The Slaughterhouse of professional sports

The circumstances surrounding Adrian Peterson’s abusive behavior toward his four-year-old son and his subsequent suspension from the NFL raise some delicate issues that are not being adequately addressed by the media. 

At issue are child abuse, racism, the power of public opinion, and the hypocrisy of professional sports in America.

What Peterson did to his son was clearly wrong and he was tried and convicted in a court of law.  That should have been the end of it.  But more punishment was inevitable in today’s world where sports teams and their governing bodies hypocritically preach high ideals from moral soap boxes to pacify public opinion, thereby safeguarding ratings and ticket sales.  Are executives from America’s top corporations held to such standards in a public forum?  Rarely are their transgressions even brought to light.

We can’t lose sight of the fact that there are two worlds in America: The haves and have nots.  Of course, the money behind professional sports lives in the former and the commodity in which they trade largely comes from the latter.  You cannot so easily apply what is expected in one community to the other, at least not without sensitivity, compassion and understanding of the differences.

Growing up poor and black is tough and often violent, and Peterson’s life is no exception.  At age 7, Peterson witnessed his 9-year-old brother’s killing by a drunk driver.  His father, Nelson, spent nearly seven years in prison for laundering money from selling crack cocaine.  His half brother was shot and killed in Houston the night before Peterson attended the NFL combine in 2007.  And last October, Tyrese Ruffin, his 2-year-old illegitimate son whom he recently became aware, was killed in Sioux Falls, S.D. allegedly by the boyfriend of Ruffin’s mother.

The violence and tragedy in these neighborhoods often breed very good football players and the sport exploits violent tendencies.  You cannot take a young man out of a violent community, encourage him to be violent on a football field, and expect him to go home and behave like a saint.  It doesn’t work that way. 

America's attitude toward corporal punishment has changed a great deal in a generation.  What I endured 50's years ago for misbehavior at home and school would be considered abhorrent and criminal today.  But change is sometimes slow to spread to some communities.  Although we cannot condone such horrific behavior, we have to be cognizant of these differences when rendering justice.

The NFL power brokers don’t live in Peterson’s childhood world nor do they make a genuine effort to understand it.  What drives them is money and Adrian Peterson is the sacrificial lamb du jour.  Young black men serve as the meat that nourishes a highly profitable industry akin to a slaughterhouse where unsavory parts are discarded.

If the NFL is going to expect certain behaviors of its players it needs to invest heavily in changing the communities that provide the sport’s prized commodity.  The league does offer youth programs like Play60, but they are fitness and sports related.  With all the money associated with the NFL and other professional sports why is there no comprehensive, meaningful, sustainable endowment to help lift the quality of life in these neighborhoods?

We also cannot lose sight of the fact that professional athletes are typically very young and immature.  We tend to judge them by standards they find difficult, even impossible,  to meet. 

Since justice has already been meted out, it seems extreme for the NFL to pile on more punishment and deprive this young man of the few years left in his career.

Racism through rose-colored glasses

Americans usually right wrong when they see it, but today things are not always so clear.  The horrors of war hide behind the falsehood that smart bombs and predator drones kill only the bad guys.  Lethal injection creates the illusion that capital punishment is humane.  Racism has remained hidden behind a similar veneer ever since the civil rights movement of the 1960's.

There are those who think racism has been eliminated or at least reduced significantly because they see few prominent displays of segregation, discrimination, or Ku-Klux-Klan-like violence.  Some perceive the world from the comfort, safety, and relative affluence of their own communities largely disconnected from the world of the have-nots except what they see in media. 

Racism is not limited to overt manifestations.  It’s the more subtle emotional and psychological forms inflicted over centuries that do the most damage.  Although the chains and shackles of slavery are long gone and Jim Crow laws outlawed, blacks are still enslaved by socioeconomic forces.  This does not mean that most people are racist, only that the general population fails to see how pervasive racism is.

Here are just a couple of facts to consider:

In 2005 the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report that found that although the same percentage of white, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped by police, blacks were three times more likely to be searched (person or vehicle) than whites, more than three times more likely to be handcuffed, and almost three times more likely to be arrested.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s report, “Faith Matters: Race/Ethnicity, Religion and Substance Use,” found that whites account for 73 percent of annual marijuana users and 72 percent of annual users of illicit drugs other than marijuana.  Yet blacks are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of whites.

In 2008 blacks and Hispanics comprised 58% of all U.S. prisoners, yet they comprise roughly one quarter of the U.S. population.

Utilizing data provided by the United States Sentencing Commission and state correctional departments, the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that blacks account for 65.4 percent of prisoners serving life without parole sentences for nonviolent crimes. 

All these racial disparities contributed to the U.S. prison population growing by 700% between 1970 and 2005.  Incarcerated Americans now represent 25 percent of the entire world prison population.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, blacks make up 41.71 percent of the current U.S. death row population. 

Richard C. Dieter, an attorney, concluded in his report, “The Death Penalty in Black and White: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides,” that there is “an overwhelming body of evidence that race plays a decisive role in the question of who lives and dies by execution in this country.”

According to a study by the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University, "The wealth disparity between white and black households has more than quadrupled, regardless of income bracket" from 1984 to 2007.

The simplistic, convenient explanation is to blame the parents for perpetuating the cycle of poverty, but it’s not so simple and one thing is certain, you cannot justify the condemning of children who have to endure inadequate prenatal care, poor healthcare, insufficient diets, terrible schools, the digital divide, and violent neighborhoods.

A new report, titled "Race for Results," conducted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that Asian and white children were far better positioned for success than American Indians, blacks, and Latinos.  The study described the challenges facing black children as "a national crisis."

The two races who have had the most difficulty breaking free of the cycle of poverty are American Indians and blacks, and they both share very unique characteristics.  Both were forcibly removed from their native lands and faced centuries of enslavement, oppression, betrayal, and economic exploitation.  All other ethnic groups came to America voluntarily and  did not face the degree of hardship these two groups have endured for hundreds of years.

Randall Robinson writes in his article, "What America Owes to Blacks and What Blacks Owe to Each Other," states: "If the black community were paid eleven trillion dollars tomorrow in reparations, unless we were able to repair the damage done to our psyches and our souls over the years, the money would do us no good."

Racism today in its insidious forms oppresses people of color from cradle to grave.  Until we collectively remove our rose-colored glasses, no meaningful, sustainable progress will be made toward eradicating racism in all it forms. 

Should the wisdom of age be valued in adoption?

The three things I desperately needed as a child growing up in a home fraught with alcoholism and spousal abuse were peace, love, and understanding.  I think that is all any child seeks.

Now at 61, single, and embodying much of what my parents lacked, I’m trying to adopt a foster child of color between the ages of 5 and 11.  Given all I heard about the dire need for adopting parents I thought it would be relatively easy, but after 16 months of waiting without any real prospects I’m left with the suspicion that my age, race and marital status may be issues.

Of course, at first glance, I would not appear to be the ideal candidate, but I believe children principally respond to human qualities, not age, race, or marital status. 

Although I am older than most parents with young kids, I am in ideal health, top physical condition, very active, eat healthy, never smoked, and drink moderately.  Conversely, my young parents chain smoked, drank excessively, and had poor diets.  My father died at 60 from renal failure likely the result of drinking and my mother died at 70 from emphysema caused by smoking.

Admittedly, my life span with a child growing into adulthood may be shorter than younger parents, but longevity is not as important as other criteria required to successfully raise a child. 

Although by no means am I rich, I am financially comfortable.  I’m past the stage where one’s career is a preoccupation and a source of stress in a household.  I work from the home so in many respects a child will have more parental face time with me than many families with two working parents.  And most importantly, I have the wisdom, maturity, and self-awareness that often comes with age.  All this can benefit a child enormously in the formative years, particularly a troubled, traumatized, neglected child. 

The only carefree period in my childhood was living in a single parent household for five years when my parents temporarily separated.  With divorce rates soaring today, you could argue that certain single parents offer more peace and stability than some married ones.

My interest in transracial adoption is probably not helping my prospects either.  And that’s somewhat understandable.  No one can expect minority communities to stand up and applaud a white society who enslaves and oppresses them for centuries, and now wants to ride in as heroes and rescue their children.

But the facts remain that children of color accounted for more than half the children entering foster care in the U.S. in 2011 according to Childwelfare.gov,  And twenty-seven percent were African American, double the percentage in the general population.

A new study, titled "Race for Results," conducted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that Asian and white children were far better equipped for success than American Indians, blacks*, and Latinos.  The study described the challenges facing African-American children as "a national crisis."

Although meaningful, sustainable social change is clearly and desperately needed, such change in America takes time and political willpower.  Children who need homes cannot afford to wait for the glacial process to occur. 

Social workers should welcome white parents who understand that racism and discrimination still exist in America and that raising a child of color will not be easy.   White parents cannot ignore black history or culture, nor isolate a child from the black community any more than they can change the color of the child’s skin.  But, any good parent, regardless of color, instills in their children the skills, insight, values, and self-esteem to cope with any weaknesses they have or obstacles they face, including racism.  

A black journalist, Darron T. Smith, in his Huffington Post blog sums it up when he says, "I remain hopeful that white adopting parents have the desire, courage and conviction to move beyond the racial frame that ‘race no longer matters in American society' and look to understand the two worlds your adoptive children will inevitably live in. Merely raising and loving a child whose racial makeup is different from the birth parents is not enough to counterbalance any societal stigma a child of color might potentially face while living and existing in whiteness. If whites fail to take ownership of this problem in order to deflect any semblance of racism away from them, then we as a society further fail in our efforts to instill wholesale change."

Are we a modern day lynch mob?

In 1970 President Nixon was lambasted in the press for declaring mass murderer Charles Manson guilty before a jury deliberated.  34 years later President Obama comments on the guilt of Donald Sterling, owner of the L.A. Clippers, before the NBA had investigated his racist remarks and few people thought twice about it.  That's how far our sense of justice and open-mindedness has declined.

Although the evidence was quite damming against Sterling, as it was in Manson's case, our system of justice assumes innocence until guilt is proven.  And although Sterling was not being tried in a court of law, media, politicians and respected institutions like the NBA should respect that rule of law.

Today, incited by insensitive, blood-thirsty media, the public often unwittingly participates in a lynch mob without any deliberation.  Although the qualifying word "alleged" was frequently used in the media and by politicians when commenting on Sterling's racist remarks, their subsequent commentaries were phrased in a way that clearly assumed guilt.  Even Sterling's own basketball team turned their jerseys inside out before their playoff game last Sunday as retribution for their employer's comments.  Unless we want to be governed by vigilante justice, due process must be allowed to take place before individuals take it upon themselves to administer any form of punishment.    

The goal of our founding fathers was to protect every citizen from being falsely condemned.  Although in this case, the lynch mob turned out to be right, we have seen many cases where the rush to judgment has caused innocent people to be harmed.  Take, for example, Steve Bartman who in 2003 interfered with a foul ball that likely cost the Chicago Cubs their first World Series appearance in nearly 60 years, or Richard Jewell, the falsely accused bomber at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.

The relentless and carefully crafted news coverage vilified both men.  Bartman, though an avid Cub fan, was portrayed as a cold-hearted opportunist who cared more about catching a souvenir than seeing his team win, while Jewell was painted as a wannabe police officer who desperately yearned for hero status.  As it turned out in Jewell's case he was a legitimate hero, but the media had vilified  him to the extent he could never recover.  And Bartman who retreated into the shadows has repeatedly turned down very lucrative media offers clearly demonstrating he is not the insensitive, opportunist he was made out to be.

Sterling should be punished, but I believe the severity of the NBA's disciplinary action was influenced by mob rule and not a fair, objective look at the evidence and circumstances behind the racist remarks.  It appeared to be a political decision to pacify a blood-thirsty public and protect their business interests, rather than serve justice.  They would have been sticking their own necks in the noose if they did otherwise.

I suspect few people have listened to the full nine minute recording posted earlier this week on TMZ, a celebrity website.  Instead, they rely on the media to feed them sound bites that ultimately shape their views.  None of us would want to be judged in such way. 

Racism is still rampant in America.  It just takes more clandestine form or lies deep within our psyches.  Participating in lynching a man like Sterling can serve to falsely absolve the vigilantes of any form of racism.  Sterling, although clearly a racist at heart, was just unfortunate enough to have his private remarks secretly recorded.  Can any of us say we have never said anything incriminating in the heat of a private argument that we would never express in public or act upon?  Sterling is just the villain de jour served up by the media to make the rest of us feel righteous.

Furthermore, very few if any in the media have been commenting on the impropriety of leaking a surreptitiously recorded private conversation or the angry context in which it was recorded.  Given the delicate subject of racism, it is easier and a bigger crowd-pleaser to crucify someone than to do investigative, balanced journalism.  Gone are the days when media sought truth and fairness if it ever existed in the first place.

Innocent until proven guilty is the corner stone of what makes our justice system so unique, yet it has always been corrupted when the media, politicians, and the public act as judge, jury, and executioner.  Unfortunately, media today determines public opinion which in turn influences those in authority who will ultimately pass judgment.  The degree of Sterling's guilt is not the point.  It's that we don't allow due process to take place before the noose is tied. 

DIGITAL IMAGES: BLESSING OR CURSE

The holidays have traditionally been a time to capture family images to share now and in years to come when they become cherished mementos. But, will these keepsakes vanish in the digital age?

The immediacy and low cost of digital imagery has redefined how we capture and store family photos and home movies. No longer are we encumbered by expensive rolls of film, and the time and money for processing. A Super8 movie cartridge that captured three minutes of material has been replaced by smartphones and digital cameras that can record countless high-resolution images at virtually no cost.

While we all point and shoot incessantly, our emphasis is on the convenience of capturing media and transmitting it, not the ease of viewing it in the distant future. We are capturing virtually everything regardless of merit and with little, if any, forethought. In the age of film rolls, every shot had to be carefully considered because there was a limit to how much film you could afford to shoot. As a consequence, just about every image was meaningful and we are not overwhelmed by copious amounts of material. The enormous stockpile of media we are accumulating in the digital age, coupled with the increasing pace of technological change and the lack of organization in archiving these images will pose serious challenges in the future.

Home movies taken during the childhood of someone born in the late-1980's might include VHS, SuperVHS, 8mm video, Hi8, MiniDV, DVCam, DVD's, and an huge myriad of digital file formats and codecs often unique to a certain manufacturer's software. And the tapeless, digital media probably resides on an assortment of computers, disks, and drives.

Conversely, a child born in the early 1950's would likely have just 8mm and Super8 movies to worry about. If a movie projector was retained, nothing else would be required and no format issues would apply.

Imagine the impediments a middle-age adult will face 20 or more years from now when they want to revisit childhood images. The volume of media captured while they were growing up will likely be staggering. There simply won't be enough time to watch it all. And being selective won't be an option to many in the absence of proper labeling. Hundreds maybe thousands of digital files will be hidden in the dark recesses of various computers and other storage devices if they happened to survive. And many older file formats may be unplayable.

Baby boomers today have tangible, manageable collections of snapshots and movies to revisit their childhood and share with their own children. Sure, it often does not have the visual quality of today's imagery, but a lot has to be said for its ease of retrieval. Of course, this is subject to proper preservation and cataloging as well. But, safeguarding and organizing photo albums and a shoebox full of home movies is a lot easier than organizing and saving hundreds, maybe thousands, of media files residing on a multitude of storage devices.

Many camera enthusiasts talk about consolidating their material on a common drive as storage devices get smaller and cheaper while their capacity grows. But, this is easier said then done. It requires time and self-discipline to follow through and the process is unending as more and more media accumulates.

Another potential problem is that storage devices may fail to function if they are left idle for long periods of time. This means powering up each drive periodically which can be a daunting task as more drives are acquired. These are not issues we needed to worry about a generation ago. A shoebox full of photographs would always deliver.

The digital age has a lot of merit, but individuals have to exercise some degree of self-discipline and organization in order to preserve the imagery that will enrich their lives, their children's lives and future generations to come.

NEWTOWN RESIDENT BLAMES MEDIA FOR SCHOOL TRAGEDY

Everyone deals with shock and grief in different ways in the aftermath of events like the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings.  Some go to church, others gather near the site of the horrific event, I write.  I write in the hope that I can play a small role in preventing other communities from suffering the horror and anguish that has befallen mine.

The proliferation of guns is the obvious place to look for answers, but there have been various periods in American history when guns were more commonplace than today, yet gunslingers, frontiersmen, even gangsters didn’t bust into school houses and randomly kill our precious children.  This is as much a product of our popular culture, as it is the number of guns in our society; and mass media, principally television and video games, plays a significant role.

Media likely contributes to the means, the motive, and the state of mind necessary to carry out such heinous crimes.

It would be safe to say that a significant number of young people have killed with impunity and without remorse in the stark reality of sophisticated video games; and that the majority of Americans consume prodigious amounts of TV and motion pictures that depict killing as commonplace, dispassionate, and a natural outcome of fear, pain and anger.  Why then do we find it unimaginable that mentally unstable, impressionable Americans can indiscriminately kill masses of people in public places? 

In many respects, life has been devalued by TV and video games.  Killing is all too often justified and without remorse.  The viewer is emotionally detached from the associated pain and suffering.  This is the type of media Americans consume everyday and applaud as good entertainment, and our kids grow up watching it.

Gone are the days of ubiquitous, socially redeemable programming like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best that culminated with a valuable life-lesson at the end of every episode.  Today, we are frequently left with inane, morally corrupting messages.  Disrespectful, confrontational, or violent behavior has infected nearly every type of television programming from talk shows and sports commentaries to sitcoms, reality shows and dramas.

Media, particularly TV news, also helps provide the means for committing these murders by creating an atmosphere of irrational fear which in turn drives people to acquire weapons and fervently defend their right to do so.  The old media adage “if it bleeds it leads” the daily news is as current today as it ever was, maybe more so.  Crime stories dominate the nightly news and give viewers the false impression there is a clear and present danger to their life and property. 

Law enforcement officials reported that the alleged 20 year old shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School appeared to have used three semi-automatic weapons owned by his mother, a teacher at the school.  A troubling question is why a single, middle-aged mother, would have such an arsenal better suited for Afghanistan then one of the safest communities in Connecticut.  Irrational fear is likely the answer. 

Weapons in the home are rarely a deterrent and they have been known to be used against their owners in the course of an unarmed crime.  There are far more incidents of these guns playing a role in teen suicides, accidental deaths, and tragedies like Newtown, than in thwarting crime.  

As expected, the topic of gun control is dominating the conversation in the aftermath of Newtown and for good reason.  If virtually anyone can purchase a weapon, particularly assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, we are going to see more random mass killings.  In fact, the rate of mass shootings in America has steadily increased in the last 30 years along with the growing number of handguns according to a study conducted by Mother Jones, and the majority of mass shooter weapons were legally obtained.  Better school security, police response times, and the like cannot fully protect our children because they are vulnerable in countless other places.

The deranged perpetrators of these monstrous crimes want to display their mental anguish and wrath to the world, and media provides the worldwide forum, in other words, the motive.  The incentive is clear to these killers, the greater the number of people they kill, the greater the breadth and duration of the news coverage.  This is a fact not to be lost on future mass killers waiting in the shadows.

Gun control legislation is important, but changing the role of media and how we consume it are equally so.  If no meaningful social change comes as a result of this unthinkable horror in Newtown, then we allow these innocent victims to die in vain.

HIS AND HER WHAT?!

Few would disagree that men and women are fundamentally different in many ways and for centuries it has caused a great deal of pain and suffering for both genders. Everything from the subservience of women to women’s liberation failed to adequately address our disparities. Today, however, we are finally finding more constructive ways of dealing with it.

Much of the contemporary solution comes in the form of voluntary and equitable separation. We now have his and her cars, bathrooms, even bedrooms and cable networks, all in an effort to facilitate good will by keeping us apart in areas where irreconcilable conflicts often arose. If we just carry this social experiment a step further we could make great strides in solving the congestion on our roads, especially our highways. Here, unbeknownst to some, the battle of the sexes rages on every day largely contributing to the traffic we all experience.

Men are more aggressive by nature and love their machines. For many, a powerful and fast motor vehicle is a steroid-like boost, a natural extension of their physical prowess. Consequently, they tend to see driving as an attribute and put a great deal of thought into it. The time it takes to drive from one point to another is a measuring stick of their worthiness and a source of pride.

Women on the other hand are usually far less aggressive and more uncomfortable with powerful machines. They tend to be cautious, some might say skittish, behind the wheel, especially at high speeds with towering 16 wheelers sharing the road. They put as much thought into driving as they do walking and breathing. It’s simply not a topic that warrants much attention. And shaving a couple of minutes off a trip is meaningless.

The way men and women commonly hold a steering wheel illustrates some of these fundamental differences. Women typically hold the wheel with both hands, usually in the traditional 10 and 2 o’clock positions, suggesting a cautious, defensive-driving approach, and I might add, a method recommended by motor vehicle departments across the country. Conversely, men more often than not, use one hand conveying a nonchalant, confident manner.

The volatile mixture of genders and their polar driving behaviors can trigger an escalating chain of events on the highway that often culminates with bumper-to-bumper traffic. An aggressive male can make a cautious female more tentative, and conversely a tentative female can make a male driver more aggressive. It doesn’t much matter which comes first. Like nuclear fission, once it starts it’s difficult to stop.

This is by no means an indictment of either sex. The purpose is only to demonstrate we are different and these differences contribute greatly to traffic congestion.

Now imagine for a moment that there were his and her highways. Of course, this can’t be implemented everywhere, at least not without spending a great deal of money, but our tri-state area is perfectly suited for this unorthodox social experiment.

Take for example the New Jersey Turnpike. For a long stretch, the highway divides in both north and southbound directions, one side for cars and trucks, and the other exclusively for cars. Why not make one side for male drivers and trucks, and the other for women? Separating women and trucks is an added bonus since the former tends to get especially uncomfortable among big rigs.

The same approach could be applied to parallel highways like the Merritt and Hutchinson River Parkways which run close to Interstate 95. Give the Merritt and the Hutch to the women, and 95 to the men and truck drivers.

Long Island highways are also ideal. For instance, the Cross Island Parkway and Clearview Expressway, the Long Island Expressway and Northern State Parkway, and the Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways. All three pairs run parallel and close to one another.

Pride of ownership and healthy competition could soon develop encouraging better driving on everyone’s part. At the very least, the traffic patterns on our respective highways might help settle once and for all who is the better driver.

Granted, it’s a wild idea, but all things considered, it would be heaven for both sexes. No harm in dreaming.

ASSESSING THE BABY BOOMER LEGACY

My generation, the baby boomers, are arguably the most celebrated generation in American history. Time Magazine named us Person of the Year in 1966. As youths we fostered peace, love and understanding principally by helping to end the Vietnam War, and we played an influential role in the civil rights and environmental movements. But, did we live up to the high ideals we preached in the four decades since then?

As young people, we vehemently criticized all institutions of power from our parents to government. The lyrics of Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are a-Changin’ characterized what appeared to be the pervasive sentiment of the baby boomers at the time when he said the “old road” of our “mothers and fathers” is “rapidly agin.”

But, did we really abandon the “old road” of our parents, and take a “new one”?  Now that we have occupied the seats of power in government, business, academia, and media, and are transitioning to our golden years, it’s the ideal time to evaluate ourselves by the same standards we judged our parents.

The centerpiece of our legacy to date has to be the peace movement. However, although the Vietnam War was brought to an end, the U.S. has essentially remained in international conflicts ever since including Beirut, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And, if truth be told, we had an ulterior motive in our protests of the Vietnam War. Our necks were in the noose since the military draft was still in full effect and any one of us could suddenly find ourselves fighting an unpopular war in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Once the draft ended, war suddenly became more palatable and collectively the baby boomers fell silent in the face of war ever since.

While American deaths have plummeted since Vietnam largely due to weak adversaries, smart weapons, and quicker and better battlefield medical attention; civilian mortality rates are disturbingly high. We were outraged by events that unfolded in My Lai, yet civilian deaths in Iraq alone are estimated to be well over 100,000 since 2003, even by U.S. government measurements. The folly and futility of the Vietnam War are now being replayed simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The record of racial equality in America is also a bit disappointing. Although the 1960’s brought about desegregation, the plight of people of color has not improved much in the decades that followed. The gap between rich and poor has only grown more pronounced, and the digital divide makes the disadvantaged ever more challenged.

Our incarceration rate is the highest in the world. In 2005, for the first time in our history, more than one in 100 Americans was behind bars with a disproportionate amount being people of color. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009, even though they represented only 13.6% of the U.S. population according to the 2010 census. One in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 are behind bars.

Today we teeter on repealing or amending much of the environmental legislation of the past four decades at the expense of the environment and to the benefit of big business. We have shunned global efforts that deal with atmospheric threats refusing to support the Convention on Biodiversity treaty at the Earth Summit in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. 193 nations ratified the former and the U.S. remains the only signatory out of 192 nations not to have ratified the latter.

All-in-all we have behaved no differently than our parents. Our lofty aspirations and criticism of our parents’ generation were hypocritical in light of what we accomplished. War is pervasive as ever, the plight of people of color is still alarming, and we shun world and scientific opinion in the face of the greatest environmental threats mankind ever confronted. Some of the problems that remain as we fade into our senior years may not be entirely of our doing, but much of it is. Given that we preached such high ideals and lambasted our parents in the process, I think all of us baby boomers owe our parents an apology, not because our principles were wrong, but because we were wrong about ourselves.

HELPING TO END LINGERING SEGREGATION IN AMERICA

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought an end to segregation in America, but economic segregation is stronger than ever today. Economic status coupled with some discrimination generally leads to separate neighborhoods for people of color and separate schools for their children. For many children of color, lifelong poverty is a fait accompli before they reach adulthood. By that time, they have dropped so far behind more economically advantaged white children to make it virtually impossible for many to compete for college admissions, let alone afford it. Their financial future is nearly preordained to be no better than their parents.

You can point the finger of blame anywhere you want, but the bottom line is that children have no say in their fate and are innocent victims of an educational system that usually fails to afford them the tools and resources to compete academically. By and large, schools in poor communities, especially urban areas, are far below the standards of predominantly white, suburban schools. Many good teachers and administrators naturally gravitate to the highest paying school districts.

Combine inferior schools with a child’s home environment and the disparity widens even further. Household items that advantaged children take for granted like computers are not so prevalent in poorer homes. Because of the cycle of poverty, parents or guardians are far more likely to be poorly educated and therefore unequipped to help their children with school work. Children of color are far more likely to be growing up in dysfunctional households. Many are being raised by grandparents. According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services almost two-thirds of the children in foster care are African-American, American Indian, or Hispanic.

Trying to quickly change the home environment of poor, minority children would be a daunting task, but making their schools better is clearly within our societal capacity to do.

We can apply some of the same methods used to keep our military at near-peak readiness. The United States maintains five federally funded military academies: The United States Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the Air Force Academy, and the Merchant Marine Academy. The guiding principal behind these institutions is to create a steady infusion of talented officers to help keep the military at its best. Student cadets attend these military colleges tuition-free with room and board in exchange for several years of military or military-related service.

Why not create five federal teaching academies where our nation’s best teacher and administrator candidates could receive a free education in exchange for five years of service in poorer K-12 schools throughout the country? Each academy could be focused on a particular field of study from arts and humanities to science and engineering. Within five years we could have 25,000 or more talented educators working in schools they would otherwise not consider. The whole educational makeup of underfunded schools in poor communities would be transformed and energized.

The military and its related military academies protect our economic and strategic interests worldwide. These teaching academies would protect these same interests here at home by creating more and better educated high school graduates who would go on to college and beyond. In today’s global economy, the demand for talented individuals is more essential than ever if a nation is to remain strong. We have already seen the emerging power of countries like China, Brazil, and India largely due to their large, well educated workforces.

Furthermore, by better educating the poor we could begin to break the cycle of poverty that has plagued our nation for over a century, thereby reducing the cost of social programs like welfare. A study by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services agency found that “families living in poverty were the least likely to have resources available to them” and “the more compromised these families are, the more likely it is that they eventually will come into contact with the child welfare or some other social system.”

A study conducted by the State University of New York - Binghamton found that three decades ago the U.S. prison population was about one-eighth its current size and that people of color today account for more than 70 per cent of our prison population. Poverty breeds crime and creating better schools in poor neighborhoods will offer young adults viable and lucrative career paths other than crime. This, in turn, will reduce the cost of running the largest prison system in the entire world.

Any child given a good education and a fair chance to compete will acquire two essential ingredients for success: hope and self-esteem. Who can argue with a more equitable approach to education that helps children in need, reduces the cost of social services and prisons, and creates a more vibrant and powerful economy?

Jeff Gewert Sandy Hook, CT © Copyright 2012, Jeff Gewert

HOPE FOR DISADVANTAGE KIDS WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT EXPECT IT

No one can blame a child in a poor community who fails to achieve certain academic standards when faced with huge inequalities in the quality of education. Therefore, you would think there would be a relative consensus that we as a society should do more to help these children.

Instead, the blame game takes center stage. The middle-class and above often blame the parents and guardians of these children characterizing them as unmotivated, lazy, and entitlement-dependent. The parents on the other hand frequently hold the schools and government accountable. No matter where the blame is directed or where it rests, the fact remains the children are innocent.

These kids have enough going against them. The average middle-class child has a relatively stable home environment, well educated parents, some degree of family wealth, and a solid support network. None of this exists in many poor households.

If government with societal support could sustain comprehensive, concerted, and substantive programs to give children the education they need to compete, a whole generation could rise out of the perpetual cycle of poverty. And the cost would likely to be less than the parade of half-hearted, disingenuous, band-aid solutions implemented since the New Deal.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to happen anytime soon, in fact, it may never happen. There is hope, however. Having mentored three young boys over the past 12 years, as well as producing several video documentaries about underserved children who succeed in adulthood, I have seen one common thread that applies to just about every success. That thread is a strong-willed parent or guardian who stresses education, while guiding the child with consistency, tenacity, encouragement, and love.

These parents (hereafter to include guardians) relentlessly police their children to make absolutely certain they are always doing their school work and building other life skills necessary to succeed. Of course, not every parent has the wherewithal to do this, but the ones who do cannot afford to pass up an opportunity to help ensure their child has a better life. This is no easy task for many, particularly for grandparents who should be enjoying their golden years, or single, working mothers who toil long hours in grueling jobs.

In the absence of these guiding parents, children come home from school and do nothing except watch TV, play video games, and interact with other children who are often reinforcing negative behavior. Summers are spent much the same way. All this while advantaged kids are far more likely to be doing their homework and honing their academic skills in the summer, thereby gaining an even greater advantage.

Surprisingly, some parents simply acquiesce to the will of the child, while others allow their children to participate in decisions that affect their future, at an age when they are incapable of understanding the ramifications. If given the chance, a child will invariably make the wrong decision.

After school programs, educational summer camps, and mentors can help, but they will not bear a lot of fruit without a dedicated parent at home. Furthermore, non-profits are often under-funded, and consequently understaffed and mismanaged. The level of support parents assume their children are getting may not be the case. And mentors are part-time and do not typically get involved in day-to-day academic support.

Like it or not, the schools, non-profits, and mentors are not going to have any profound affect on a child unless the parent nurtures a home environment conducive to learning and shelters the child from the negative influences of media and the neighborhood. Only then will a child have any real chance of breaking free of poverty.

© Copyright 2012, Jeff Gewert

AN EXTREME MAKEOVER

A new dawn has come and yet many Americans remain fast asleep. September 11th should have awakened the nation, but for whatever inexplicable reasons we fell deeper asleep.

In the fall of 2001 as the nation patriotically mobilized for an immediate retaliatory invasion of Afghanistan there was little dialogue on what root cause could have precipitated such horrific acts. Why would so many men knowingly sacrifice their own lives to harm others? Politicians and the media were eerily silent on the subject and for good reason. It may not have seemed the ideal time to talk about bad things our government does overseas that foster such hatred and resentment.

Instead, we singled out a highly vulnerable nation in which to exact our revenge and bombed it even further into the Stone Age. There were equally credible suspects, some might argue more credible, like Pakistan, a principal training ground for radical Islamic thought, and Saudi Arabia where at least 15 of the 19 attackers were citizens, as well as Bin Laden. The former is a nuclear power and the latter an oil rich nation which made it too risky to U.S. interests to accuse and offend, let alone invade them. Ironically and tragically, the invasion of Afghanistan only fostered more hatred. The subsequent invasion of Iraq in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that never materialized only exacerbated the bad blood.

Most Americans I encounter see their government as impeccably righteous and truthful, particularly when it comes to global affairs. To them, we are the savior of oppressed people and the greatest philanthropic nation in history. Nations should be grateful for our patronage, not antagonistic. But, in reality we take far more than we give, particularly from weaker nations, and we don’t distinguish between good and evil when we ally ourselves with leaders who will champion our economic and strategic interests. These despots usually profit immensely for their allegiance while their people suffer. Consider just a few: Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and the House of Saud. Granted some of these relationships soured over time, but only because these despots stopped pandering to U.S. interests, not because they oppressed their people.

Understandably, our citizens see things almost entirely from our government’s point-of-view. The seed of misinformation is first planted in our schools where children are taught a much idealized version of U.S. history. Our genocidal policy toward Native Americans, the Jim Crow laws that segregated blacks and whites for nearly a century after the slaves were freed, the frequent suspension of free speech in times of war, and the CIA’s overthrow of democratically elected leaders to install brutal dictators are just a few chapters in our history that receive little, if no mention in these text books.

Misinformation is also fostered by politicians. Government is supposed to be transparent within reason, but today it operates in unprecedented secrecy under the guise of “national security” undermining the very Constitution and principles that govern this nation. The “War on Terrorism” only broadens the justification for clandestinity with no apparent time limit since terrorism has been around as long as civilization itself.

Narrowly focused, biased, sensationalized, and often jingoistic news media further impedes informed and objective thought.

The Freedom of Information Act and controversial organizations like WikiLeaks help uncover the truth, but people by and large don’t want to hear the uncomfortable truths. Concluding that terrorists are motivated by jealousy of our wealth and freedoms, or simply religious zealots ignores reality.

We have been an aggressive nation ever since the American Revolution. “Speak softy and carry a big stick” was not unique to Teddy Roosevelt’s time. We have never cared who we covertly overthrow or with whom we ally if it benefits our national interests. When people of other nations live in squalor while the U.S. builds its hegemony by exploiting their natural resources and enriching the oppressive regimes who allow such exploitation, it’s inevitable that the victimized citizens will resent and ultimately hate us for this.

No nation except the British in the War of 1812, and some might argue Mexico, has ever invaded the contiguous United States. And although we have fought numerous wars in the last century there were very few times when major attacks on our soil were seriously contemplated.

The steady march of technological advancements has forever changed that. Now any individual or group with a grievance can perpetrate unspeakable harm to American citizens and property. What new mass killing device carried in a backpack or chemical agent concealed in a pocket is just around the corner in development? To think our government can protect citizens from all these threats, known and unknown, is foolhardy. The enemies are real and they cannot be effectively identified and eliminated with conventional warfare, covert acts, or compromising our Constitutional rights.

Government is not going to step-up to this challenge simply because it is heavily influenced by huge multinational corporations who profit immensely from the exploitation of weaker nations and from war itself.

The only solution can come from American citizens who seek and accept the truth. Our lives, our very way of life depend on it. No longer can we afford to remain in denial about our own acts of aggression and allow our government to brazenly “shoot up” the world. This is a public image problem, not a conventional war against a sovereign nation. We can either undergo an extreme make-over to win back the hearts and minds of global citizens or learn the hard way.

A FISH OF A DIFFERENT COLOR

The industrial revolution ushered in a confidence and arrogance that mankind has maintained ever since. Man could do anything he set his mind to and nothing in the natural world could stand in our way. We moved mountains, connected oceans, defied gravity, harnessed electricity, and split atoms. Our preternatural abilities seemed limitless.

There were, of course, hiccups in this march of progress. The Titanic, the Johnstown flood, the Hindenburg, Bhopal, and Chernobyl are some notable examples.

Although man’s quest for knowledge has fostered many innovations, the drive for profits is what commonly gets us into trouble. Making the quick buck or keeping shareholders happy is what often fuels the brashness that can turn innovation into disaster.

As the sophistication of our technology continues to advance the risks of such recklessness become ever more ominous. Will we ultimately meddle too much with nature? Global warning and nuclear weapons clearly indicate we are pushing the envelope.

The growing catastrophe in the Gulf is a “live” example. British Petroleum (B.P.) and the oil industry in general have developed the most sophisticated methods and equipment to extract oil from the seabed a mile down, and yet not much thought and resources were devoted to addressing potential problems that could arise. In fact, they audaciously ignore such dangers in pursuit of profits and shareholder dividends.

Nature is so delicate and complex we may not discover all the consequences of this unfolding disaster for some time in both ecological and economic terms. No one fully understands the dynamics of submersed oil and what role currents, wind, and severe storms will play. And no one is certain how much oil is leaking and when the flow will be halted. Just how much oil is even in the well is conspicuously absent from sound bites offered by B.P. and the U.S. government. It is surely conceivable that the entire gulf could become a dead sea and ultimately spread its pollution to other shores including the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S. The impact could be cataclysmic.

One thing we do know for certain is that when mankind meddles with nature there are consequences seen and unseen. The balance and fragility of nature is not something we can boldly ignore.

What prompted this op-ed was a New York Times article about the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) considering the approval of genetically-engineered salmon. That was disturbing enough, but to find they may not require package labels identifying them as such was shocking. This secrecy is not new to the F.D.A. We are already consuming genetically-engineered crops in our processed foods without knowing it.

The wisdom of age has taught me that two parties that cannot be trusted to always tell the public the truth are big business and politicians. Unfortunately, these are the two principal lines of defense in ensuring public safety.

You could argue that lack of government oversight of offshore drilling practices was largely responsible for the catastrophe in the Gulf. Now you have to ask whether the F.D.A. will exercise the proper vigilance or even whether it has the wherewithal to determine whether there is any potential risk from eating genetically-engineered foods. Is the public so desperate for more salmon that we should take this risk no matter how small?

According to the Times article, Ronald L. Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty Technologies, the company that developed these salmon, stated that these fast-growing fish would help supply the world’s food needs using fewer resources. I find it hard to believe that he and his company, which stand to profit enormously from F.D.A. approval, were driven by altruistic goals. Profit alone is what motivates these people and companies, and why they can pose such a threat to humanity.

Faced with such harsh realities, I want to make my own informed buying decisions as to what I consume. But if the government does not require labeling to identify genetically-engineered products we have no means to discriminate between what we may deem as healthy foods and those we see as potentially hazardous to our health.

THE RISE OF AMERICAN-IMPOSED DESPOTISM

The majority of Americans probably derive a great deal of pride when they hear of our governments efforts to propagate democracy around the world. We hail ourselves as liberators and apostles of freedom. A look at the record, however, reveals a different story.

Not only do we support despotism in many countries, our covert actions abroad give rise to more authoritarian and autocratic regimes than democracies.

American hegemony is fueled by repressive governments who conform to our ideology, enrich American corporations, and/or offer strategic advantages, and when necessary, subordinate their own country’s interests for ours. The transitory nature of democracy makes it unlikely that these conditions would be so readily fulfilled in a free society, particularly over the long term. Despots can stay in power for decades, particularly if their power base is subsidized by American economic and military aid. This aid greatly enriches individual dictators guaranteeing their loyalty, while their populace suffers.

Our own government acknowledges supporting many of these despots, although such admissions usually come decades after the fact. And what is typically underplayed or not mentioned at all is our role in covertly overthrowing popular, democratically-elected leaders in order to install tyrants.

In 1953, the democratically-elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown with the CIA’s tacit assistance, and the emperor of Iran, otherwise know as the shah, was returned to the throne where he brutalized his people for another 24 years. This long span of tyranny helped spark the Iranian revolution and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. The chief impetus for Mossaddegh’s removal was his desire that the Iranian people share in the revenues Western countries derived from their monopolization of Iranian oil fields.

In 1954, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, democratically-elected President of Guatamala was overthrown principally because his land reform threatened the interest of U.S.-based United Fruit Company. An American-backed military junta replaced him.

Salvador Allende of Chile was the first democratically elected Marxist to become president of a state in the Americas With US business interests threatened and to prevent any spread of communism during the Cold War, the US aided the installation of a military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, in 1974 who ruled with a heavy hand until 1990.

Some will say that these examples are past history and cite places like Iraq and Afghanistan as better illustrations. But, bear in mind these are works-in-progress and at this point in time they are dysfunctional, corrupt governments without broad representation and lacking any semblance of open, fair and free elections. If history tells us anything, they will both end up being autocratic, authoritarian or theocratic governments.

Even emerging democracies are not recognized by the U.S. if these democratically-elected governments do not share our political and economic agendas as was demonstrated recently in the Palestinian territory. We only recognize democracies that kowtow to the will of the U.S. which essentially undermines a country’s right of self-determination.

It is clear that democracies are not sacrosanct when it comes to covert US interference if our strategic or economic interests are at stake, and this fact gives rise to more despotism in countries who want to keep us at arm’s length. Conversely, any country where these vital interests do not come into play is virtually ignored and usually safe from our meddling.

Those democracies of interest are far more vulnerable to U.S.-instigated coups and assassinations than repressive governments who silence the opposition where we typically sow our covert seeds of revolt. I don’t think you can find a democracy who defied America’s will that has survived for any length of time, yet autocratic, authoritarian and theocratic governments do. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, among others are still around after decades of defiance to US interests.

There are two lessons to be learned by foreign governments: One, the U.S. does not really care about democracy so long as governments support our interests, often at the expense of their own natural resources and people; and two, if they do not share our economic, strategic and ideological worldview they can better protect themselves from our meddling if they brutally suppress their people.

Our Founding Fathers may have been genuine in their dream of spreading democracy around the world, but today it is only window dressing to mask our hegemony. And although the American people see their country as the symbol of democracy throughout the world, we actually do more to promote despotism than liberty and justice for all.

THEY'RE SELLING YOUR LIFE SHORT

As we anxiously hope and wait for a healthcare bill that truly fixes the system and benefits us all, we cannot lose sight of the one obstacle that makes it unlikely to happen. This obstacle is rarely mentioned by Washington politicians. Even the Obama administration that pledged to not only fix healthcare, but to reform government in general, conspicuously avoids the topic. I’m referring to campaign finance reform. Although it’s sometimes talked about by candidates seeking office in Washington, including Barrack Obama, once elected the talk stops. The reason seems obvious. With few exceptions, you cannot get elected or reelected without money and/or endorsements from special interests. And these powerful supporters expect a return on their investment. Before newly elected politicians even arrive in the nation’s Capital most have conflicts of interest.

When legislation to fix systemic issues like healthcare fails, the tendency is to blame the other political party, and that’s exactly what elected officials want. The overwhelming majority of them, regardless of party, are cut from the same mold. They are ambitious opportunists who know how to manipulate public opinion. These masters of subterfuge foster political bickering to draw attention away from their own inability or unwillingness to affect positive change in America.

Most likely, the dismal state of healthcare and the economy will force Congress and the White House to pass something, but the powerful grip of the insurance and healthcare industries will make certain it is a watered down version of what it needs to be.

A truly courageous President or Congress could radically change the system if they bucked big money and did what was in the best interest of American citizens, but this could jeopardize their own political future. Politicians cannot rise to such heights in Washington without incredible ambition and drive, and yet these same qualities make it difficult for them to do what’s right if it means risking the lifeblood of campaign contributions.

The corrupting influence of big money is quite obvious when you consider that as the most powerful and richest nation on the planet our healthcare system is tragically deficient when compared to other countries. The United Nations World Population Prospects report for the period 2005-2010 ranks the U.S. as 38 in terms of life expectancy. The CIA’s assessment is even worse. Their 2009 World Factbook ranks us number 50. People in countries like Greece, Iceland, Australia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are expected to live longer than Americans. Few things matter more to people than the duration of life itself, and yet our elected officials put their own political longevity ahead of the lives of those they serve.

The influence of money on Washington is further evidenced by the impunity tobacco companies have enjoyed since their product was identified as a health risk over a half-century ago. Tobacco remains the number one cause of preventable disease and death in America. Only a corrupt system would allow a product to be manufactured, promoted and sold that addicts teenagers, kills over 400,000 U.S. citizens a year, and costs taxpayers upwards of $100 billion in annual healthcare related costs.

Even though legislation was recently passed that gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the advertising, marketing and manufacturing of tobacco products, the ugly truth is they can still sell a product that kills. Nothing illustrates the corruption of money more than that.

The convenient response to all this is to lay the blame completely on elected officials and certainly most of the responsibility rests with them. But, the reality is that politicians will do whatever is in their best interests so long as voters passively sit back and allow it to happen. We are the ones who put them in office and we have the ability to remove them from power.

Much of what plagues America, including the subprime mortgage crisis and the bailouts, can be traced in some form to the influence of large corporations, both national and multinational. No comprehensive, meaningful, and sustainable change will come to Americans unless the tentacles of big money are severed and the best place to start is where it all begins - campaign finance.

KIDS NEVER LISTEN TO THEIR PARENTS - YEAH, RIGHT!

It's commonly said that kids never listen to their parents, yet nothing could be further from the truth. They posture their independence through relatively meaningless actions like clothing, hairstyles, and the like, but they usually don't rebel in profound ways.

The overwhelming majority of us, regardless of how much we quarreled with and rebelled against our parents, are today products of their lessons whether we like it or not. Our ethics, biases, religious beliefs, even our political persuasion commonly have their fingerprints all over them. The irony is that when children become adults and are afforded their first opportunity to truly breakout, they don't. How they think and behave usually mirrors how their parents do.

Most intriguing of all is the inheritance of religion. Our parents introduced us to the deity who governs our life and is the custodian of our afterlife. It is usually a bedrock belief simply because our parents told us so, followed by years of reinforcement by the religious institution.

How many adults do you know who questioned the religion they inherited? How many do you know that actually explored other faiths? How many do you know that changed? The reality is that if we are brought up Christian, we are Christian. If we are raised Moslem, we are Moslem. We are fervent believers of what our parents wanted us to believe.

No one seems to stop and think that we could just as easily be fervent Sikhs, as fervent Jews. It was not a decision that came from childhood rebellion or even deep thought and exploration. We were simply rubber stamped by our parents. I think we should each reflect on this next time we consider our god as the true one and see followers of other faiths as inferior, at times even threatening.

AMERICAN LICENSE TO TORTURE & MURDER

We tarnish the shining ideals we say we honor and protect as Americans when we allow our government and military to torture and murder suspects in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. This barbaric treatment of suspects is what you expect from desperate totalitarian regimes and police states, not the richest, most powerful and securest nation on the planet. We frequently portray ourselves as the champion of what is right and just, but when we feel the least bit threatened we become as ugly as the nations we demonize. We have in many respects become the terrorists ourselves, rounding up suspects and slowly beating them to death. It is unimaginable to me that any compassionate, free-thinking American citizen would not cry out for justice and for an abolishment of such heinous practices.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATION DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICA

All children in America will never be afforded an equal chance of succeeding in this world so long as the quality of education is so overwhelmingly determined by the individual wealth of each community. The best teachers and administrators are naturally going to gravitate to the school systems offering the highest salaries. The difference in pay scales can be alarming. A mediocre, physical education instructor in a middle-class community on Long Island can make double to triple what a gifted language arts instructor might get in a poor New York City community.

Wealth also brings better school programs and better educational tools as well. High-speed computers and other technology are pervasive in middle-class schools and very scarce in poor ones. Tutoring and other after-school programs in general are vastly better in affluent neighborhoods.

Much of the foundation of a good education begins at home. Again the disparity between rich and poor is even more pronounced. A typical middle-class kid lives in a sate neighborhood in a nice home being raised by a reasonably stable family with educated parents who possess the wherewithal to monitor and guide their young ones. On the other hand, many poor children grow up in dangerous neighborhoods, terrible housing, in broken families, and parents or guardians with little or no education, some do not even speak English. Even if these parents or guardians appreciate the value of education, they do not have the tools at their disposal to help their children at home.

Access to computers, calculators and other technological tools in middle-class homes are as common as milk in the refrigerator, while they are virtually non-existent in poor homes.

As a “C” student growing up in a middle-class community I know the value of these household advantages. My verbal skills were constantly being drilled into my head at home and reinforced simply by being around other educated peers in the community. You could not help but learn to communicate well. A poor child, on the other hand, surrounded by a myriad of languages including Ebonics is already at a tremendous disadvantage.

So how do you fix this uneven playing field? Before answering that, let me first say that nothing will work if the American public does not accept and embrace the fact that poor children are disadvantaged and be truly committed to addressing the problem with the tenacity and sacrifice we apply to going to war.

We seem to allocate a disproportionately high amount of our national resources to addressing what lies outside our borders. Just think of all the time and money we invest in space exploration and the relentless pursuit of new and better military weapons to be used against foreign enemies - real or imagined, and what impact these same resources could have on the quality of education for all of us.

I have two ideas for addressing the problem of education, one where we can emulate professional sports and the other the defense community. Of course, many readers will say both are unrealistic and maybe they are right. My reason for posing them is not to say whether they can be adopted in America, it is only to demonstrate that there are ways to solve the disparity in education if we have the will to do so. Surely we have the resources.

Professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey have all adopted a salary cap on how much each team can spend in total on their players. The goal is to give each team a relatively equal chance of winning. This prevents teams with disproportionately high revenues and payrolls from dominating their respective sports. The quality of the players are the raw material or commodity that principally dictates success or failure, just like faculty and administrators in each school system largely determine the success or failure of their school population. The idea is that although some teams may have to sacrifice a little, it makes the entire league stronger which ultimately benefits all teams.

So why not apply such a salary cap to each community’s school system regardless of their individual wealth? Like professional sports, some communities would have to make modest concessions, but in the end the entire nation would be enriched.

This would have to be applied to private schools as well to prevent an abandonment of public schools in affluent communities and a rise in private schools to circumvent these caps. The federal government would have to oversee and enforce this policy. Of course, there would be an uproar from wealthy communities, unions, and the like; but the bottom-line is that no individual or school system would suffer much if any of a decline in wages or education respectively, while the poorer communities would see a incredible improvement. Even if an affluent school system had a slight decline in the quality of their teaching staff, surely it could be off-set by their well educated parents at home.

The other idea borrows from our nation’s military service academies like West Point and Annapolis. These federal institutions offer a free, high-quality education in which each graduate has to pay back this debt to the country by serving in the armed forces for a predetermined period of time. This insures a steady influx of talented individuals to make sure our military is always at near optimum readiness.

Why not create an education academy for future teachers and administrators where graduates pay back their debt by working a set number of years in poor school systems with their salaries subsidized by the federal government?

Whether you agree with these proposals or not, one thing is certain: If the country truly desired to help poor children succeed and escape the spiral of poverty we have the means and resources necessary to do it. We just don’t seem to have the heart. It’s about time the public and the politicians stopped placing the blame here and there, and considered that the victims of our unfair education system are helpless children. They have no say in the quality of their education which largely determines success or failure in life, and yet they have to live with its consequences for a lifetime and pass this legacy on to their own children.

FUTILITY OF AMERICAN METHODS OF WARFARE

After a stalemate in the Korean War and a humiliating defeat in Vietnam the U.S. has been very selective in who it invades concentrating exclusively on very weak countries who have few if any allies. This is clearly evident when you look at our military interventions since Vietnam: Dominican Republic, 1965; Lebanon,1982–84; Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-91; Somalia, 1992-94; Bosnia, 1995; Kosovo, 1999; Afghanistan, 2001 to present; and Iraq, 2003 to present. All these countries combined could not even pose a formidable threat to the U.S. Although overwhelmingly one-sided we are still careful not to commit massive amounts of ground troops on the battlefront. Instead, we unleash high-tech weaponry from a safe distance far beyond the enemy’s ability to strike back. The opposing side suffers massive casualties, many of which are civilians, while we suffer relatively few. The American public supports these conflicts so long as our casualties are kept to a minimum. There is little or no consideration of the death and destruction inflicted on the other side. We seem to measure human life on different scales. American lives are far more valuable than the ones we kill - even if they are civilians and not our enemies.

Many Americans are still under the naive impression that high-tech weaponry somehow distinguishes good people from bad, innocent civilians from combatants. The number of CIVILIAN casualties in Iraq clearly tells a different story. Estimates through 2005 vary considerably. President Bush’s own number which you have to believe is conservative at best is 30,000. Other estimates are well over 100,000! Settling on a universally accepted number is irrelevant. Even if you take Bush’s estimate, the figure is unacceptable. This is innocent human life we are talking about.

Ironically, this strategy of warfare rarely if ever culminates in complete victory. It stands to reason that we cannot expect to win the hearts and minds of a nation’s people if our actions disproportionately harm innocent civilians. Our methods are seen as barbaric, indiscriminate, and cowardly; and they are.

When you also consider that in the last 50 years we have never affected a major positive outcome in the Middle East from our meddling or incursions, why do we expect anything good to come from Iraq? Why did we ever? It’s already clear that the war is becoming very unpopular here at home and that we inevitably will leave Iraq in turmoil, while also managing to alienate much of the global community.

Our record in the Middle-East illustrates that we do not understand the region very well. Our policy and vision repeatedly fail. We support the Shah of Iran whose repressive regime gives rise to the Islamic Fundamentalist movement. Suddenly, America is held hostage. We tilt our support toward Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and Iraq later invades Kuwait. We back the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets and we get the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It’s clear that when we meddle in the affairs of Persian states we are unable to effectively predict the outcome.

To further our current interests in the Middle East, we now ally ourselves with a dictator of an Islamic country, Pakistan, who was instrumental in the Taliban’s rise to power and a country who was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998 in the face of international condemnation. Pakistan’s cooperation with us could further polarize their sharply divided country and conceivably put nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists. It’s just more of the same - deal with the devil for swift, political gratification while ignoring the likelihood of negative, long-term repercussions.

Years from now after leaving Iraq, the people there will still be suffering, yet their adversity won’t even be on our radar. The public’s focus will be on other topics orchestrated by what politicians and the media deem important to their own selfish interests; and few Americans will be any wiser.

STEAL FROM THY NEIGHBOR - IT'S LEGAL!

When you consider all the types of personal property you might own, real estate would have to be considered one of the most unlikely to be stolen from you. The truth is it is relatively easy to do and the law condones it. The legal statute, called adverse possession, is an ancient English common law established for an agrarian society to help insure farmland was used to its fullest capacity, thereby benefiting the overall community. In simplistic terms, if one landowner was not utilizing a portion of their land, a neighbor could occupy it, put it to productive use, and ultimately claim it if certain conditions were met.

In today’s modern, non-agrarian economy the statute serves no purpose except to allow unscrupulous individuals to legally “steal” from innocent, unsuspecting land owners. Incredibly, the statute remains on the books of most states today.

The law in New York State essentially says that any individual can claim the land of another provided they have exclusively, continuously and openly occupied and maintained the property for ten years. This turned everything I thought I knew about American justice upside down - the victim is punished and the thief rewarded.

Our nightmare began in 2001 seven years after we moved into a two-bedroom bungalow in Pound Ridge, New York. While considering a small addition on our house, we became aware that our neighbor's fence did not follow the true boundary line. The encroachment was significant depriving us of 30 feet or more of our pond frontage. Surprisingly, our 1994 land survey required by the bank when mortgaging the house did not recognize it! For years we just assumed the fence was in its proper place.

We promptly informed our neighbors, Ron and Patricia Lee, by certified letter and in a neighborly gesture gave them permission to leave the fence where it was, at least for the time being, but made it clear that we did not relinquish our right to that land. This is considered an inexpensive, yet effective way in some states of terminating the statutory period necessary for adverse possession. Some jurisdictions recommend using a process server, rather than mailing it.

Their response came two years later in a terse letter stating they would "fully assert their right" to our land through adverse possession. They noted that our 2001 correspondence was inconsequential since their fence was allegedly erected in 1988 and the ten-year statutory period had already been met.


ANTI UP IF YOU WANT JUSTICE

We soon found that seeking justice is a frustrating game and that if you are not willing to ante up lots of money you cannot even play. Wealthy individuals like the Lee's leverage this to their advantage. For people like us without great wealth, the daunting prospect of a long court battle and associated legal fees can be intimidating and demoralizing. The wheels of justice turn slowly while your attorney fees rise. Fighting for what is right is not always a wise choice, particularly when you still could lose in the courts.

After failing to get any support from our title company, Continental Abstract Corporation, and the Town of Pound Ridge we reluctantly secured a lawyer. Her first call to the Lee's attorney was met with a veiled threat of years of litigation facing us and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if we challenged his client's claim to our land. One look at our humble abode would indicate we did not have the financial means to fight this for long. Though incensed by the threat, we begrudgingly proposed a property line agreement that would allow them to keep the fence in place so long as they both owned their home. If they died or sold the house, the fence would be returned to the proper line. This was curtly refused. They arrogantly wanted nothing short of outright ownership.

We wondered what could motivate people who had so much to want even more at the expense of their neighbors. Particularly, when you consider that their upscale home was just one of their weekend getaways.

Finally after writing several letters to the Lee's demanding the fence be removed, we were served with a court summons and a restraining order preventing us from touching the fence or from using this portion of our land.

Now that the dispute was in the courts, our title insurance company, Ticor Title Insurance, was obligated to represent us. Although we had already spent thousands of dollars for our personal attorney, we now had a powerful national organization behind us and hopefully no more legal fees. We soon found that the attorneys for the insurance company were not the super heroes we envisioned. Their principal interest was to minimize their labor and expenses. Ticor felt the Lee's could win and faced with years of potential litigation, they wanted to make a settlement.


PERRY MASON IS DEAD

We expressed to Ticor that we had reason to believe that the previous owner of our home, Lenore Schattner, now deceased, was best friends with the neighbors suing us. If this were true and could be proven, the Lee's could not claim hostility for the full statutory ten-year period. Sure there was hostile intent toward us for seven years, but they needed to prove they also had malice toward Schattner for three years. How could this be possible if they were good friends?

Ticor's large staff of attorneys and legal assistants could surely dig up some substantiating evidence. But, to our astonishment, they did not consider this to be their responsibility. They insisted it was our job. I grew up idolizing Perry Mason and others TV counselors who tenaciously turned over every stone until justice prevailed. Now we found ourselves being represented by what appeared to be a legal team of corporate slugs. We had two choices: Try to get evidence on our own, or pay for a high-priced attorney like Johnnie Cochran or F. Lee Bailey. We resigned ourselves to the former.


THE WEB TO THE RESCUE

After four years of going nowhere, the Internet offered the first glimmer of hope. A Google search for "Lenore Schattner" quickly began to bear fruit. I soon uncovered where and when she died through the Cornell University alumni web site where she attended school seven decades ago. This led to the New York Times web site where I found Ms. Schattner's obituary. What I discovered exceeded anything I could have fabricated in my mind. It said Schattner was survived by "her surrogate children" - the same two people suing us! How could the Lee's claim of adverse possession be deemed hostile?

The obituary also listed Englewood, N.J. as her place of birth so we gambled and paid for a researcher to visit the Bergen County Surrogates Court to see if her Will was on file. Sure enough it was and guess who was listed as the Executor? That's right - one of the Plaintiffs, Ronald Lee. His wife is referred to as Schattner's "dear friend." Furthermore, the Lee's five children were listed as beneficiaries.


THE ELUSIVENESS OF JUSTICE

Now even the insurance company thought we could win. We filed our opposing court papers and although we could not get it thrown out of court, the judge was duly impressed with the evidence and we would go to trial. But money and its intimidating power is what rules our justice system, and the Plaintiffs have plenty of it. Although the Lee's realize they stand little chance of winning, they are arrogantly threatening to continue with a long, drawn out, expensive court proceeding unless the insurance company gives them $10,000. To our chagrin, it appears Ticor will cut its loses and pay the "extortion" money. We may get our property line restored to its proper place, but has justice prevailed when the bad people profit? Sadly, I think not. Justice is often dispensed according to wealth. The winner is usually the one who is willing to throw the most cash on the table. It's a cruel poker game and you can't play if you don't have money.