Are mobile devices leading us into a Dark Age?

Many scholars attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to a slow decline in morals and values.  Will mobile devices be the source of our own decline for the same reasons?

What has always contributed to human progress has been our empathy and compassion for each another.  Good doesn’t always triumph over evil, but it does keep it in check.  And by and large, I believe compassion comes from witnessing human pain, either emotional or physical, and observing the eclectic world around us in all its forms.  But mobile devices have isolated people from their surroundings much like the feudal castles in the Dark Ages.

 

I don’t get into New York City much, but two recent visits gave me an appreciation of how disconnected people have become from one another.

The first was a Yankee game.  At the risk of sounding old, I used to appreciate the simplicity of the idle time between innings, hearing just the chatter of spectators reverberating through the stadium along with barking vendors selling hot dogs, beer, or ice cream.  Just watching others was enriching.  Today, it’s a sensory bombardment of images and sounds on jumbo screens.  People don’t see or engage each other in person.  Instead, much of what they experience is through an electronic screen, either jumbo or palm sized.

The second visit included a long trip on the subway, my first in a great many years.  Again, I used to marvel at the diversity of people sandwiched together: the interaction of a mother and her baby,  an eight-year-old boy’s idolizing glance at a cool teen walking by, or two lovers flirting.  Much of this is lost today.  There’s no interaction or observation.  It’s just a crowd of isolated people absorbed in their own handheld devices.

Many of those enthralled by these devices speak of their indispensability, but less than a decade ago their lives were fine without them.  These devices don’t address a need, they create a need, or you could say, an addiction.  As the economist Kenneth Galbraith said, “We are becoming the servants in thought, as in action, of the machine we have created to serve us." 

They are even redefining social etiquette.  People see no fault in responding to a call, email, or text while at social gatherings with family or friends.  Attendees at business conferences do not consider it rude to be reading electronic correspondences while a front-of-the-room speaker tries to engage the audience.  The technology has defined what is socially acceptable and what it not.  And it’s making us more selfish and inconsiderate.  All this has happened with alarming speed.

No longer do we challenge our minds to recall information or to simply reason.  We don’t need to think because all the supposed answers are at our fingertips.  Like the use of any type of crutch, prolonged use can actually damage the part of the body it is intended to help or support. 

Our personal experiences no longer shape our views.  Instead, they come from the limited and often biased conveyance of information through media or truncated messages on social networks. 

Losing a familiarity with one another and the diverse communities around us could lead to a desensitization of humanity and with it a loss of empathy for our fellow man.  No good can come of that.

The addiction to these devices is so pervasive and powerful, I don’t see much promise in our immediate future as bleak as that may sound.  The only hope is that people make a concerted effort to wean themselves and their children off their reliance on such devices in all areas of their lives.  Otherwise, our future is a dark one.

Life lessons a cat hater learned from cats

As a seven-year-old boy, a family cat I was affectionately holding was spooked and dug its claws into my bare chest.  The fear and distrust it created in my impressionable mind led to an escalating series of bad encounters with felines spanning nearly half a century.

Exacerbating the phobia were women in my life who had a propensity for rescuing traumatized cats while dismissing my fear and dislike of them. 

In 2007 my greatest archenemy, a feral cat with a particularly acute dislike for me, died after 14 years of uneasy cohabitation.  I finally drew the line with my partner and insisted that any future cat be handpicked by the two of us.

About a year later, we visited an animal shelter.  In a room teaming with kittens running wild, one adorable, gentle tuxedo kitten emerged as our mutual choice.  We named her Gidget.

I have always thought that cat lovers were too accommodating and that cats essentially trained their masters to conform with their way of doing things.  Consequently, I was determined to defy all cat convention and mold Gidget into my vision of the perfect feline.  I was a Pygmalion of sorts.

Gidget was taught to walk on a leash and respond to numerous commands or word cues.  Boundaries were also set which she follows religiously at least when I’m around.  Although consistency and determination packaged with love and rewards achieved amazing results, I came to realize there was a limit to what I could expect.  Gidget and I found room for compromise.

Gidget has never shown any sign of aggression - no hissing, biting, or clawing -  which was instrumental in dispelling the fears I harbored so long.    

The next kitten, a tortoiseshell, was adopted about two years later -  no, I haven’t become a hoarder.  Her name is Malibu.  The cat theme, of course, is surfing and Gidget generally likes water whether it’s getting hypnotized by ripples in her water bowl or walking in the toilet bowl.  Malibu, however, never wholeheartedly took to the idea of being a water cat, but she would complete my transformation from cat-hater to cat-lover.

At a painful emotional  time when my relationship with my companion of 23 years was in its death throes, Malibu became a constant source of laughter and companionship.  She follows me everywhere and snuggles with me in bed.  To show how far my transformation has taken me, I contort my body each evening to suit how and where she wants to sleep.  In return for such sacrifices, she keeps me grounded and optimistic at a time I might otherwise feel completely adrift and depressed.

Reflecting on what I’ve learned from both Gidget and Malibu has given me a greater understanding of human relationships.  There are so many parallels. 

Carefully choosing a partner is like picking the ideal kitten in a shelter.  There has to be an initial  connection, chemistry, and trust.

Many of us expect our partners to conform to whom we want them to be.  But, people like cats will not readily change, particularly when it goes against their nature.  We can’t alter people any more than I could insist my cats behave like dogs.  You essentially have to accept who they are or end the relationship.

Don’t take it personally when your partner cannot be exactly who you desire.  By giving them the freedom to be themselves, you might have an opportunity to enjoy their most special qualities.

Most important, we all come into relationships with fears and insecurities.  These forces can grow like a cancer if left untreated.  The only way to constructively deal with them is to learn to trust in yourself and in others.  My fear of cats only grew worse with time because my focus was purely on what was wrong with them, rather than coming to terms with whom they were and addressing my own insecurities.  Partners need to do the same by openly expressing their deepest fears regardless of how vulnerable they may feel, then working together to overcome them through tolerance and trust.

Gidget and Malibu helped me to better appreciate this.  In exchange for certain sacrifices and concessions I made to them, I get far more in return.  I can only hope I have the wisdom and discipline to apply these lessons to any new human relationship that may await me. 

And if you’re wondering, I did get custody of Malibu, but not Gidget who will always occupy a special place in my heart.

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.