Tax Resisting Takes a Stand on Tax Day

Last Wednesday was tax day for most Americans. I say “most Americans” because there are some who recognize the legal obligation to pay taxes, but who chose not to pay some or all of their taxes for ethical or moral reasons. And, in big cities all over the United States, groups gathered on April 15 to protest the bank bailouts, gay marriage laws, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the argument that paying taxes to the federal government encourages corporatism, discrimination, or unjust combat.

In the United States, some citizens subject themselves to IRS fines and penalties and actually resist paying taxes. And while many Americans may be disgruntled by Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, tax resisting (not to be confused with tax evasion, which is subject even stricter penalties and possible jail time), has always has been an integral part of American democracy in spite of the the fact that it is subject to fines and penalties. In the 1790s the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, implemented a controversial luxury tax on whiskey that had some citizens so riled up that they actually tarred and feathered a handful of tax collectors. While Hamilton insisted that the tax had to be instated in order to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War, the tax resisters were not pleased with that explanation, and in 1794 Washington had to send an army of 12,000 to rural Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion (by the time the troops arrived, the dissenters had dispersed).

Of course, Henry David Thoreau is probably the most famous tax resister, spending a night in jail for refusing to pay six years of back taxes on the principle that he did not support the Mexican-American War and institutionalized slavery. But what about today? Is withholding taxes, despite the fact that it is subject to heavy government penalties, still one of the best ways to show anger and frustration towards one’s government?

A resident of Brooklyn, who I will call Barb Smith for purposes of anonymity, thinks that if you’re frustrated with your government, it makes you a “more responsible citizen.” At a demonstration on the front steps of the New York Post Office, she and fellow disgruntled citizens gathered to lend their voice to the anti-war movement. Handing out fliers that document military spending in this country, Smith, a third-year tax resister and war protester, pointed out that, “Money has an impact and where you spend your money has an impact. My decision [not to pay federal taxes] is in alignment with my conscience.”

Also gathered on the steps on the Post Office was a small group of elderly women from an international pacifist organization. One woman brandished a sign that said, “Raging Grannies and their Daughters.”

However, the sign did not mention granddaughters and Smith noted that, “Unfortunately, there are not many young people involved [in the tax resisting movement]. It’s mostly middle-aged and older people who are passionate about the issue.”

However, despite the age gap, the movement definitely gained momentum this year in cities around the country. Fox News had all day coverage of  “tea parties” in cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City where protesters angrily voiced their tax boycott of the Wall Street bailouts. In Austin, Texas, Governor Rick Perry galvanized a crowd of angry citizens and even suggested that Texas might secede one day while, in downtown Houston, close to 2,000 people turned out to protest the federal government and threaten secession.

In Boston (the home of the first tea party back in 1773) gay rights groups gathered to protest their inability to file federal joint tax returns, even though Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. A group with similar concerns gathered on the steps of the New York Post Office but when asked, none claimed to be resisting taxes. “We just want Albany to give us equality,” one woman implored.

Yet, despite all the hoopla surrounding tax resisting this year, the demonstrations still beg the question, does tax resisting in spite of the potential penalties really make a difference?

“I don’t know if the IRS cares,” another protester, who I will call Mark Johnson for anonymity, a fifth year tax resister from New Jersey said, “but I’m appalled at what the money is used for and I resist with a token amount.”

When asked what he does with the money he owes, Johnson insists, “I don’t keep it, I give it to organizations that do good that hopefully counterbalance what the government would do with the money. This year, I’m giving the $198 I owe and I’m sending it to the Iraq Collateral Repair Project.”

And, while he admits he only protests with a small amount of money, Johnson notes that there “is not enough outrage” and that he does the little that he can to press the point that he is not pleased with military spending in this country.

Although it is doubtful that Congress or the Obama administration paid much attention to tea parties, protests, or tax resister demonstrations on Wednesday, many see tax resistance, despite the fact that it is illegal, as the one act outside of voting that citizens can participate in to vocalize their disappointment with their government. And, while there is always the possibility that you can be audited, Smith notes that, “This is America. I’m not afraid of the IRS.”

Editor’s Note: This Web site does NOT in any way endorse or condone any act of tax resisting or tax evasion. Because of possibly incriminating statements, the names of quoted individuals were changed at the request of the editor.

Starry, Starry Plight: Obama and the Space Program

Space enthusiasts are watching and listening carefully to find out how President Barack Obama will support NASA during his administration. Earlier this year he gave the space agency a glowing endorsement:

When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy.

Before we dive into recent developments, a brief review of NASA under George W. Bush is in order. NASA achieved some laudable feats in the last eight years, notably:

• It greatly expanded the International Space Station (ISS) to add more solar panels, laboratories, and living space (with contributions from other nations, notably Russia and Canada).
• It successfully landed two Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) that have been sending pictures back for 5 years, much longer than originally anticipated.
• It repaired and upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope, which has sent more than half a million images back to Earth.
• It developed the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will take astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
• It launched the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has produced sensational images of Mars.

In particular, the string of successful trips to Mars stands in stark contrast to previous missions. Historically most attempts to explore the Red Planet have failed, including one notorious disaster in 1999 caused by a mix-up of measurements made with the metric and English systems.

Yet since the achievements of the Apollo program that landed astronauts on the Moon, there hasn’t been a program that has evoked the same widespread level of interest here and abroad. Indeed in March President Obama made reference to this in an answer to a reporter’s question about the shuttle program

NASA has yielded — or the space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries. But I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program. And shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director.

Sadly as of this writing, The White House’s Technology Page does not include any mention of the space program. Obama has not yet appointed a new NASA administrator, though rumors have been circulating this year about the possible pick of astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Anyone who has seen Tyson on PBS’s NOVA scienceNOW cannot deny his charisma and enthusiasm for astronomy and space exploration. Tyson is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for advocating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.”

Financial support for NASA remains strong despite the severe worldwide recession. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $18.7 billion is $2.4 billion above the 2008 amount. The first priority listed in their budget summary is climate change monitoring and research. President Obama has repeatedly mentioned addressing global warming as a top issue, as noted in my last article.

NASA scientist James Hansen continues to be a fierce advocate for action to combat global warming. In 2006 he complained that the Bush Administration was trying to silence his dire warnings for political reasons. In December 2008, James Hansen and his wife Anniek Hansen sent an open letter to then President-Elect Obama (and his wife Michelle Obama) urging him to phase out traditional polluting coal plants, support an aggressive carbon tax plan, and encourage R&D of modern nuclear power plants.

Many people are sad to see the end of the successful space shuttle program, currently scheduled for 2010. If and when the shuttle program is canceled, Florida residents may bear the brunt of the employment fallout with 8,000 or more jobs on the line. However a congressman and congresswoman from Florida have introduced legislation to keep the shuttle program alive a bit longer.

The new Orion spacecraft and companion Ares Launch Vehicles are presently in the testing phase. NASA expects to fly the first missions in 2014 or 2015, leaving us with at least a four-year gap in the government’s space transportation system. (Private companies will carry supplies to the ISS, and the Russian Soyuz will be used to rotate crews.)

The James Web Space Telescope (JWST), often described as the successor to Hubble, is currently in development and expected to be deployed in 2013. NASA intends to keep Hubble in operation until at least that time, to avoid any interruption in data collection. JWST is substantially larger than Hubble, though lower in mass. Hubble detects light in the optical and ultraviolet ranges, and can be repaired in space, while JWST will collect data only from infrared light. Nevertheless, JWST will allow scientists to peer substantially further back into the distant past, closer to the origin of the universe.

There have been reports that Obama might combine some space programs from NASA and the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s space budget is significantly higher than NASA’s total budget, and some observers wonder whether the space vehicle gap might be filled in by the military. The merger discussions have been fueled by the fear that China has strong military intentions for its own space program.

While the U.S. must be mindful of threats to our security from other nations, a strong militarization of NASA would be an unfortunate turn of events. NASA was founded during the Eisenhower Administration to conduct non-military space activities. Obviously there is already significant overlap in personnel, and technology flows in both directions. But it would be very sad if NASA becomes distracted or subverted by security issues.

Other controversies still brewing include:

• Arguments about whether robots or humans should be sent to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.
• Whether we should ever bother going back to the Moon.
• Calls for President Obama to fire NASA’s inspector general Robert Cobb — a recent New York Times editorial accused him of being unethical and ineffectual.
• How much we should cooperate with other nations’ space programs.
• An oldie but a goodie–whether NASA should even exist given all the problems we have to solve on Earth.

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the space program is a vital part of our national identity. It has inspired generations of students young and old, capturing their imagination like nothing else. The dream of human flight and exploration will not go away as long as birds take wing and stars and planets twinkle. NASA must survive and thrive during Obama’s time in office, so we may continue to watch over our pale blue dot from space and keep looking at the stars.

(Thanks to Michael Conway for suggesting the title of this article.)

A Discussion on “Rights”

With both Iowa and Vermont, in essence, legalizing same-sex marriage in their respective states within a week, I think back to California’s Prop 8 and other recent same-sex debates and ask again the same questions: Is same-sex marriage a rights issue? Is it a moral issue? And simply put, who should be able to decide who can be married?

First of all, it’s important to remember the assumed “proper order” of things in most monotheistic cultures. God created man; man created government; government created laws. And even if you don’t believe in God, man created government and government created laws. Either way, it is an essential assumption that the creation can never be greater than the creator. Morals, laws, statutes, etc. always come from the top down in such societies, not the other way around. A government cannot have a power that is not initially held by the people it governs (or people have power that is not held by God).

For instance, I – as an individual – do not have the right, power, or authority to take (steal) your money, even if it is for a noble cause – like to give it to someone less fortunate. And because government gets their power from the people and the people do not have the authority to steal money, then the government doesn’t have authority to steal money either.

In America, there are exceptions. There are certain responsibilities and rights that we the people do not hold as individuals – we cannot declare war, make treaties, or levy tariffs. Likely, the Founding Fathers felt the general public either shouldn’t or couldn’t deal with these issues, so those responsibilities were reserved to the federal government. However, these few exceptions are explicitly defined in the Constitution; they’re not for the government to decide as they go (although there is a way to expand those federal rights within the Constitution by passing amendments). But as per the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So the people and the States are in charge of all issues not covered in the Constitution (like marriage).

So, as a Democratic Republic, we elect individuals who then represent us on the federal level – that’s the republic side of the American system. And this helps ensure democracy. In a dogmatic and usurping government, the governing body decides truth and then the people (and ultimately God) must change their minds and views in order to align with whatever nonsense has been created. This is not a good system of government.

So while it is undeniable that same-sex marriage is a moral issue for many people, to base legislation on the morality of an issue is ridiculous. For those who believe in God, morality is defined by Him (or Her–I will use the masculine throughout for simplicity). However, according to most monotheistic religions, He only defines and demands morality; He does not require everyone to follow it. He will, ultimately, punish those who don’t, but He does give them the option to choose. For those who say that morality is defined by the people, by society, by tradition, or by commonly-held beliefs, to then base laws upon that morality is to force personal convictions and arbitrary principles upon others – which could easily turn a country into a Fascist state.

So by these assumptions, whether defined by God or man, morality cannot and should not be the basis for legislation. This is not to say government should not be moral, that people should not strive to elect those who share their personal moral convictions, or that we should “divorce government from any formal recognition of God.” This is only to say that the government cannot enforce, define, or mandate morality and, therefore, cannot legislate based upon it. Government can, however, protect the natural rights and enforce the civil rights of individuals.

Without getting too deeply into the history of marriage, it began as a religious right and it wasn’t until later that government decided to get involved (so inheritance can be properly determined, so relationships can be verified and recorded, etc.) even though they had no right to do so. This is why, generally and traditionally, people accept marriages performed by any religious figure and assume there is a religious ceremony involved with any marriage. They will also assume there is some legal process involved, but that’s secondary. So if, hypothetically, someone was to get married without going through the legal process – only the religious ceremony – both parties, and outside observers, would probably all still agree on the validity of the marriage. And for an individual to say “You’re not married legally” is presumptuous at best. So for the government to do that is unconscionable.

So the question arises: Is marriage a natural right for the government to protect or a civil right for the government to enforce?

Natural rights are few, but important – life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. And they’re preexisting, inalienable, free to all, innate – in other words, “natural” – rights. They can’t be defined or changed. They simply are. And the government should protect those rights by ensuring people aren’t killed, that their property isn’t stolen, etc.

Civil rights – at least according to what I believe the Founding Fathers intended – protect individuals, citizens, and peoples from their governments. So freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, the right to vote, and the right to bear arms are all in place to prevent the government from becoming too powerful or oppressive. Civil rights aren’t defined by government; they’re defined by the people and enforced by the government.

So (again, I must make this distinction in order to be thorough) if we assume marriage is a natural right defined by God, then He is the one to decide who is and isn’t married. Some may say He has delegated that power to Pastors, Rabbis, Ministers, and other religious leaders, which is fine. But it’s likely He did not give it directly to the government. If we assume marriage is a natural right separate from God, then no one has the authority to decide who can or can’t be married – including government. So while government could protect those who were married, it could not decide if anyone – straight or gay – was or wasn’t married.

So, what if we decide that marriage is a civil right? Well, in order for marriage to be a civil right, it would first need to be something that protected us from our government; this is debatable. But even if we disregard that criterion, marriage would still need to be something that as a people, we had the right to decide. As I mentioned before, the way the United States Constitution is set up, authority flows from the people to the government. If the people don’t have the right to decide, then the government certainly doesn’t hold that right either; so for the government to allow or ban marriage in any of its forms is unconstitutional. But if the people do, in fact, have the right to decide who can and can’t be married, they have the opportunity to do so by voting on the issue in their respective States – that’s the Democratic side of the American system. And for a court or a legislator or an elected official to assume they have the right, authority, or power to decide who can or can’t be married is completely unfounded.

So the conclusion? It should be an all-or-nothing situation. Either the government should back away, stay out of the marriage debate, and let society, churches, and peoples do what they will; or it should, once again, overstep its bounds, ignore the Tenth Amendment, and become more oppressive, more controlling, and more irresponsible than ever before.  I believe that most would prefer the former.

Mr. President, We Do Have a Choice

In explaining his most recent escalation of American troop levels in Afghanistan, President Obama claimed that “the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan.” The underlying justification for the additional 4,000 “advisors” was the fact that “nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.” His second statement is unquestionably true; the first is not. But even more important than the question of whether or not we had a choice in the matter of invading Afghanistan is the fact that we have one today, more than seven years later.

Normally we might say a country had no choice but to wage war if it found itself the target of ongoing sustained attacks from another country. Having been the victim of a highly coordinated and lethal terrorist attack, there was little question that the US – and much of the rest of the world – had to revamp a wide array of security measures, the results of which are evident in any airport. The decision to fight a war in Afghanistan, however, was quite another matter.

From the beginning, a central goal of this war, as announced by the White House, was bringing the apparent perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, to justice. And a week into the war, the Taliban government then in power in Afghanistan made an offer to turn him over — with several substantial provisos. They would do so if provided evidence connecting him to the crimes; they would not give him to the US, but only to another Muslim country; and naturally it would happen only if they could locate him. The offer was rejected out of hand.

Looking back, the matter of evidence would presumably have proven no obstacle. And so far as the stumbling block of the refusal to deliver him directly to the US goes, it now seems highly relevant to note that the Bush Administration then in power would go on to organize an elaborate worldwide campaign to prevent Americans from ever being turned over to the International Criminal Court despite the fact that 108 other countries have opted to recognize its legitimacy. The White House certainly would never have honored a demand such as it made upon Afghanistan.

Finally, there’s the matter of whether the Taliban was acting in good faith or would do so in the future: Did they know where bin Laden was and would they have delivered him if they did? That’s all speculation, of course, but what is not speculation is that seven plus years of war have not produced him either. And as we consider whether this war is worth continuing today, let’s consider the crux of the President’s argument as to why we had no choice but to get into it – the “nearly 3,000 of our people” killed.

In contrast to the facts surrounding September 11, data concerning Afghan civilians killed by American military action is very hard to come by. In what is arguably the most thorough study that was ever done on the question, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold concluded that there were already nearly 3,800 of them by December 7, 2001. His research report listed the number of casualties, location, type of weapon, and source of information, but Herold believed “the figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate. I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000.” These Afghanis too were simply “doing nothing more than going about their daily lives.”

The actual number to this day? No one knows. Certainly the casualty rate abated after the war’s first few months, yet few would question that the number is greater than that of the Americans who died as a result of the hijackers’ activities. Which brings us to the current President’s statement. Do the Afghanis therefore now also have no choice but to fight a war with the US? “An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind,” as Gandhi put it?

Whatever one thinks of the logic of getting into this war in the first place, the logic of staying is quite another thing. And actually, it may be a stretch to call it logic. Consider, for instance, the March 28, 2009 New York Times editorial praising Obama for asserting “leadership over the war that matters most to America’s security — the one against Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” while simultaneously complementing “his plans to urge so-called moderate Taliban to abandon their hard-line leaders” and noting that “more than seven years into the fight, the leader of the American intelligence community acknowledged that it knows shockingly little about the Taliban command structure.”

And that’s the current strategy in a nutshell: send in more troops to fight the enemy at the same time you’re trying to negotiate with them and figure out who they actually are. Unfortunately, the level of intransigence of the last administration was such that this approach may strike a lot of people as reasonable by comparison. But even though American casualties may well remain small enough in number and Afghan casualties may seem too remote and obscure to provoke a crisis in confidence back home, the fact remains that these are real people’s lives that the White House is hanging its flimsy strategy on.

Seeking to prevent Al Qaeda from inflicting any further harm on the US is a worthy goal and probably a realistic one. Trying to eliminate everyone who doesn’t like us in Afghanistan – and increasingly in Pakistan as well – is surely a prescription for endless war. We do have a choice

The White House Science Agenda, So Far

A few minutes into President Obama’s inaugural speech, he highlighted the importance of science to our nation:

“For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.”
(emphasis added)

Nevertheless, the first thing I noticed upon visiting the White House Web site was the absence of Science from the Agenda menu on the home page. They do however list a link to their Technology page on that menu, and thankfully some scientific issues are listed there.

Regardless of how the White House organizes their Web site, many of us are breathing a sigh of relief – and not just because President Obama presumably cares about the environment and will work to make the air cleaner. On a wide range of issues, citizens may now expect a return to sensible public discourse that places science and rational thought above political ideology and pseudo-science. No longer will we be held hostage by George W. Bush’s willful ignorance of life-threatening issues (recall that it took five years for the former president to acknowledge that “America is addicted to oil”). While we will have to rely on Congress to create substantive legislation, President  Obama has certainly set the right tone for better living through science.

In the three months since the inauguration, several important topics have gained attention. Global warming and stem cell research are two issues many people are concerned about, and we have already seen the new administration act decisively on these fronts.

President Obama recently announced an international summit, to be held at the end of this month, to coordinate action to address global warming. Representatives of 16 countries (each G20 members) are expected to attend the “Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.” The forum is in advance of the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention, which will be held in Copenhagen in December.

Obama frequently mentions global warming as a top issue, including during the presidential campaign and in numerous public appearances and official statements. He signed a memorandum in January requiring the Transportation Department to work with the EPA to enforce the average fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles per gallon for all cars and light trucks (a category that includes SUVs). In February the president signed another memorandum that forces the Department of Energy to establish efficiency standards for consumer and commercial appliances according to previously passed federal laws. These are very important steps considering that increasing efficiency is the quickest and most cost-effective way for Americans to reduce energy usage and the related greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

These clear actions and statements from the president in the earliest days of his tenure are a very encouraging sign of his commitment to reducing the threat of undesired climate changes. It remains to be seen whether government agencies, manufacturers, and the public will work together to rise to the challenge of increasing energy efficiency.

Regarding stem cell research, in March Obama issued an Executive Order that permits scientists to finally work without fear of restrictions by the federal government. Specifically, the order revoked the rules created in 2001 by former President Bush, which prohibited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and restricted the techniques available to researchers. While research was hampered in the U.S. for eight years, several other countries continued their work, threatening to undermine our progress and competitiveness in this field. Stem cell research is one of the most promising frontiers in biology, and many experts believe that there will be many potential tremendous benefits in curing a wide variety of ailments and genetic diseases.

Other items currently on the administration’s technology laundry list include:

• Ensuring open internet and media, including net neutrality;
• Creating a modern communications infrastructure, with broadband availability virtually everywhere in the country;
• Increasing America’s competitiveness through trade, tax credits, and direct investment in science;
• Fostering entrepreneurial ventures;
• Protecting intellectual property rights;
• Improving science and math education;
• Increasing the use of science and technology to solve national problems;
• Lowering health care costs and improving quality through improved information systems;
• Investing more in renewable energy research and development; and
• Advancing health through biomedical research.

As you can see, this is quite a long and ambitious list. President Obama has said that he expects us to work together with him on the many issues that he highlighted during the campaign and in his presidency so far. Given the country’s many significant challenges outside the realm of science and technology, hopefully we will be able to make meaningful progress in at least some of these areas.

Cheney Turned Down for Radio Offer

Recently I wrote here at Demockracy.com that former Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed for the deanship of Liberty University but that that institution was arguably too backward even for him.

I have “reported” elsewhere that Cheney screwed up a Halliburton job-interview debacle because he took a Viagra by mistake instead of a Valium and had an orgasm when the woman HR officer shook his hand.

“This was most unfortunate,” the former Vice President told me in an exclusive interview on Funk & Wagnell’s porch, “and I in fact did not get the job, and furthermore it made my pacemaker run amok.”

Later, Cheney attempted to job network with Condi Rice in what essentially turned into a sizzling date. (“You had me at ‘Good evening ladies and gentlemen,’” he told  her.) His pills were still mixed up, however, causing him to take Valium that night instead of the Viagra and fall asleep just as he attempted to kiss her.

“She’d put me to sleep before, playing Mozart on the damned piano, but this was ridiculous,” Cheney said.

It is not well known, but he was next turned down by the KAWG radio station (AWM stands for Angry White Guy) because he never shuts up even for the commercials and besides, the airwaves already have a big fat jerk who wants our President to fail.

In the latest turn of events, he appears to favor Monster.com as both rich in listings and apropos in name. Friends of Cheney, who spoke on condition of anonymity, identified a shortlist of job openings on the web site for which he expects to apply:

• FINANCIAL EXPEDITOR. U.S. arms manufacturer operating in Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, and East Los Angeles seeks disreputable mediator and agent provocateur with extensive expertise in how to lie, cheat, grease palms, blackmail, waterboard, terminate with extreme prejudice, and otherwise coerce friendly despots into lucrative weapons and construction contracts. Ideal position for cons, ex-cons, neocons, Def-Con 3 personalities, action-hero icons, and Connie Francis. Drop résumé behind loose brick at Soldier of Fortune office building and chalk-mark with an X.

• FOREST FIRE LOOKOUT. Private security company seeks Senior Forest Ranger with the kind of high-level clout that can marshal the massive resources required to divert forest fires and wildfires from expensive homes to middle and lower-income neighborhoods. Minimal weapons skills required include the ability to shoot trespassers in the face with a shotgun. Experience in culling wildlife a definite plus. Shoot your CV to our Monster.com inbox.

• FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY FOR EX-VEEPS! What kind of watch did Mickey Mouse wear? A Spiro Agnew watch!  Are you a self-starter and a sleazy, lying former Number Two? Do you hate nattering nabobs of negativism as much as we do? Despise pusillanimous pussyfoots? If so, you’ve got what it takes! The sky’s the limit in this North American sales management position in charge of revitalizing the Dirty Time Company, former manufacturer of Spiro Agnew watches. We have now reinvented ourselves, and it goes without saying that we have outsourced our wristwatch factory to China—where virtual slave labor combined with cheap lead-based coating guarantee LIMITLESS $$$$ COMMISSIONS for our chief sales executive. If you are executive sales material, soon even Batman will be wearing a Spiro Agnew watch. Next…all of America…then France…who knows? IT’S UP TO YOU!! If you’ve got the time, we’ve got the watch.

• THE SULTAN OF BRUNEI requires a Court Buffoon for His amusement. White House experience preferred. Free housing and harem of abducted Caucasian women provided. Two-month probation period to demonstrate you can make His Highness laugh—or else. Apply to His Fragrant Worshipfulness, P.O. Box 1, Brunei Darussalam.

Black Students in California: Asking the Big Questions

Many years of substitute teaching in two states, all grade levels, and more subjects than I can easily remember have left me with two dominant impressions. The first is of the difficulties black students face in the educational system. The second is of just how difficult it is to discuss their difficulties.  So when the California Board of Education created an “African American Advisory Committee” to tackle the question of why black students are not performing as well as others, I was pleased to see it take on perhaps the most vexing topic in education today, although not overly optimistic as to the progress it might make.

The new committee’s problems started before it even came into being, as an outside critic decried the implicit suggestion that this was a “black problem” and a Board member, former University of California regent Ward Connerly, criticized a “segregated approach to educating black kids” that was “goofy to be doing this at this point in American history.”  But still, even that noted affirmative action opponent felt obliged to concede that “we do have a problem” and support the motion which ultimately passed unanimously.

One obvious ground for pessimism about the committee’s prospects is the relative failure of past efforts. The ink wasn’t dry on the paperwork before people were talking about an infamous past attempt to grapple with the issue – the Oakland school district’s 1996 plan to garner the same assistance for its black students already available to foreign language-speaking students by declaring that African-Americans also spoke a separate language, which it called “Ebonics.”  While that fiasco is not likely to be repeated, a San Francisco Examiner story published shortly after the committee’s establishment serves as a reminder of other potential blind alleys still out there.

The Examiner reported that while blacks constituted but 12.5 percent of students in San Francisco’s public schools, “half the students who face disciplinary action belong to this ethnic group,” a phenomenon some School Board members attributed to “cultural incompetence” and “racial discrimination” on the part of school staff.  This issue has a history in the city.  In the past, some have called for school disciplinary measures to be applied equally across racial lines; in other words, the percentage of suspensions or expulsions should be the same for each racial/ethnic group.  No such drastic proposals emerged this time, though.  Instead one organizer suggested the “need to make their curriculum more engaging for students whose out-of-school reality involves poverty, violence and family crises” and a consultant to the superintendent reportedly thought “students simply need a challenge” and spoke of schools failing to give “them academic rigor.”

While you can hardly fault anyone for opposing racism or supporting academic rigor, these comments from individuals who probably have not spent much time in classrooms in recent years displayed book learning but little understanding of the nature of the difficulties today’s African-American students actually encounter.  Certainly San Francisco’s teachers’ union president Dennis Kelly was having none of it, arguing  that “to the degree that it’s racism, I think it’s subconscious racism.”  And given that 84 percent of the city’s voters recently supported an African-American for president and the city’s teachers are probably as liberal as the electorate as a whole, this seems a reasonable assertion.

But Kelly went further, suggesting that in actuality “some teachers avoid disciplining black or Hispanic students for fear that they would be accused of prejudice.”  And while these remarks would surely be deemed impolitic in some circles, statistics readily at hand suggest that not only does the reported discipline inequality in San Francisco’s schools reflect something larger going outside of school walls, but in fact it’s actually significantly worse out there: while blacks make up but 7 percent of the city’s total population, the Examiner reported that “60 percent of San Francisco Juvenile Hall inmates were black, according to the Juvenile Probation Department.”  (Nor is this a local problem.  While a remarkably high – by world standards – ratio of one of every 31 adult Americans is in prison, or on parole or probation, for African-Americans, the ratio is one in 11.)

Given the extreme sensitivity of the topic, let me make myself as clear as possible.  My point in raising these statistics is not to suggest that today’s black students have brought their problems on themselves but to suggest that they run much deeper than proposed solutions like greater “cultural competence” or a more “engaging curriculum” can reach.  Nor do I mean to imply that the history of racism in America is irrelevant.  Not only is it relevant, so is the history of American slavery, even though no one living today has ever experienced it.  But as Robert  Moses, a leader of the southern voting rights struggle of the 1960’s, put it in his 2001 book, Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights, “what young people are up against today is less clear than the raw racism of segregation laws and the Ku Klux Klan.”  And the solutions are correspondingly more difficult to formulate and enact.

And as far as being out of touch with the realities of today’s schools, there’s no disgrace in that; it can happen to anyone.  Civil rights veteran Charles E. Cobb confessed that when Moses approached him to co-author Radical Equations with him, “I had not been involved with public schools for years and while visiting them … it seemed as if I had traveled to another world,” as he watched a mother attack a Chicago teacher in a hallway, and talked to one kid as “another kid walked up behind him and hit him in the head with a brick or something.”  But useful proposals are not likely to come from people who are out of touch.  If we were to mandate that the same percentage of “A”s and “F”s be given to each racial group, we obviously would have done nothing to eliminate any actual educational gaps, but some of the solutions floating around these days have about that much depth.

So if we’re serious about finding a solution to the problem, we probably shouldn’t just nod along when someone raises the racism of the teaching staff or the cultural irrelevance of the curriculum as prime barriers to Black students education in 2009, any more than we would if someone advanced the idea that if they’d just stop listening to gangsta rap they’d be on their way to academic success.  Anyone who’s seen the television series The Wire and considered its portrayal remotely realistic surely has a visual take on the statistics.  And if you want one in print, there’s Los Angeles Times reporter Miles Corwin’s And Still We Rise: The Trials and Triumphs of Twelve Gifted Inner-City High School Students.  The 2001 book provides a memorable and chilling view of the extraordinary challenges confronting black students even in one of the few all-minority “gifted” public high school programs in the country.  The best friend of one of the book’s students was killed in 9th grade.  Another, who discovered the body of her murdered brother when she was nine, drops out after having a baby.  A third left home at 13 after her mother cracked a broom handle across her back. A fourth has been sexually abused by her step-father.  And there’s more – and these are the kids who succeeded!

And even for many of those whose parents manage to get them into suburban schools, the problems will not necessarily end at the city line.  The late John Ogbu, a Nigerian-born U.C. Berkeley Anthropology Professor, wrote his 2003 Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement as a result of a request to assess the reasons that the Grade Point Average of black public high school students in Shaker Heights, a relatively affluent Cleveland suburb with a school system considered one of the best in Ohio, lagged more than a full point (out of a possible four) behind that of white students.

Ogbu recognized that Shaker Heights blacks, whose wealth and income was higher than the average Ohio black family, was still was significantly lower than that of their white neighbors, but he felt that while this could explain a great deal of the grade gap, it did not explain it all.  So he turned to social characteristics, or “community forces,” as he describes them — “the ways minorities interpret and respond to schooling” to look for explanations, while making “no assumption that community forces are the only cause of, or play the most important role in, the academic gap.”  In taking that approach, not even his African birth would immunize him from criticisms of blaming the victim.

Over the course of thirty five years studying the public school education of minorities in the US, Ogbu had become persuaded of the importance of the distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary” minorities within American society.  Voluntary minorities are immigrants who arrive in this country in search of a better life.  Involuntary minorities include Blacks brought here as slaves, Native Americans whose continent was taken from them, and Mexicans living in areas subsumed by the United States.  When the nineteenth century European ancestors of some Americans were arriving to seek the American Dream, the ancestors of today’s African-Americans were living the American nightmare of slavery and their descendants would live through another century of segregation.

Ogbu was not surprised, then, to discover a fundamental ambiguity in the attitudes of the parents he was studying who often struggled to get their kids into the school system, yet fundamentally still did not trust it.  He frequently found their belief in the value of education only “abstract,” because “many generations of a lack of connection between school success and success in adult life probably resulted in skepticism about the real value of schooling.”  As a student put it, “there were laws simply to oppress Black people” so “Black people came to believe that it was always good, you know, if you could find some way, just somethin’ small, you know, just to annoy society.”  Kids would tell him that doing well in school would be “acting white,” a phenomenon Ogbu had previously encountered in studies of sectors of the British working class.

And, of course, education theory being a field with a higher quotient of hooey than most any other, he ran up against notions like one scholar’s critique of the “protocols of attentiveness found in Eurocentric teaching styles,” leading him to mutter about theoreticians of a black culture in which “students are not expected to pay attention during class!”

Although critics who ought to know better have characterized him as conservative, Ogbu’s theories are actually considerably more radical and thoroughgoing than those who claim to treat the educational and social situation of African-Americans as a social phenomenon yet tend to look for individual culprits close at hand, such as teachers with low expectations or racist administrators.  After all, what does Ogbu’s concept of “involuntary minorities” lead us to when considering the case of contemporary black students’ difficulties but a recognition of the continuing importance of the manner in which their forbears arrived in this country, in other words the ongoing relevance of nineteenth century slavery to daily life in twenty-first century America.

Obviously, the California Board of Education’s new committee has its work cut out for it.  From personal experience I know all too well that the mere mention of some of the topics I’ve discussed here can set some people’s eyes to rolling, as can proposals of the level of effort needed to properly deal with the problem.  For instance, if I suggest that I’ve been in first and second grade classes where a five or six-to-one adult-to-student ratio is probably needed to keep all of the kids in the action, the immediate response is likely to be that something like that is not within the realm of possibility, so it’s simply not to the point to talk about it.   (And, by the way, I’m not talking teacher-to-student ratio; the adults might also be student teachers, aides, or even parents or other volunteers.)   Yet my contention is no more or less true whether or not there’s any likelihood of such a ratio being effected.  And the fact that a full employment economy and true universal health care may not appear to be on the horizon does not change the fact that policies of this magnitude are what are needed to adequately improve the life situations of many black students whose academic travails are under consideration.  They do, after all, spend most of their lives outside the classroom dependent upon the fortunes of the adults around them.  And the size of the problem cannot be whittled down simply to match the size of the cure deemed politically possible.

And, since this committee is convening in California, let’s note that as recently as Sept. 2000, Governor Gray Davis signed the UC Slavery Colloquium Bill, which promotes research and publicity on University of California campuses on the topic of reparations for slavery.  So while they may be about as remote a possibility as a program for a true full employment economy, the consideration of a program to direct adequate additional educational resources toward all of slavery’s descendants would hardly be off the point.  Because, although it may be all that we’re likely to get, a couple of more sensitivity training courses sure aren’t going to do the trick.

Hillary’s Trip to Asia: A Foreign Policy Reality Check

President Obama ran his election campaign on a slogan we all now know – “Change We Can Believe In.” However,  I have always been skeptical of Obama’s ability or commitment to bring fundamental change in US foreign policy. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s February trip to Asia, as well received and heavily covered as it was, has only confirmed my skepticism. Here’s why.

First, while Clinton’s words in Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China were a departure from Bush’s simplistic might-makes-right foreign policy, they weren’t too different from the foreign policy followed by her own husband, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan (you get the idea). Obama’s foreign policy “change” appears to be a return to how the US has conducted foreign policy since World War II. That is, we work cooperatively within the UN, NATO, and other alliances; we engage other countries diplomatically; we don’t declare preemptive wars; we promote a certain type of economic model; we support nuclear non-proliferation; etc.  While this is undoubtedly better than George W. Bush’s foreign policy, it doesn’t look like a fundamental foreign policy shift. Nor does it bode well for those optimistic that President Obama will base his foreign policy on human rights, as many had hoped for during the campaign.

Admittedly, I did start out happy with how Clinton was conducting herself during this trip. She discussed relevant issues in the countries she visited and met with officials, students, and  activists. People seemed to be generally impressed with and charmed by her performance.  However, after following her trip for a while, I began to feel like it was just that–a performance. She was saying what she needed to say (and not saying what she needed to not say) depending on where she was, and her priority was selling the US, President Obama, and herself to officials and the public. This was sorely needed after eight years of George Bush, and while she showed her serious professional side as well as a softer personal side, Clinton is a seasoned, hard-nosed politician who surely understands the realities of being the only global superpower’s top diplomat. Realpolitik rules. Mushy sentimental support for human rights does not guide international relations or foreign policy. Clinton did after all vote against a Congressional bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas because it would make her look weak on terrorism (her new boss supported the ban). 

The dissonance of her message was most jarring when comparing her speeches in Indonesia to those in China. She wooed and flattered her Indonesian hosts by talking up their democratic government, their thriving and diverse civil society, and the inclusive positive example they show to the Muslim world. China was another matter. Before she even arrived, Clinton emphasized that human rights concerns would not interfere with major issues like the economic crisis and global warming. She curbed her earlier harsh criticism of China’s human rights record in favor of other topics (which, to be fair, were not much easier to confront). While implying human rights are a marginal issue was not music to the ears of human rights advocates, it is consistent with US foreign policy historically. Human rights have had their place when they support US policy, but are always easily swept aside when they don’t. So far, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to offer a change from this realist worldview.

This is not to say that changes are not likely on the horizon. Obama is certainly charting a different course than George Bush did. His early choices about China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria indicate a new tack, and he is making a concerted effort to clean up the US image in the world’s eyes. Human rights may be more important to President Obama than many previous US presidents, but Clinton’s stance in China makes it clear that they will not be the guiding principal of his foreign policy. The US participation as a mere observer at the recent UN Human Rights Commission and its boycott of the UN Conference on Racism also show that Obama’s administration is wary of treading new ground in the defense of human rights.

So then what is Obama’s guiding principle for his foreign policy? Not surprisingly, it appears to be essentially the same as every other US president–to protect and promote American interests abroad. This definition clearly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Obama has pledged deeper and more sustained diplomatic engagement with allies as well as enemies–even Iran! Cuba! Venezuela!–in an effort to forge constructive relationships across the globe. As a caveat to this policy, Obama has explicitly said he will act in such a way only if it is in America’s self-interest.

Fair enough. This is the president’s job, and the reality is that US foreign policy probably will never be guided by any principle other than American self-interest. I understand this, and though it sounds amoral and opportunistic to my ears, I understand the necessity, and benefit, to advance a flexible foreign policy in an effort to engage with as many other countries as possible. And, in reality, should it be any other way? Maybe what Obama is offering is the best we can hope for when it comes to US foreign policy. George Bush’s presidency clearly demonstrated the pitfalls of having a foreign policy that stubbornly brooks no opposition to its moral certainty. Any moral justification can be abused by those in power–even a commitment to human rights or democracy or freedom. (Such a commitment to worldwide democracy is in fact one of the guiding principles of both idealist foreign policy, put in practice historically by those such as Woodrow Wilson, and modern neoconservatism under President Bush.) Promoting and protecting American interests abroad can be abused too, but at least it is an honest selfish justification for how our government behaves overseas. Protecting American interests is perhaps all the president should commit to, and if he (or one day she) is willing to keep as many channels of communication open with friend and foe, this may be the best long-term strategy. To expect anything more just may be naive, unrealistic, and unfair.

A Health Care Letter to the President

Mr. Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC  20001

Dear Mr. President:

I have a little problem.  My little problem, however, is part of a big problem – Health Care in America. It is a problem for all Americans.   I want to help you fix this problem. My individual experiences make me both passionate and uniquely qualified to help change health care in America to make our country a better place to live and work.

First, a short history of my little problem: I am a 49 year old American who moved to the UK ten years ago. I was a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of an international health care company, and I accepted an assignment in Glasgow, Scotland for a 6-months stint that somehow turned into ten years. While staying true to my American roots, I have enjoyed my stay in the UK and enjoyed a successful career – except for one little glitch when in 2005, I was diagnosed with tonsil cancer. Six months of intensive treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy) has been followed by three years of aftercare.  All of my care was provided efficiently and effectively by the wonderful, capable doctors and nurses working for the National Health Service (NHS) here in Scotland. In some ways, I consider myself fortunate that I was diagnosed with this terrible disease while in the UK where I had access to the NHS to provide care.

But, now my little problem: I would like to move back to the U.S., but cannot – because no insurance company will come near a cancer survivor like me.  So, every summer, I visit my family for two weeks, and every April 15th, I send the IRS a check for my U.S. taxes for the privilege of being a U.S. citizen. And I now wait until I am 65, when I will be covered by Medicare, to return to my home  – this, of course,  is fifteen years away.   This, Mr. President, is no way to run a country.

Ironically, since I have worked as a financial executive for various health care companies for over 20 years – I understand all too well why insurance and health care companies run the other way when they see me coming. As a cancer survivor, I am a big, fat financial liability waiting to happen.  I also know that there are ways I can “sneak” into the U.S. health care system by getting a job with an employer with an insurance plan or otherwise getting into a group plan and hoping that preexisting conditions do not trip me up sometime in the future.  But then again, I know those insurance underwriters are smart and vigilant (that is what they are paid to do); they are continually finding ways to exclude the high risk patients from their insured population. And even if I do get into an insurance plan, I would imagine the fine print of the policy would find a way to exclude me if I became a major liability.  So, is this really any way to live my life?  Is this really any way for anyone to live their life?  Is this any way to run the greatest country in the world?

So for now, I will remain here in the UK. I know the UK is not perfect, and it has its own health care issues. But I know one thing is certain – if I show up at the hospital in the UK diagnosed with cancer again, I will be treated, and I will not be financially ruined.  The peace of mind this gives me is more than enough reason for me to stay here in the UK until we solve our little health care problem in America.

As I said at the beginning, my little problem is really an American problem.  The real problem is that millions of other Americans who have similar or worse tales of woe and do not have a solution.  They come in all shapes and sizes. Someone gets ill and then loses his or her job and health insurance coverage, and someone’s illness is excluded from insurance because of the fine print in the policy, for example because of preexisting conditions that were either conveniently or inconveniently forgotten at the beginning of a policy. The circumstances are wide and varied.   Far too many people in America live in fear or ignorance of a health care event which can be catastrophic to themselves and their family.  The free market system of American health care has developed in to a multi-headed hydra which is designed more for making profits than for caring for the sick – or even keeping people from getting sick in the first place.

I am passionate about helping fix the problem.  I offer my services to you as cancer survivor, as an experienced financial executive, and as an American who wants to make the country a better place in which to live.  I will consider any role in your administration (or indeed anywhere in the U.S.) which will put me in a position to help fix health care in America.  I want to come home and help, but the irony is that I can’t come home until I get my health insurance sorted.

My compensation for providing such services is simple.  My compensation will be to once again live in a country where if I (or anyone) am diagnosed with cancer (or any major disease), I will be treated and I will not be financially ruined.  The peace of mind that comes with this end result will be more than enough reward for any service that I can provide.

Thank you for your consideration.

I remain a U.S. citizen, proud of America, and missing my home.

Warren McInteer

Glasgow

United Kingdom

P.S. I have written also written a two part series for Demockracy.com on the subject that goes into more detail regarding the problems and solutions of U.S. health care.  If you are so inclined, please look at these pieces and let us begin the work to fix American health care:

Health Care in America: A Time for Change

Health Care in America: A Way Forward

“Buy American” Policies: More Hurtful than Helpful?

Last week’s $787 billion dollar stimulus promised aid to education, infrastructure projects, jobless benefits, and a whole host of other programs designed to stimulate the economy. While the bill was pretty straight forward, there were a few provisions that stood out and inevitably were nixed (i.e.,  the clause specifying that no federal money was to go to former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich). However, one short, but very controversial clause on page 189 did make it to the final bill. There, section 1605 states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project is produced in the United States.”

There are some exceptions (for instance, if the cost of American raw materials will increase the overall cost of the project by 25 percent, the party purchasing the materials can apply for a waiver) but the real significance of this clause is that it sets a very negative and narrow tone on the global economic crisis. Even President Obama stated in an ABC interview that this stipulation was “a potential source of trade wars” and John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, cited it as a “dangerous precedent.” Although the provision does state that it “shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements” it still forces many companies, such as the struggling Caterpillar, to spend more of their fiscal resources on raw materials instead of preserving jobs or raising wages. Also, given the fact that 37 percent of all manufactured goods sold in America are not made here, this stipulation seems hard-lined and, at some level, woefully misguided.

Moreover, the other underlying and more significant impact of this “Buy American” policy is this: If American companies are forced to purchase domestic raw goods for the public works projects, then what is stopping other countries from enacting the same jingoistic economic policies? This economic crisis is a global one and if every country decides to enforce a “buy me first” approach, this crisis will get far worse before it gets better. Not long after Congress announced its plan, major international news outlets such as Japan Today, Canada’s CBC NEWS, and China’s Xinhua criticized the measure. The International Herald and Tribune also noted that the United State’s protectionist policy could incite a backlash in which other nations stipulate a Don’t-Buy-American policy on foreign goods.

Although I understand Congress’s desire to promote the construction of new roads and bridges, green technology, and car manufacturing while supporting what little domestic manufacturing industry we have left, the reality is that (a) we don’t produce enough of these materials to support the sweeping projects they want to see enacted, and (b) even if we did, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, if we don’t work to stimulate other nations’ struggling economies in the process of stimulating our own. Maybe this approach would be acceptable, or even relevant, if this were just an ordinary American recession. But we are in the midst of a global crisis, and our economy will not get better if everyone else’s is suffering.

I believe a smarter and more fitting approach would have been a “Make American” initiative. Not an ultimatum like the “Buy American” provision, but a tax-break incentive encouragement for either domestic companies to expand their production of vital goods or for foreign ones to locate some of their operations in the United States. In both scenarios, there would be job creation and more spending. Instead of forcing companies to purchase domestic raw materials, encourage them to make products that can be purchased here or abroad. In Louis Uchitelle’s article on this issue for the New York Times last week, he cited the example of mass transit—while the stimulus bill calls for the expansion of mass transit, there are no US companies that manufacture the train cars necessary for that expansion. Now these projects will have to rely on American steel, iron, and manufactured goods while they also negotiate their express need for a specific foreign good they cannot get domestically. Wouldn’t it be nice (and much cheaper for taxpayers) to let cities purchase some raw materials from China or India and let the United States encourage these more specialized industries to move some of their operations here since we will be purchasing such a high volume of these products?

Of course, America will never return to its manufacturing hey day, and I’m not suggesting that domestic production will solve all our economic woes. But by encouraging a responsible, inviting economic policy, we could perhaps not only pave the way for global economic recovery, but also mend some broken foreign policy fences we need to repair from the past administration. Yet, despite the demands of this myopic economic policy, I hope that the Obama administration can find other ways to encourage growth domestically and promote more foreign investment in America’s future without ostracizing our trade partners and fellow economically struggling nations.

« Previous Page — Next Page »