, had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. That opens the door for gay marriages to resume for the first time since 2008.
To me, these decisions represented a pair of no-brainers for the Court. Should gay couples have the right to commit their lives to each other, to leave property to each other if one of them dies or to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is gravely ill? Of course they should. Should they be able to file taxes jointly, or collect their partner's Social Security if they die? Of course. Like I said, this is a no-brainer for any fair-minded, compassionate person. Still, I was surprised that these decisions came from this largely conservative court at this time. Frankly, I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I'm glad I was wrong.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the Court's ruling. Opponents of gay marriage -- mostly religious fundamentalists and members of this nation's Religious Right, view the rulings as the latest sign of our nation's moral decay. They see granting equality to gay couples as "redefining marriage," or undercutting the very moral foundation of our nation. These people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Let me point out a couple of things.
First, gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriages at all. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and start families, just as they always have. In granting marriage rights to gays, the definition of marriage hasn't been "redefined." It's simply been expanded to include a group of people who should always have been included to begin with.
Second, if you want to talk about which group has done more harm to the institution of marriage, we need look no further than heterosexuals. Today, about half of straight marriages end in divorce. Compare that to the gay community, which is filled with couples who have been in committed relationships for years, even decades. So which group is it again that understands the meaning of commitment? (Hint: It's NOT the straight community.)
The problem in discussing gay marriage is that people too often let their religious beliefs get tangled up in the discussion. They look at gay marriage as "an abomination," or otherwise sinful. They actually think that people CHOOSE whether or not to be gay. If you believe that, no wonder you are opposed to gay marriage. Here's the truth.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. This isn't just my opinion, either. There's a growing body of evidence showing that there are real, discernible differences between the brains of gay people and straight people. There's a growing body of evidence that our sexual orientation is hardwired, that it's genetic. In religious terms, homosexuality is just one more bit of diversity in God's amazing, breathtaking creation. In simplest terms, ask yourself: "What person in his or her right mind would wake up one morning and just decide to be gay? What person would knowingly make themselves part of a group that is so hated and misunderstood?" Right. No logical person would.
Once you look at homosexuality that way; once you realize that gay people are normal, with one tiny difference, it's easy to see that the issue isn't about religion. Nor is it an issue of morality. The issue decided by the court was one of basic fairness and equality. The Court's decision might not be popular with all groups, but justices undeniably made the right decision. They made the only decision they could, and our entire nation will benefit from that far-reaching vision.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Paula Deen, affirmative action and other major happenings
It's been a busy time for those of us who enjoy observing American politics. Far from the summer doldrums, this summer season has been bursting with interesting stories, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. There's so much going on, in fact, that I couldn't limit myself to just one topic in my latest post. Instead, I'll touch on each topic, giving my thoughts on each.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Is the government really out to get us?
A lot of the political news this week seems to revolve around one central question: Is the government REALLY out to get us?
Republicans are all in a snit over the growing Benghazi scandal. That attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and according to the Republican narrative, the fault for those deaths lies not with the terrorists who attacked the embassy, but with President Barack Obama. According the Republican version of events, Obama not only knew of the likelihood of an attack, but he refused to provide adequate security to prevent it, despite repeated requests. To make matters worse, once the attack was under way, he refused to send help to stop it, even telling one special forces unit in the area to "stand down." And after the attack? Well, he lied to the American people about its origins, first blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim film and resulting riots, then refusing to call it a terrorist attack, instead calling it "an act of terror." And the reason for all this? Why, to help himself get re-elected, of course!
If that's not evil enough for you, Republicans also upset over a recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that some lower-level agents were targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation into the affair, and President Obama has called it "unacceptable," vowing "It will never happen again." So where do we begin in extricating ourselves from all this muck?
In my opinion, the Benghazi probe is little more than a partisan witch hunt. It is a tragedy that has been blown completely out of proportion by desperate Republicans trying to bring down a president that has been more successful than they had hoped. This isn't to say that an investigation into the attack isn't warranted. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered about how the attackers were able to succeed and what steps can be taken to improve security and thwart future attacks. But to suggest that the president knew the attack was imminent and did nothing to prevent it; to suggest that he intentionally withheld help that could have saved American lives; to suggest that he lied to the American people about the attack to help improve his own chances for reelection is ludicrous. It's fantasy. It suggests that not only is our president incompetent, but he's a criminal.
Here's a dose of reality. Obama's reaction in the first days following the attack isn't out of the ordinary. To suggest that the attack was spurred by an anti-Muslim film that had gone viral on the Internet wasn't out of the realm of possibility. There WERE protests going on over the film, and violence has erupted over something as simple as a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Of course, it turned out that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the film, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that they might be connected.
As for the president's early refusal to label the attack as terrorism, I don't see this as evidence of a coverup. Rather, it seems to me it was a case of Obama acting prudently instead of automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism, especially before all the facts had been established. That's the sign of a good leader, someone who gets his facts in order before unnecessarily alarming the public.
Of course, not everything can be explained away so easily. There apparently was intelligence warning that some type of attack was imminent in the region. And there is conflicting testimony as to whether it was possible to send help and whether U.S. forces were told to "stand down." The truth is, we may never know what exactly happened that night, what orders were given and by whom. And while it's clear mistakes were made, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any kind of pre-meditation on the government's part or any kind of coverup. There certainly is nothing there that rises to the level of Watergate, no matter how much Republicans want to make the connection. Watergate was about a president knowing about criminal activity and actively covering it up. Obama might have made mistakes in the hours and days following the Benghazi attack, but nothing he did rises to the level of criminal.
Switching gears to the mess at the IRS, Republicans are outraged, and rightfully so, that conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking tax-exempt status. There's no denying that was wrong, but their outrage rings a little hollow when you consider all the outrageous things the GOP has given tacit approval to over the years. Consider:
It was a GOP-led Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act -- possibly the worst piece of legislation ever conceived -- in the fevered days immediately following 9/11. That one piece of legislation gave the federal government almost unlimited power to prosecute a mythical "War on Terror," including the power to wiretap the phones of ordinary Americans.
It was a Republican administration under George W. Bush that gave tacit approval to the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) for high-level terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It was the Republican administration of George W. Bush that introduced the idea of "enemy combatants," which has resulted in dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo being held indefinitely without charges and without hope of ever going to trial.
And now Republicans are upset because some flunkies at the IRS decided to take it upon themselves to give conservative groups a little extra scrutiny? Don't get me wrong. What those employees at the IRS did was wrong, and they should pay with their jobs. But for Republicans to react with such righteous indignation over such a trivial offense seems a tad hypocritical when compared to the true outrages that they have been willing to look the other way on.
And so, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Is the government really out to get us? My answer? I don't think so. I believe, by and large, those who work in government are good, earnest people committed to helping their fellow citizens. And I believe government, in its purest form, is committed to the idea of helping those who can't help themselves and protecting our freedoms. Does that mean there aren't abuses in government? Of course not. But I think it grossly unfair to judge the entire body by the mistakes and abuses of a few.
Republicans are all in a snit over the growing Benghazi scandal. That attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and according to the Republican narrative, the fault for those deaths lies not with the terrorists who attacked the embassy, but with President Barack Obama. According the Republican version of events, Obama not only knew of the likelihood of an attack, but he refused to provide adequate security to prevent it, despite repeated requests. To make matters worse, once the attack was under way, he refused to send help to stop it, even telling one special forces unit in the area to "stand down." And after the attack? Well, he lied to the American people about its origins, first blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim film and resulting riots, then refusing to call it a terrorist attack, instead calling it "an act of terror." And the reason for all this? Why, to help himself get re-elected, of course!
If that's not evil enough for you, Republicans also upset over a recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that some lower-level agents were targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation into the affair, and President Obama has called it "unacceptable," vowing "It will never happen again." So where do we begin in extricating ourselves from all this muck?
In my opinion, the Benghazi probe is little more than a partisan witch hunt. It is a tragedy that has been blown completely out of proportion by desperate Republicans trying to bring down a president that has been more successful than they had hoped. This isn't to say that an investigation into the attack isn't warranted. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered about how the attackers were able to succeed and what steps can be taken to improve security and thwart future attacks. But to suggest that the president knew the attack was imminent and did nothing to prevent it; to suggest that he intentionally withheld help that could have saved American lives; to suggest that he lied to the American people about the attack to help improve his own chances for reelection is ludicrous. It's fantasy. It suggests that not only is our president incompetent, but he's a criminal.
Here's a dose of reality. Obama's reaction in the first days following the attack isn't out of the ordinary. To suggest that the attack was spurred by an anti-Muslim film that had gone viral on the Internet wasn't out of the realm of possibility. There WERE protests going on over the film, and violence has erupted over something as simple as a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Of course, it turned out that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the film, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that they might be connected.
As for the president's early refusal to label the attack as terrorism, I don't see this as evidence of a coverup. Rather, it seems to me it was a case of Obama acting prudently instead of automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism, especially before all the facts had been established. That's the sign of a good leader, someone who gets his facts in order before unnecessarily alarming the public.
Of course, not everything can be explained away so easily. There apparently was intelligence warning that some type of attack was imminent in the region. And there is conflicting testimony as to whether it was possible to send help and whether U.S. forces were told to "stand down." The truth is, we may never know what exactly happened that night, what orders were given and by whom. And while it's clear mistakes were made, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any kind of pre-meditation on the government's part or any kind of coverup. There certainly is nothing there that rises to the level of Watergate, no matter how much Republicans want to make the connection. Watergate was about a president knowing about criminal activity and actively covering it up. Obama might have made mistakes in the hours and days following the Benghazi attack, but nothing he did rises to the level of criminal.
Switching gears to the mess at the IRS, Republicans are outraged, and rightfully so, that conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking tax-exempt status. There's no denying that was wrong, but their outrage rings a little hollow when you consider all the outrageous things the GOP has given tacit approval to over the years. Consider:
It was a GOP-led Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act -- possibly the worst piece of legislation ever conceived -- in the fevered days immediately following 9/11. That one piece of legislation gave the federal government almost unlimited power to prosecute a mythical "War on Terror," including the power to wiretap the phones of ordinary Americans.
It was a Republican administration under George W. Bush that gave tacit approval to the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) for high-level terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
It was the Republican administration of George W. Bush that introduced the idea of "enemy combatants," which has resulted in dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo being held indefinitely without charges and without hope of ever going to trial.
And now Republicans are upset because some flunkies at the IRS decided to take it upon themselves to give conservative groups a little extra scrutiny? Don't get me wrong. What those employees at the IRS did was wrong, and they should pay with their jobs. But for Republicans to react with such righteous indignation over such a trivial offense seems a tad hypocritical when compared to the true outrages that they have been willing to look the other way on.
And so, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Is the government really out to get us? My answer? I don't think so. I believe, by and large, those who work in government are good, earnest people committed to helping their fellow citizens. And I believe government, in its purest form, is committed to the idea of helping those who can't help themselves and protecting our freedoms. Does that mean there aren't abuses in government? Of course not. But I think it grossly unfair to judge the entire body by the mistakes and abuses of a few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)