The government shutdown is now entering its third week with no end in sight. And as it continues to drag on, one thing has become abundantly clear: Our current political system is broken beyond repair.
Polls continue to show that the Republican Party is taking the brunt of the blame for this mess. And frankly, that's the way it should be. But the Democrats, despite their efforts to portray themselves as the adults in the room, are hardly blameless. The truth is, both parties share the blame for the gridlock in Congress because both parties have gotten away from what made them viable parties to begin with.
The Republican Party of today is NOT the same Republican Party I grew up with. When I was a child, the Republicans were the party of smaller government and lower taxes. They spoke for the wealthy and for big business. And they were in favor of personal responsibility and less government in our personal lives. In short, they represented traditional conservative values.
Somewhere along the way, though, that all changed. In the 1980s, the Republican Party hitched its wagon and its future fortunes to the ascendant Moral Majority led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. They forged an alliance, for better or worse, with the Religious Right and everything changed. Instead of talking about cutting taxes and reducing the size of government, we began to hear more about the evils of abortion and gay marriage. Instead of trying to keep government out of our personal lives, the new Republican Party began to try and legislate morality by passing laws that, among other things, made it harder for women to obtain birth control if dispensing it conflicted with the pharmacist's personal religious beliefs. The new Republicans -- the neocons, if you will -- even invaded our classrooms by trying to legalize the teaching of creationism as science under the guise of "intelligent design."
These neocons are xenophobic. They want to round up every illegal immigrant and send them home, and they blame them for the problems with our economy. They are radical theocrats who believe fervently that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though many of our founders were Deists who believed only in a higher power, but not a specific one. They would like nothing better than to turn our nation into a Christian theocracy, totally ignoring the concept of religious liberty that our founders prized highly enough to put in the First Amendment to the Constitution. For them, it's religious freedom for Christians and no one else.
Today's Republicans like to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan. Since leaving office a quarter century ago, he has become almost a patron saint for today's GOP. And it's no wonder. Reagan was the last great Republican president we've had. He was the last one to espouse purely traditional conservative values. I have wondered from time to time what he would think of what has become of his party. I don't think he would be happy.
Before this turns into a "Let's bash the Republicans" piece though, let me say that the Democratic Party has itself undergone a seismic shift in recent decades. The Democratic Party of my youth was "the people's party." They were the party that represented the working people and the middle class. They were the party that created and served as protectors of Medicare and Social Security and other aspects of our social safety net. They were the party that was pushed to make sure the minimum wage kept up with inflation.
To be fair, you still hear strains of some of these themes from today's Democrats. But in large part, they have abandoned their principles in the name of power -- both gaining it and keeping it. Sure, the Republicans are taking it on the chin for wasting time trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act instead of passing a budget. But let's be truthful. We haven't had a real budget in this country since 1997, and despite Republican dominance of government for large swaths of that time, Democrats controlled Congress for at least part of it, and still they failed to get a budget passed. And when's the last time the Democrats did anything that truly helped the working poor in this country?
The truth is, both parties have abandoned their principles to the point where there is little, if any difference between the two of them anymore. Yes, the Republicans have become hopelessly paranoid, believing that President Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" who is leading this country down the path to socialism (and presumably Communism, eventually). But neither party is what it once was, and I see no hope that either will reclaim its principles anytime soon. Both parties are broken beyond repair.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
GOP will pay ultimate price for shutdown
The partial government shutdown is now entering its second week, and if you listen to the political pundits, there's plenty of blame to go around for the mess we find ourselves in. I agree. Both parties share the blame for this mess. But in the long run, I believe it is the GOP that will pay the ultimate price.
To be fair, this budget fight is nothing new. In fact, according to the American Prospect, the last time this nation had a real budget passed by Congress and signed by the president was in 1997, at the beginning of former President Bill Clinton's second term. Since then, our government has been surviving on a series of "continuing budget resolutions." They have become the new normal. The closest thing we've managed to passing a real budget in recent years was a gargantuan "omnibus" spending bill in 2009. So a budget impasse is nothing new. What IS new this time around is the GOP's decision to hold government hostage by forcing a shutdown until they can wring some concessions from the Democrats -- principally the defunding or complete dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. This is where the GOP is making a huge strategic blunder.
If today's GOP leaders in the House had bothered to study their recent history -- especially in the past 20 years -- they would know that government shutdowns almost never work well for the GOP. The last time the government shut down, 17 years ago, the GOP was blamed. The end result was a strong reelection victory for Clinton in the November election. And it looks like the same thing is beginning to happen now. According to a CNN/ORC poll released today (Monday), 63 percent of respondents are angry at Republicans for the way they are handling the shutdown. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say we could safely predict that the GOP will lose control of the House in the 2014 midterms and likely see the Democratic majority in the Senate grow, possibly to a filibuster-proof 60-plus seats. The sad part is, this didn't have to happen.
Republicans can try to pin this shutdown on President Obama and the Democrats as much as they want. They can point out until they're blue in the face that they sent numerous budget proposals over to the Senate in the days preceding the shutdown. But each of those proposals included language that would have permanently defunded or otherwise dismantled Obamacare. They knew those proposals stood no chance of passing the Senate. The Affordable Care Act stands as Obama's singular and most significant achievement. It was unrealistic to think that either the president or his party would do anything to undermine that accomplishment, especially since it had been upheld by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Nor should they have had to.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine that a Democratic House had sent the Senate a budget that defunded or dismantled No Child Left Behind, or refused to fund the War on Terror. Does anyone think Republicans would have agreed to those terms? Of course not. And the same principle applies here. The truth is, Congress has had months to pass a budget. Instead of acknowledging defeat on the Obamacare front and actually doing their jobs, House Republicans, led mainly by the Tea Party fringe, have dug in their heels and tried more than 40 times to repeal Obamacare. To make matters worse, the dim bulbs in the House made sure that when the government shut down, THEY would still receive THEIR paychecks. Way to share the suffering with your constituents, fellas.
Maybe the Democrats in the Senate should have been more willing to compromise. Maybe they should have stood above the gamesmanship being played in the House and not engaged in the back and forth with the GOP in an effort to score political points. But when it comes right down to it, it is the GOP that will bear the brunt of the public's wrath for the latest government shutdown and the damage it is doing to our economy, and it is hard to see how it should be any other way. They brought it on themselves.
To be fair, this budget fight is nothing new. In fact, according to the American Prospect, the last time this nation had a real budget passed by Congress and signed by the president was in 1997, at the beginning of former President Bill Clinton's second term. Since then, our government has been surviving on a series of "continuing budget resolutions." They have become the new normal. The closest thing we've managed to passing a real budget in recent years was a gargantuan "omnibus" spending bill in 2009. So a budget impasse is nothing new. What IS new this time around is the GOP's decision to hold government hostage by forcing a shutdown until they can wring some concessions from the Democrats -- principally the defunding or complete dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. This is where the GOP is making a huge strategic blunder.
If today's GOP leaders in the House had bothered to study their recent history -- especially in the past 20 years -- they would know that government shutdowns almost never work well for the GOP. The last time the government shut down, 17 years ago, the GOP was blamed. The end result was a strong reelection victory for Clinton in the November election. And it looks like the same thing is beginning to happen now. According to a CNN/ORC poll released today (Monday), 63 percent of respondents are angry at Republicans for the way they are handling the shutdown. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd say we could safely predict that the GOP will lose control of the House in the 2014 midterms and likely see the Democratic majority in the Senate grow, possibly to a filibuster-proof 60-plus seats. The sad part is, this didn't have to happen.
Republicans can try to pin this shutdown on President Obama and the Democrats as much as they want. They can point out until they're blue in the face that they sent numerous budget proposals over to the Senate in the days preceding the shutdown. But each of those proposals included language that would have permanently defunded or otherwise dismantled Obamacare. They knew those proposals stood no chance of passing the Senate. The Affordable Care Act stands as Obama's singular and most significant achievement. It was unrealistic to think that either the president or his party would do anything to undermine that accomplishment, especially since it had been upheld by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. Nor should they have had to.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine that a Democratic House had sent the Senate a budget that defunded or dismantled No Child Left Behind, or refused to fund the War on Terror. Does anyone think Republicans would have agreed to those terms? Of course not. And the same principle applies here. The truth is, Congress has had months to pass a budget. Instead of acknowledging defeat on the Obamacare front and actually doing their jobs, House Republicans, led mainly by the Tea Party fringe, have dug in their heels and tried more than 40 times to repeal Obamacare. To make matters worse, the dim bulbs in the House made sure that when the government shut down, THEY would still receive THEIR paychecks. Way to share the suffering with your constituents, fellas.
Maybe the Democrats in the Senate should have been more willing to compromise. Maybe they should have stood above the gamesmanship being played in the House and not engaged in the back and forth with the GOP in an effort to score political points. But when it comes right down to it, it is the GOP that will bear the brunt of the public's wrath for the latest government shutdown and the damage it is doing to our economy, and it is hard to see how it should be any other way. They brought it on themselves.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
A day to remember
Today marks the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon. For many born after the attacks, Sept. 11 has already become part of history. For others, including me and countless others, it was a day that changed America, and the world forever. It was a singular moment that defined a generation. In years to come, it will become the kind of moment where everyone who was alive and conscious will remember where they were and what they were doing on the day the Towers fell. For Generation X'ers, Sept. 11, 2001 was the equivalent of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, or the Challenger explosion.
I remember exactly where I was on that tragic Tuesday morning. I had gotten up early to have breakfast in downtown Jackson, TN, with my best friend, Steve Taranto. At his request, I was walking the final two blocks to work when I saw a coworker, Todd Kleffman, hurrying toward me. He stopped me and told me that I needed to get to work immediately, since an airliner had just hit one of the Twin Towers. I remember my first thought was, "Todd, I haven't had enough caffeine yet. It's too damn early to be joking about stuff like this." Unfortunately, he wasn't joking. When I got to work and walked into the newsroom, I saw every reporter frozen and staring open mouthed at the TV, which was tuned to the "Today" show. On the screen was a picture of the Twin Towers billowing black smoke from two gaping holes -- one in each tower. My executive editor, Dick Schneider, was standing in the middle of the room screaming, "Where are all my fucking reporters? It's 9 o'clock in the fucking morning!" When he caught a glimpse of me, he threw a roster at me and told me to call everyone on the list and "get them here!" So began the most surreal day of my life, professional or otherwise.
In years past, I have attempted on this anniversary to bring some meaning to this tragedy, to try and discern what could be learned from the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I don't want to do that today. Today, I think I'd rather take a look back on how Sept. 11, 2001, changed both America and the world.
I think the biggest change wrought by the Sept. 11 attacks is that it forever shattered the illusion that America was somehow immune to terrorism, I can remember, when I was growing up, seeing news stories about suicide bombings in far-flung places like Beirut and hijackings of cruise ships such as the Achille Lauro. I remember the tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. All of these were tragic, yes, and I was both shocked and saddened by the senseless loss of life in each case. But each of these incidents happened somewhere else, far away from the safety of our own shores. And after a bit, they each faded from memory. Life continued on. Even close calls such as the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and direct attacks such as the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya failed to shake the illusion for me, and many others, that it could never happen here. I remember telling a friend that "no one would dare attack America on our own shores." Sept. 11, 2001 changed all that and destroyed our naivete. Not only would they attack us, but they could succeed in doing so.
Sept. 11 also served as a wakeup call as to how our country is perceived by the world. Growing up, I, and many others, bought into former President Ronald Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill." We were raised to believe that America was the world's knight on a white horse. We were always on the right side of history. We were the good guys. Sept. 11 proved that not everyone in the world thinks that way. There are nations out there who hate us, and whose people would literally die to hurt us. In the Arab world, far from being the "knight on the white horse," we are "The Great Satan."
Sept. 11, 2001, introduced us to new concepts that were old hat to the rest of the world. For the first time, we heard about "Terrorism alerts" and experienced heightened security and armed soldiers standing guard at airports. For the first time, my generation tasted real war, the kind that couldn't be watched on TV, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. We saw soldiers being deployed for lengthy deployments. And we began to see our soldiers die.
Sept. 11 shook our nation to its core. It made us question previously held assumptions, and it raised serious questions about how far we were willing to go to protect ourselves. In the months and years following the attack, we ceded unprecedented power to the government with the PATRIOT Act. We began to disturbing reports about our government wiretapping civilians and stories about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Terms such as "waterboarding" became part of the common lexicon.
And yet, for all that Sept. 11 did to shatter our illusions, some things never changed. The attacks brought us together as a nation in a way that only a national tragedy could. We saw a resurgence in patriotism and a reordering of our priorities. For a while, we tried to bridge the partisan divide. And we saw a renewed appreciation for our police, firefighters, first responders and members of our military.
Sept. 11 tested our nation's resolve, and in the decade-plus since, it has shown us that we are a resilient people. We have rebuilt. Soon, a new Twin Towers will once again grace the Manhattan skyline. We have moved on with our lives, and today, are as prosperous as we've ever been. What I hope we don't do on this somber anniversary and in days to follow is forget. Already, we have a generation of children who have no direct memory of Sept. 11, 2001. To them, it's become part of history. But let's not allow them to forget about those who died, and about the brave emergency personnel -- police, fire, paramedics, first responders all -- who sacrificed and saved untold lives that day. Let's not let them forget about the brave soldiers who fought -- and in some cases died -- in the defense of freedom. Let's not let them forget the hard lessons taught by the tragedy -- primarily that we do not exist in a vacuum are not immune to terrorism. And let them not forget that we are a resilient nation, capable of surviving even the most horrific tragedy. If we can pass those lessons on to future generations, and if we can continue to remember those lessons ourselves, those who died will not have done so in vain.
I remember exactly where I was on that tragic Tuesday morning. I had gotten up early to have breakfast in downtown Jackson, TN, with my best friend, Steve Taranto. At his request, I was walking the final two blocks to work when I saw a coworker, Todd Kleffman, hurrying toward me. He stopped me and told me that I needed to get to work immediately, since an airliner had just hit one of the Twin Towers. I remember my first thought was, "Todd, I haven't had enough caffeine yet. It's too damn early to be joking about stuff like this." Unfortunately, he wasn't joking. When I got to work and walked into the newsroom, I saw every reporter frozen and staring open mouthed at the TV, which was tuned to the "Today" show. On the screen was a picture of the Twin Towers billowing black smoke from two gaping holes -- one in each tower. My executive editor, Dick Schneider, was standing in the middle of the room screaming, "Where are all my fucking reporters? It's 9 o'clock in the fucking morning!" When he caught a glimpse of me, he threw a roster at me and told me to call everyone on the list and "get them here!" So began the most surreal day of my life, professional or otherwise.
In years past, I have attempted on this anniversary to bring some meaning to this tragedy, to try and discern what could be learned from the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I don't want to do that today. Today, I think I'd rather take a look back on how Sept. 11, 2001, changed both America and the world.
I think the biggest change wrought by the Sept. 11 attacks is that it forever shattered the illusion that America was somehow immune to terrorism, I can remember, when I was growing up, seeing news stories about suicide bombings in far-flung places like Beirut and hijackings of cruise ships such as the Achille Lauro. I remember the tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. All of these were tragic, yes, and I was both shocked and saddened by the senseless loss of life in each case. But each of these incidents happened somewhere else, far away from the safety of our own shores. And after a bit, they each faded from memory. Life continued on. Even close calls such as the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and direct attacks such as the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya failed to shake the illusion for me, and many others, that it could never happen here. I remember telling a friend that "no one would dare attack America on our own shores." Sept. 11, 2001 changed all that and destroyed our naivete. Not only would they attack us, but they could succeed in doing so.
Sept. 11 also served as a wakeup call as to how our country is perceived by the world. Growing up, I, and many others, bought into former President Ronald Reagan's vision of America as a "shining city on a hill." We were raised to believe that America was the world's knight on a white horse. We were always on the right side of history. We were the good guys. Sept. 11 proved that not everyone in the world thinks that way. There are nations out there who hate us, and whose people would literally die to hurt us. In the Arab world, far from being the "knight on the white horse," we are "The Great Satan."
Sept. 11, 2001, introduced us to new concepts that were old hat to the rest of the world. For the first time, we heard about "Terrorism alerts" and experienced heightened security and armed soldiers standing guard at airports. For the first time, my generation tasted real war, the kind that couldn't be watched on TV, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. We saw soldiers being deployed for lengthy deployments. And we began to see our soldiers die.
Sept. 11 shook our nation to its core. It made us question previously held assumptions, and it raised serious questions about how far we were willing to go to protect ourselves. In the months and years following the attack, we ceded unprecedented power to the government with the PATRIOT Act. We began to disturbing reports about our government wiretapping civilians and stories about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Terms such as "waterboarding" became part of the common lexicon.
And yet, for all that Sept. 11 did to shatter our illusions, some things never changed. The attacks brought us together as a nation in a way that only a national tragedy could. We saw a resurgence in patriotism and a reordering of our priorities. For a while, we tried to bridge the partisan divide. And we saw a renewed appreciation for our police, firefighters, first responders and members of our military.
Sept. 11 tested our nation's resolve, and in the decade-plus since, it has shown us that we are a resilient people. We have rebuilt. Soon, a new Twin Towers will once again grace the Manhattan skyline. We have moved on with our lives, and today, are as prosperous as we've ever been. What I hope we don't do on this somber anniversary and in days to follow is forget. Already, we have a generation of children who have no direct memory of Sept. 11, 2001. To them, it's become part of history. But let's not allow them to forget about those who died, and about the brave emergency personnel -- police, fire, paramedics, first responders all -- who sacrificed and saved untold lives that day. Let's not let them forget about the brave soldiers who fought -- and in some cases died -- in the defense of freedom. Let's not let them forget the hard lessons taught by the tragedy -- primarily that we do not exist in a vacuum are not immune to terrorism. And let them not forget that we are a resilient nation, capable of surviving even the most horrific tragedy. If we can pass those lessons on to future generations, and if we can continue to remember those lessons ourselves, those who died will not have done so in vain.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Despite progress, King's dream not yet fully realized
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)