Ms. Snowe recognized that “History is calling” American legislators to take up the challenge of the systemic problem of health care reform. Like Ms. Snowe acknowledges, there are lots of provisions and problems in the bill – but here’s a secret;  no bill is ever “perfect” because the ugly, chaotic mess that is Representative Republicanism ensures that bills will be debated, distorted, emasculated, and adulterated to the point that the original author might no longer recognize it.

But Ms. Snowe’s “History” statement brings up a good point, and a counter to many on the far right who argue there is no “guarantee’ in the Constitution or Bill of Rights covering the right to health care. History, however, has played with our rights, making them malleable and open to interpretation (which was the initial intent of the framers).

For example, in the original Bill of Rights, there were no provisions for African Americans or Women to vote. It took years – no, decades – of struggle to allow women and non-whites the right to vote. Yet would Rush, Coulter, Beck and Hannity ever dream of arguing that the 14th and 19th Amendment should be repealed? No matter how much my friends on the left  would argue that the above just hide their sheets in a closet at home, I would venture a guess that revocation of these “evolved” rights have never ventured into their heads.

Let us take this one step further: Education. Education was not outlined as a “freedom” that should be provided for all in any founding document. In fact, for most of the history of the United States, education was more of a costly luxury that only the elite could afford. Yet the Federal, State, and local governments of the United States spend billions of dollars providing for basic education for all Americans, free of charge and with no eye toward profit. Why? Because a more educated populace is a more secure populace, a more flexible populace, a more productive populace, and (finally) a more “free” populace – potentially free from the shackles of ignorance, potentially free to change jobs without starting over at the bottom, free to follow the call of their inner muse whether it be art, business, education, science, music, or radio talk show host.

Public education – regardless of your personal opinion of its efficacy – provides a basis for future potential and frees parents from having to worry about choosing between educating their children and providing food, clothing, and shelter. Unfortunately, parents now have to choose whether to take themselves or their child to the doctor’s office or put food on the table. It is a known fact that 60% of bankruptcies could be avoided if the American people did not have to worry about medical bills and expenses. Most of those in the Harvard Study did have medical coverage, but were cut off because preset yearly or lifetime limits on health care – Tell me; which would you sacrifice? Your credit rating, house, car, and savings or your child or spouse’s life?

Why should Americans be forced to choose? In all honesty, like Americans do not have to choose whether to send their child to school or not, Americans should not have to choose whether to take themselves or their child to the doctors.

“But what about ‘Socialism’ and the death of American innovation in medicine?” you may ask. I counter that with concrete examples from industrialized nations with universal health care:

Germany has a nationalized health care system yet BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagon,  and Porsche are considered some of the best vehicles on the road. Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz even purchased Chrysler several years back, but the cost to operate the American auto maker was too much for the Germans and thus sold it to a private equity firm a few years ago. What kinds of savings would the automobile industry realize if the crushing burden of health care were removed from them?

Japan has universal health care, yet Toyota tops sales in the US while electronics firms like Sony dominate the electronics, music, film, and entertainment industries. Imagine what would happen if American companies could focus on their productivity and worker’s compensation instead of health care cost-to-benefit ratios.

France has a nationalized healthcare system yet was the first to transplant a face! Italian doctors, working in a socialized medical system, taught American doctors how to fix a woman’s blindness by using her TOOTH as a graft material! The British have had universal health care since 1948 and, despite rumors to the contrary spread by Republican fear-mongers, it was that very system that allows us to enjoy the gifts from the rare genius that is Stephen Hawking. China has had socialized medicine – and a Communist government – since 1949 and owns the majority of our US debt as well as dominates our markets with their inexpensive, poorly made products.

How’s this for the kicker: China, Russia (socialized medicine), Japan, France, and the Gulf States (Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) are conspiring to stop pricing and trading oil in American Dollars! The Chinese warned that “We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security.” A Communist country who we owe trillions of dollars to and who has the benefit of socialized medicine is preparing to challenge our hegemony in the United States.

Makes all the dire predictions of a “slippery slope” of “Socialism” seem like hysterics, doesn’t it? All the evidence available does not seem to indicate that Socialized medicine automatically equates to a lack of competitive edge in the marketplace or the demise of a nation’s business. And while we’re on the subject of undercutting American business; the same argument was used to counter workers’ and progressives’ arguments for an end to child labor, occupational safety, weekends off, and twelve (then ten, then eight) hour work week, color-blind hiring policies, environmental pollution regulations, and workman’s compensation insurance.

So, my dear Republican friends, as Ms. Snowe has clearly stated, “History is calling” and you have a choice; free the American people of the fearful spectre of costly health care once and for all, or become as ghosts yourselves.

QED

History in the making? originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 14, 20092009-10-14T14:46:46ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Fuck you Liz Pulliam Weston. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart. You had me with the catchy title of your MSN Money article “The Rude New Tip-Jar Economy.” I also run into tip jars at the oddest places. Here in Cincinnati you can find tip jars in ice cream parlors, privately-owned coffee shops and even fast-food restaurants. I also feel like an ass if I don’t leave at least some change as a tip, but feel sheepish about being brow-beaten into tipping. But here’s where my “Fuck You Liz Pulliam Weston” comes in.

In your article (HERE) you state, regarding service charges for waiter’s tips on credit cards:

“Another advantage, in my view: There’s a paper trail for most of the server’s income. Cash tips encourage tax evasion, which isn’t fair to those of us who try to pay our fair shares.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly income of a waiter, server, waitress, or other food service worker is — brace yourselves — $6.77 to $10.10 an hour. Having worked in food service, I can also attest to the fact that whether in Ohio, California, or other states, most servers are paid $2.12 per hour from their employer as a mere formality to cover the taxes servers are assessed. Currently servers are taxed based on their SALES that week, not their tips.  In 1982, congress mandated that all servers, waiters, and tip-earning workers be assessed taxes at 8 percent of their total sales. In the intervening years, that amount of assessment has risen to about 12 percent meaning that for every $1 you spend at a restaurant, the GOVERNMENT assumes that the server will be tipped about $1.20.

So let’s do some quick math here, Liz Pulliam Weston (Fuck you). If a server works 40 hours a week (most actually work more, but I’ll get to that later) they earn $404 per week, for a grand total of $1,212 per month OR $21,008 per year. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty line for a family of 3 (which I had) is just under $18,000 a year as of 2008. This means that a high-middle earning server working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks earns barely $3,000 over the poverty line. This also means the vast majority of waiters earn BELOW the poverty line.

“What does this have to do with tax evasion?” you may ask, Liz Pulliam Weston (Fuck you). “The low earnings encourage under-reporting of tips and thus tax evasion!” Aha, here’s the problem with that. Living BELOW the poverty line or barely above it really amounts to a smattering of dollars — most of which the server gets back anyway when their taxes are done. Head of household, child tax credit, deductions, etc. all pretty much mean every dollar paid in taxes is returned to the workers. Therefore, there is very little incentive to evade taxes. Nevertheless, I assure you that the IRS is very vigilant about catching waiters who try to game the system, and there are some who earn much more than $10 an hour who report insanely low tips, but they are an infinitesimal minority.

But on to the work schedule of a 40 hour a week server. Sure, you finish up at your cubicle (or office — do you have an office, Liz Pulliam Weston [Fuck you]?) and you feel drained, tired to the bone. You think “aw, screw it, I’ll go to Friday’s or Outback or some other restaurant so I don’t have to cook.” Well, the server who meets you at the table — that chipper, mannered guy or girl — was probably at work before you went to lunch and will be at work — doing unpaid “side work” in the restaurant — well after you’re snug as a bug in bed. On top of that, if you don’t like the waiter, or you feel they slighted you, you may not short them, but others sure as hell do. People stiff waiters for all kinds of reason, from cheap-skatery to thoughtlessness. I once worked for a broker who drove a Corvette and bragged about his vacation house in Lake Havasu, Arizona, but refused to pay tips because he felt it wasn’t his job to pay the wages of someone else’s employees. Other people refuse to tip on alcoholic beverages, desserts, and appetizers for whatever reason. To make matters worse, many restaurants, hotels, and other eateries force waiters to “tip out” other members of the restaurant — bus boys, bartenders, Maitre d’ or other ancillary characters — thus reducing their tips EVEN FURTHER.

Even when people are NOT being evil, their good intentions fuck waiters up. Once, I worked a HUGE table all by myself — I gave away tables I might have worked otherwise because I was so busy — and was prompt with the food, charming, witty and helpful. The table cleared and I thought I’d hit the motherlode with a couple of $20 bills on the table. .. see it coming yet? Do you? The $20 bills were not, in fact, legal tender of these United States of America, nor of Canada, Mexico or Botswana. It was a religious flier disguised as a greenback. Inside was a message “Disappointed? You wouldn’t be if Jesus was your Savior. Join us at … ” and gave the address of a church I seriously considered committing a hate-crime against. An hour and a half of my time taken up, at least 8 percent (but more likely 12 percent) tax assessed on a $300 food-and-drink bill and I had “Jesus Saves!” to show for it. For some reason, the bank refused to accept my Savior deposit — go figure.

Waiters work typically 6 to 12 hour shifts — restaurants come up with this crazy “split schedule” scheme to get around having to give you a proper, sit-down lunch break, by the way. Servers are on their feet constantly, have to put up with being harassed, harangued, poked, prodded, carry heavy loads, clean up after your oh-so-cute brat who shredded the bread brought to your table, clean up your other messes, deal with your obnoxious body odor/perfume, and (in many states) work in the smoking section even if they’re a non-smoker, smile, be charming and courteous, AND have to act like its their fault if your Cajun-Grilled Tilapia was too spicy to eat even after they warned you it was REALLY spicy all in the hopes that you will leave 15 percent of your bill. On top of that, very few waiters can afford to pay for health care, have a meager leave policy (most restaurants and bars do not have paid leave) AND can be fired at the drop of a hat by a a manager who is intimidated by a customer who has had too much to drink.

Let us compare, though, other people who are tax dodgers who DO have paper trails: Martha Stewart accrued $220,000 in tax debt to the state of New York alone (the equivalent of all the earning of 10 waiters), Wesley Snipes owed $15 MILLION in taxes to the IRS (the equivalent combined wages of 714 waiters) AND the US government recently reached an agreement with Swiss banks to catch affluent Wall Streeters, CEOs and other wealthy individuals who had — for decades — been hiding their assets overseas to escape paying their “fair share.”

So, in closing, while I appreciate your ire about the rude tip-jars, you do yourself and others a disservice by perpetuating the myth that servers, waiters, bartenders and valets are tax evading bums who can’t get a real job. Until you’ve actually done the work that these people do — without the benefits many Americans take for granted — you need to shut up and stick to the facts.

Tips and Taxes originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 8, 20092009-10-09T01:52:28ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Anti-government sentiment motivated Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices — all of whom warned of encroaching “big government” — to kill or maim hundreds of innocent men, women and children in 1995. Though McVeigh was executed, do neo-cons really think the militia ultra-right wingers really went away? Or that they changed their politics over a feeling of guilt?

Eric Rudolph, notorious mass-murderer and domestic terrorist was motivated by an ultra-right wing ideology that believed the government should outlaw a private medical practice they disagree with — abortion. Never mind the cognitive dissonance of NOT wanting single-payer medical care and yet WANTING the government to spy on the doctor who performs abortions. But Rudolph was a hero to anti-Liberal government types – many of whom helped him evade the police! Do Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh think these anti-abortion activists ran to their blood-soaked altars and begged forgiveness of Christ for the murders they perpetuate in the name of “justice for the unborn?” Tell that to George Tiller.

When “Tea Parties” revel in the disrespect — and grievous lies — of Joe Wilson and Jim Shimkus, they prattle on about “death panels” and Nazi-like Liberal leaders who want to institute “Communism.” Completely disregarding the fact that Nazis were conservative ANTI-COMMUNIST REACTIONARIES who stormed town hall meetings and ranted irrationally, the lies become inspiration for action by barely-educated brutes.

Take for example a Census worker named Bill Sparkman. His job was to collect data on people who live in rural Kentucky while earning a little extra money on the side – per the American dream, no less – and what happened to him? He was lynched by anti-Federal government nut jobs and dthe word “Fed” scrawled across his chest. His body was mutilated so badly that his mother says he needs to be cremated. A police officer friend of his had warned him of the strong anti-government sentiment prevalent in the region, but who would harm a guy who asks how big your house is and if you had attended college? People who get their news from Fox, that’s who.

The scariest part about this whole string of events is that the very same rhetoric and sentiments — anti-government, fear mongering, emotional appeals that defy reason and logic — that were used to justify Jim Crow laws and to bolster support for domestic terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the White Man’s Union in the years following the Reconstruction! In both cases, “conservative” politicians and newspaper men used their public power to incite the poor, ignorant, rural masses into supporting oppressive, unfair policies that are a disgrace to the words “Democracy,” “Representative Republic” and “America.” In both cases, they use false information, emotional appeals, fear-mongering tactics to make the populace lash out at those who are trying to make this country more just, more fair, and more equal.

Here’s the deal, you knuckle-dragging flag-waving, draft-dodging cowards: You’re on the wrong side of history. You are not supporting America’s ideals as embodied in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights, but instead you are working to undermine them. You will be remembered a hundred years from now not as the self-proclaimed voices of reason “Arguing with Idiots” but as engaging in acts of self aggrandizement and oppression and betraying the very principles of America for your own momentary gain –

that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Note it says “Among these” not “Only These” “Just these” or “For those who can afford these.” Rights evolve and are in flux. Before America’s grand experiment, there was no “freedom of speech.” Before the 14th and 20th Amendment, Black people and women did not have the right to vote.

You do not want the nation to evolve. You want it to ossify, become brittle and fall apart.

Of course, this makes Sarah Palin the Nathan Bedford Forrest and makes “Ditto heads” the Sturmableitung of their era.  But those are links I’m not too sure she or they would be uncomfortable with.

Reaping the fear originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 24, 20092009-09-24T19:20:24ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

In 1932,  in an attempt to clear the Bonus Army from Anacostia Flats in Washington, D.C., Herbert Hoover sent in armored cars and troops led by Gen. Douglass MacArthur and Maj George Patton. Needless to say, Patton and MacArthur’s impulse to burn the Hooverville there and shoot WWI veterans was a disaster for Hoover; Franklin D. Roosevelt reportedly gloated that Hoover “handed him the election” by sending the troops in.

In 1884, Reformist-minded Republicans left the party over the corrupt politics of James Blaine, handing Grover Cleveland the presidency. These “Mugwumps” were tired of the jaded, corrupt scheming of a party that put its own needs ahead of the needs of the country. Sounds familiar, somehow …

And now we have Joe Wilson, representative from South Carolina and another Republican whose impulse control is — shall we say — tenuous at best. In a fit of monumental disrespect, bad judgment and perhaps drunk on the Kool-Aid that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been freely distributing, he shouted out “You lie!” when President Obama was promising no coverage for illegal immigrants under the health care reform plan. Commenting later, Mr. Wilson stammered that the outburst was not “pre-meditated.” Well, it may not have been, but it certainly helped Democrats who were on the fence see the light: Who the hell wants to be tarred with the same brush that’s being used to slather Mr. Wilson?

But this outburst has done more than delineate the stark contrast between reform and health care for every American and sitting on your hands while insurance company CEOs make $107,000 an hour (ref. “Sick for Profit“). It also helped paint a stark contrast between Liberals and Conservatives. In the 8 years that George W. Bush was President, I do not recall one instance where a Democrat ever yelled at him, called him a “liar,” hissed or checked their Blackberries while he was speaking. I’m certain Fox News would have mentioned it.

And that’s the problem. Conservatives — rather than proffering a reasonable, logical rejoinder to the President’s plan — would prefer to appeal to the dark, fearful emotions of Americans. “Abortions are paid for,” “Death panels,” “Socialized medicine” and “Healthcare for illegal immigrants” are the rallying cries of the Neo-Cons intended to scare you, America. As President Obama said, it “would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” Why scare you? Because a scared populace is a dependent populace. Ever wonder why Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro was never toppled? Because “big, bad America” was right there, looming like a boogeyman, ready to rape and pillage, make your daughters into porn stars and your sons into atheist drug dealers. Seriously! this is the kind of tactics that strong-arm fascist dictators use to keep the people in line. Why is it a surprise that extremist Republicans act any differently?

But Liberals, Progressives, and even Moderates are waking up to the fear and logical fallacies of the Conservatives, thanks to Joe “You Lie” Wilson. Hours after Mr. Wilson’s outburst, his Democratic opponent in what looks to be a tough 2010 race — former Marine Rob Miller — received over $50,000 in campaign contributions. Better yet, his GOP colleagues — themselves called on the carpet for their ludicrous assertions and challenged to put up or shut up during the President’s speech — pressured Joe “I’m handing you the election in 2010″ Wilson to apologize. John McCain — a Republican I really like (when he’s not running for president) — even called Joe “I screwed the GOP in two words” Wilson’s comments “Totally disrespectful” and admonished him to apologize immediately.

Hours later, a chastened Joe “foot in mouth” Wilson called the White House and spoke to Rahm Emmanuel, expressing his regretful lack of decorum. Yeah. Sure you regret it. Especially since you lied about Obama lying. According to Newsweek and other news sources, HR 3200 “expressly forbids” extending health coverage to illegal immigrants.

Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it, Joe “Fucked up in front of the whole country on live TV” Wilson? Thanks for handing us health care reform and the 2010 election.

Thanks, ‘You Lie’ Guy! originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 11, 20092009-09-11T04:20:06ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

Think of the circumstances of other historical domestications: Dogs were initially wild pack animals who either rejected or killed weaker members of the pack. Lucky for us, really. We were able to take those cast offs, those rejects and make them into loyal companions to aid us in hunting from the very earliest days, 100,000 BCE  or more.

To a degree we still use dogs to hunt, though they are less instrumental to modern hunting. Cows and other cattle were dragged into domestication as were horses, pigs, goats, sheep, llamas and chickens. But cats were attracted by the inventiveness of humans — our ability to manipulate our surroundings to better suit our needs.

Cats are very recent domestics, really, having wandered in from the forests of the fertile crescent some 6,000 years or so ago. They were hunting the rodents and other vermin who thrived on our agricultural systems. They emerged in cities like Ur, Uruk, Babylon and Nineveh. It was not human effort which gathered the cats, at least not at first, but rather cats’ consent to live in the “happy hunting grounds” of human habitation.

By the 3rd millenia BCE, cats had become indispensable to human agriculture in Egypt, China and the Indus valleys. Egyptians were so enamored with cats and their ability to rescue humans from a blight of vermin that they created the goddess Bast, a human woman with a cat’s head. It was also illegal to kill a cat and if a family’s cat died, Egyptians shaved their eyebrows to mark their grief and loss.

Cats paced the halls of the palaces of the Pharoahs and even became mummies in their own right, traveling to the afterlife in a manner similar to humans. Cats, with their silent steps and alien-seeming eyes were also considered gateways to the spirit world by none other than the founders of Democracy, the Greeks.

Originally, Greeks kept polecats (Mustelids related to weasels) as leashed guardians of grains. Slowly, cats filtered into Greek society and replaced polecats, probably in trade with Egyptians or Persians (since cats were also used on ships to prevent vermin infestations).

Cats were adopted into Greek society where they became associated with Hecate, goddess of the moon, crossroads and darkness and administrator of the underworld (lieutenant to Persephone). According to Greek legend, a woman named Galenthias was transformed into a black cat by Hecate so that she could see into the spirit world as much as the “real” world. It is perhaps the influence of cats’ spirits that we get one of the most interesting anecdotes from the Middle East.

The Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH) is said to have been extremely fond of cats. In fact, one Hadith (a saying or deed of the Prophet) holds that one day during the call to prayer, the Prophet’s cat Muezza was asleep on the sleeve of his robe. Rather than wake the cat, the Prophet cut the sleeve off and went to prayer.

In fact, compared to other domestic animals, cats are fairly well revered in Islam Dogs are considered unclean because of their proclivity to eat garbage and carrion while donkeys and goats are used as an insult. It is said that when the Prophet died, cats came out of the desert to sit at his grave site and (supposedly) cats can always be found near his grave site in Medina today.

Everywhere cats went, their mystical reputation followed; even along the old silk roads all the way to Japan.

Maneki Neko is the beckoning cat of Japanese lore who is always associated with good fortune and luck. One legend has it that an old priest lived in a dilapidated temple and, despite having little food, always shared with his cat, Tama. One day, the priest had run out of food and complained wearily to the cat, prompting the cat to walk out of the temple, into a gathering storm.

A rich Samurai was traveling along the road and had taken shelter under a large tree. While resting he noticed the cat in the rain, with a paw raised as if beckoning to him to enter the temple. Curious, the Samurai left the shelter of the tree to see why the cat was waving to him. Moments later, a deafening clap of thunder rent the air and lightning split the tree asunder. The cat had saved the Samurai’s life.

Scooping the cat up, the Samurai entered the temple and asked the old priest if he owned the cat. The priest acknowledged the cat was his, despite fearing the cat had somehow angered the Samurai, and the Samurai declared Tama the harbinger of good fortune. The Samurai’s family became benefactors of the old temple, completely reversing the fortunes of it, the priest and Tama.

Europeans, more ambivalent and afraid of cats, still believed cats affected human fortune, usually for the better.

In the early modern era, no sea-faring captain would go to sea without a good rat-catcher on board, and while dogs (such as terriers) were used on ships often, it was cats who garnered the most attention and lore. Sailors believed that if a cat washed its ears vigorously, there was a storm coming. Likewise, if a cat approached a sailor, the sailor would have good luck that day. If, however, it approached him half way only to retreat, he was sure to have bad luck.

Ships’ captains came to regard cats and their presence as part of the superstitions needed to run their ships efficiently. If a crewman ever threw a cat overboard, the sailor was certain to follow at the order of the captain.

Though many medieval hysterics believed that cats were symbols of Satan, many kings and nobles believed the opposite. In fact, Charles I of England believed that his cat brought him good luck, even detailing a guard to keep it safe. The day after the cat died, Charles I was arrested by Oliver Cromwell’s forces and later executed for treason.

In New England, the wives of fishermen would keep black cats to prevent their husband’s death at sea through some calamity — which, ironically, may have brought about many of the ill rumors which were used to persecute women during the various Witch Hunts (such as the famous Salem Witch Trials) of the 17th century.

Human fascination with this egalitarian and mystical relationship carried over into literature, art, science, and politics.

T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemmingway, Alexandre Dumas and Charles Dickins all kept numerous cats. In fact while Hemmingway is celebrated as the most macho of writers, he housed some 30 cats in his Key West home. T.S. Eliot’s “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats” became “Cats” (the musical) under Andrew Lloyd Weber’s direction. Winston Churchill’s cat, Marmalade, used to travel with him and always slept in bed with him. Pierre August Renoir is famous for including cats in his portraits as is Theophile Steinlen (”Le Chat Noir” posters everywhere owe him a debt of gratitude). Tchaikovsky and Chopin were both inspired by cats running across a piano and penned musical tributes to their cats. Nicolai Tesla was inspired to research electricity after he received a shock from his cat, Macak. Percy Shaw, an English inventor, developed the “Catseye” device upon being inspired by the way light reflected in cats’ eyes from all angles. His invention is used on bicycles and in roadways where Americans call them “reflectors.” And Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said it best when he noted “they (cats) are the cleanest, cunningest, and most intelligent things I know, outside of the girl you love, of course.”

Cats are at once our boon companions and yet a hair’s breadth (or perhaps, whisker’s breadth) away from their feral roots. A dog lost in the city will trot up and down streets, looking for its master (or a friendly face) for some time before reverting to its wild nature. Cats, however, barely touch paw to grass before they re-imagine themselves tigers stalking prey.

Invariably, the way that we carve out a comfortable niche in the world attracts cats: Skulking and half-wild, they are coaxed by the lights of civilization — entranced, perhaps — much like their wild ancestors thousands of years ago.

On silent, slippered paws they meander into our lives, check up on our progress, take what is offered, give what they feel like you need, perhaps stay a while, connect us to our original Bronze-age roots and just as quickly are gone again.

In Memory of Chuck, 2001 - 2009

The important history of the feline originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on August 30, 20092009-08-31T01:52:29ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

One of the cradles of civilization, Egypt was an empire in constant contact with people from Asia Minor as well as sub-Saharan Africa; as a result carvings on the pedestals of Ramses II at Abu Simbel depict Egyptian dominance over Assyrian “Asiatics” as well as Nubian “Africans.”

In reality, however, both of these groups were at times equal to or dominated Egypt. Rulers of Nubian descent were common in the New Kingdom period while Old Kingdom period rulers sometimes took wives from so-called Asian kingdoms. Though the carvings depict both Asians and Africans as slaves or defeated foes, the reality was far more complex and social mobility was not limited to the color of one’s skin. Often fortunes changed with political and economic changes; at one point, Nubian gold reserves were somewhat depleted, making the value of Nubian imports (and thus Nubian officials) less important. As a result, many Nubian merchants found few markets, but Nubian “Egyptians” still found their ways onto carvings and paintings well into the late New Kingdom period.

Imperial Rome approached race relations in a similar way; the actual number of Roman citizens born on the Italian peninsula was relatively small compared to the total amount of Roman citizens. In fact, by the end of the Roman imperial period, many Roman citizens had never actually been to Rome itself.

St. Augustine, the famous clergyman and moral commentator, was born in what is today Algeria. Descended from Berbers, a nomadic group from North Africa, young Augustine enjoyed the wonders of being a Roman citizen; participation in politics, a high degree of education, a privileged upbringing and a wealthy household. As a young man, he was a devout follower of the Roman gods before converting to Manichaeism and only later converted to Christianity — a religion that was quickly becoming popular in the Roman world. While studying at Carthage, he distinguished himself not by the color of his skin or the place of his birth, but by his logical acumen and theoretical mind. He would later go on to write one of the most foundational treatises on the Catholic religion; The City of God. His works influenced later theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

During the Middle Ages, despite the homogeneous depictions of 1940s Hollywood (thanks Errol Flynn), Medieval England was regularly visited by North African traders, emissaries, and refugees. Widely known as “Moors” these travelers of North African, Iberian and Arab heritage began integrating into English society throughout the Middle Ages, including during the Crusades. In fact, many people who bear the English name “Moore” as well as the Irish name “Muir” (also pronounced “moor”) may be able to trace their genetic legacy to the Moors of this time period.

It is no accident that the tragic hero of Shakespeare’s Othello is, himself, a Moor — though the play takes place in Italy, the residents of Elizabethan London were at least familiar with people with darker skin. Interestingly, 26 sonnets are addressed to a “dark lady” he was believed to have an affair with. Speculation about the “dark lady” has led many scholars to surmise that he was speaking to either Emelia Lanier or Mary Fitton, both of whom were elite women of their time and are believed to have been of African lineage.

It is important to note at this juncture that Ancient Egypt and Classical Rome both were slave-holding cultures but slavery was not tied to skin color or “race” per se, but rather to a set of circumstances. For example, it was entirely possible for a black North African Roman citizen to own a slave from Gaul and live in modern-day Turkey. And England of Elizabeth’s time had recently emerged from a spate of wars and plagues, leaving a dearth of labor for the jobs at hand but does not seem to have practiced slavery. Most likely this is due to England’s relative poverty, but even in Elizabethan-era France (which was immensely wealthy by comparison) there is little to no evidence of slavery existing at all.

Therefore, it must be concluded that in light of the experiences of these earlier societies, it was not the presence of slaves — or of their emancipation — which engendered racially-based hatred and discrimination in human beings in general. Indeed, it is entirely possible that these societies were more “color blind” than contemporary American society.

After Columbus’ discovery of the New World, Spain (and to a lesser degree, Portugal) experienced an increase in territory and access to natural resources. Originally, the native groups of South, Central and North America were compelled to work on plantations and in mines as a part of a de facto slavery scheme. When the native groups proved to be relatively weak (having been ravaged by small pox and other plagues brought by Europeans), Europeans turned to slaves taken from Africa.

To be fair, Africans had been enslaving each other — and selling excess slaves to outsiders — for hundreds of years. Until the discovery of the New World and the establishment of large, concentrated plantations and mining colonies, slaves were used mostly for domestic help and were usually sold to Arab merchants. Very few Africans were initially sold to Europeans in the early 16th century, and those that were were essentially indentured servants.

Indentured servitide was a popular 16th and 17th century method of transporting excess people from the homeland (also called the “metropole”) to the colonies (the “periphery”); England, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Portugal all had a mechanism by which criminals, debtors, and others were sold into service for a certain period of time, usually between 7 and 20 years. Early slaves taken by Europeans were usually set free after their contracts had expired; typically closer to the 20 year end of the spectrum.

During that time, it was common practice to teach the slave skills such as smithing, cobbling, coopering and cartwrighting. This is because the relative scarcity of labor made it imperative to educate all laborers in a variety of tasks. For example, in New England, harsh winters, sometimes hostile neighbors, and primitive living conditions rarely allowed for institutional racism though personal prejudices still existed, even on a community level.

One example of a community level evidence of racism, or at least discrimination, was the lead-up and aftermath of “King Philip’s War.” Metacom, known as “King Philip” to the residents of Plymouth and Salem, Massachusetts, was reported to be hostile to Puritan missionaries and, thus, plotting to attack the colonies using a confederacy of Native American tribes. This news was given credence largely because of Metacom’s mistrust of English settlers’ intentions as well as their odd new religion. What is interesting is not that the war was largely caused by a tail that wagged the dog, but because the war was started by a man known as John Sassamon, a converted Native American (commonly referred to as a “praying Indian”) who exploited Purtian and English mistrust of “heathens.”

Using King Philip’s War as a larger example, though the war’s preconditions were based on a mutual mistrust between white and non-white settlers, the war itself was only sparked by the rumors started by another non-white, thus ruling out racism (or at least ameliorating it since whites trusted a non-white to tell them what they already suspected). Still, there is ample evidence to suggest that, despite off-and-on mutual mistrust, white and non-whites existed largely in peace and security.

As the 17th century progressed, however, the institution of slavery became increasingly profitable and by the 18th century was a booming business which saw the height of European market-driven cruelty. Partly due to diminishing levels of native population and partly due to the hunger for new (or more available) products such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and furs, the need for slaves grew into an insatiable hunger. It is during the late 17th and early 18th century that the malevolent practice of stacking human slaves as cargo in the holds of ships was adopted.

Strangely enough, the European appetite for slaves remained undiminished throughout the 17th and 18th century despite increases in the availability of poor, European workers coming to or born in the colonies. In fact, as slaves became more available, they often displaced paid European workers in the fields and mines of South, Central and especially North America. Different European colonies and cultures dealt with this influx differently. In what would later be known as “Latin America,” 66 different categories of “race” arose from the intermixing and intermarrying of Africans, Europeans and Native Americans (also called Amerinds).

In Spanish-based societies, the scale was sliding; in other words, it was possible for the descendant of a Spaniard and his African or Native wife to eventually become “Spanish” again, thus making racial categories rather flexible and fluid.

At the same time, 18th century English-based societies made race more solid and less negotiable, engendering it with tones of racial superiority and hierarchy that would later characterize “social Darwinism.” Popular discontent among poor, rural whites over the loss of paying jobs to enslaved Africans was exploited by landowners who employed these whites in various slave-control positions including overseers and slave catchers.

Ironically, by the end of the 18th and early 19th century, Southern slave owners began employing black freedmen and trusted slaves as overseers because they were more restrained in punishing slaves as well as more efficient and reliable as overseers — thus blacks were again displacing poor whites in paying positions. Typically, the only positions left to whites were sharecropping on marginal land and slave catching.

As resistance to slavery in the North — particularly by religious groups such as the Quakers and the Amish — increased and the method of smuggling escaped slaves North became more prevalent and efficient, laws were enacted and instructions given to white slave catchers to return any and all blacks they could find to slavery on the plantations. Many cities and states resisted such laws with their own legislation or through other legal mechanisms.

For example, Vermont’s response to the various slave-returning acts pushed through Congress by an increasingly belligerent Southern Democratic bloc was to require slave catchers to hold their prisoners in county or municipal jails while the slave catcher’s papers were examined in court. Vermont jails became notoriously easy to break out of and as a result, many slave catchers operated illegally within the borders of Vermont — occasionally conspiring with sympathetic whites or other contacts.

During this time, racial categories became locked through implementation of the so-called “one drop” rule. According tot his theory, if “one drop” of African blood existed in the lineage of a person, they were not white and thus not subject to the privileges and rights appertaining to white Americans. This “one drop” mentality extended well into the 19th century with chilling effect.

The close of the 18th century was a time of rebellion in the American colonies as well as in the Caribbean. In North America, black volunteers participated in the defense of the colonies, largely inspired by the language of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, there was initially language included in the Constitution which would have emancipated Africans, but threat of secession by representatives of Virginia, the Carolinas and other southern colonies eventually caused such language to be struck from the Constitution, even after black colonists had participated in the Revolutionary War on behalf of the New Republic.

During the Civil War, Northern Democrats (and some Republicans) opposed the inclusion of black soldiers in the fighting, arguing that they would be unreliable troops who would be difficult to discipline.

Nevertheless, in 1862 Lincoln allowed the formation of the segregated United States Colored Troops — a year later the South began to follow suit, officially allowing black Southerners to join in an official capacity (though black soldiers did unofficially participate on the CSA’s side from the very beginning of the war).

Prior to the war, however, an increasing number of black escaped slaves and free men congregated in the largely urban and industrialized areas of New England and Michigan causing many “white” immigrants and laborers to begin resenting their presence and adopting much of the Southern-born language and stereotypes; these Northerners who sympathized with the South became known as “copperheads.” This mentality persisted after the Civil War and was exacerbated by the Reconstruction’s efforts at racial equality.

During the Reconstruction, resentful white Southerners began forming leagues such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White League and embarked on a spree of politically-motivated assassinations aimed at black politicians and their white supporters. but such racism was not confined to just the South; as the North continued to industrialize, Republican-friendly industrialists began forming monopolies and “company towns” in which they exercised complete authority (with the exception of the post offices which were technically federal land). Big steel, coal mines, and other industries thrived on dividing its workers along racial lines, playing one off the other to keep the wages low, productivity high, and workers divided.

In this manner, the “progressive” Republicans aided in the institutionalization of racial discrimination on the social level, though not on the legal level. In fact, the popularity of “blackface minstrelsy” in the North during the latter half of the 19th century caused a boom in the touring circuit later known as Vaudeville as well as in home-play kits (song books, blackface make-up, and games which were used to entertain at parties and gatherings). Black Americans were made into an object of ridicule on a national level never before seen.

Southern Democrats, later known as “Dixiecrats” for their racist views and conservative voting records, enacted a series of laws aimed at bypassing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments through the institution of poll taxes and Jim Crow segregation laws. In this manner, racial distinctions were not just codified, but legalized. The famous Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 technically flew in the face of the 14th Amendment which gave full, equal citizenship to black Americans and was used as a bludgeon to prevent the full, equal integration of black Americans into society until the Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954. Racism, however, was not confined to the South, and in the 1920s and 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan — having been largely debilitated by the efforts of the Reconstruction-era Republicans — resurrected itself in a more virulent and pervasive manner in the “North.”

From its new headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana, the new KKK engaged in a systematic campaign of domestic terrorism, assassination, and government corruption in an effort to “preserve” what it perceived as a “white nation” from the threats of non-whiteness, Judaism and Catholicism. Many members of the KKK either entered or recruited members of the military and police departments across the United States; in fact, until the 1950s the KKK counted many members of the Los Angeles Police Department and proudly proclaimed that its members were operating in the open in Birmingham, Alabama, with the assistance of the police and judicial system of the county. Birmingham acquired the infamous moniker of “Bombingham” in the 1950s due to racially-based terrorist bombings as well as the numerous politically- and racially-motivated assassinations which took place well into the 1970s.

During the 1940s and 1950s, Southern Democrats contemptuous of the Roosevelt-era progressive and liberal Democrats from the North began switching to the Republican Party. The most famous Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond (D,R-SC), once tried to derail the Civil Rights Amendment in 1957 through record-breaking filibuster. The era of conservative-Republicanism had already begun long before the Dixiecrat defection but was accelerated by it, and by the 1970s the Republican party was inextricably linked to conservatism, religious evangelism and anti-liberalism.

Oddly enough, the Equal Rights Amendment was a platform introduced and supported by the Republican Party beginning in the 1940s, but became a point of contention and controversy within the party in the 1970s which led to conservative religious groups aligned with the Republican party, such as the Mormons and some Catholic diocese, to oppose it from 1980 onward.

Outside of the political spectrum, the pervasiveness of anti-black hysteria was prevalent also. In midwestern towns such as Indianapolis, Detroit and Cincinnati, blacks who sought housing were unofficially relegated to lower-income neighborhoods with realtors and sellers refusing to show properties in other, predominantly white neighborhoods. Even if realtors and/or residents sold their house to a black family, neighborhood watches and vigilantes would soon take matters into their own hands, often engaging in racial intimidation — sometimes to violent conclusions — or would migrate away from the neighborhood, selling at or below the market price causing the phenomenon of “white flight.” Blacks soon became synonymous with neighborhood decline and blight a decade or so before the social programs of Lyndon B Johnson — programs which many conservatives today point to as the “beginning of the decline” in America’s neighborhoods and cities.

Though many conservative pundits and politicians love to point to the Civil Rights era, affirmative action and even the OJ Simpson murder trial verdict as proof that American society has moved beyond race issues and it is only the over-reaction of liberals and black racists that keeps such turmoil alive, they neglect the almost 400-year character of anti-black racism which infuses much of American society. For example, a women’s auxiliary group of the California GOP circulated an “inside joke” to their members via email with a crude photoshop of the “new” food stamp of an Obama administration.

Recently, much furor was made over the arrest of Henry L Gates, a black Harvard professor, by James Crowley, a white police officer, with conservatives calling the event a case of “reverse racism” because the president, a black man, had commented that the police acted “stupidly.” Following the event, the police department of Cambridge, several other cities, as well as the Fraternal Order of Police demanded an apology, putting on their best indignation faces for the cameras.

Unfortunately, the reality of police (and social) racism has undercut their arguments. Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett sent an email to colleagues wherein he described Dr. Gates as a “jungle monkey” but defended himself as “not a racist.” More recently, two North Canton police dispatchers (themselves not police officers, but working in close cooperation with law enforcement) circulated an email with a photoshopped image of Air Force One’s tail number. Again, the offending person has denied their racial attitude, but all the protestations in the world do not cover up the fact that there is prevalent racism in the politics and society of America. A few decades of half-hearted, resentful progress on behalf of conservatives — who draw on the legacy of Dixiecrats and their own neo-conservative rhetoric — does not equate to a post-racial society, nor does it negate the systemic, pervasive, and subtle level of anti-black racism.

If we are to take the e-mailers above at their word — that they sent these images as a “joke” and “did not mean to offend” anyone — then the power of such images and stereotypes is far, far more powerful than any conservative pundit gives it credit. It’s almost like not being aware of the contradiction of being dependent upon oxycontin while railing against the “fallacy” of being addicted to drugs, insisting that will alone is the issue.

Racism is a drug, one that is destructive and addictive and which needs to be confronted head-on by those who deny it the most.

A (Short) History of Anti-Black Racism originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on August 22, 20092009-08-23T03:50:06ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

In the 1920’s, in the wake of WWI, conservative elements of the German Weimar Republic looked around them at the devastation wrought by conservative, war-mongering leaders with a passion for Empire and blamed relatively liberal or non-political groups for their problems; Jews, Gypsies, Bolsheviks….anybody but the very people who got Germany into its mess. And what a mess it was! High unemployment, wounded veterans returning from an ill-conceived war with life-altering injuries and psychological scars that were inadequately treated by a populace ashamed to look at the wounds of their brave soldiers, and an economy in shambles which stifled creativity and entrepreneurship. Into this maelstrom of self-loathing came a figure that fired the imagination of the crowd, saying what they wanted to hear:

It’s not the German people’s fault!

Someone else must be to blame for the woes of society! Adolph Hitler’s speeches did not encourage lively debate, an exchange of ideas, nor a method for achieving equality and justice. Instead it incited the basest, most vicious instincts of a crowd that gave up its rational thought processes in favor of simplistic – and violent – urges.

In the 1920’s, this rhetoric came to a head with the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” where the grass-roots nature of Nazism was directed to overthrow and derail the policies of the Weimar Republic through vitriolic, rabid, unthinking mob-mentality disruptions, protests, and violence. Hitler himself was apprehended and thrown in Jail (the same jail he wrote Mein Kampf in, by the way) for inciting the crowd to use violence – and not democratic voting – to overthrow the government. The whole while, the right-wing Nazi movement claimed MORAL SUPERIORITY and a devotion to GOD that they claim was lacking in their liberal opponents – most of whom were painted as Godless, atheist, non-Christian, and anti-Christian. The fact that Protestant Christianity would later be replaced in Hitler’s Germany with neo-Germanic paganism and a new trinity (The Fuhrer, the Fatherland, and The People) is beside the point; after all, once you’ve stripped people of the Christian notions of charity, love, compassion, passivity, and brotherhood while using the rhetoric of Christianity, it’s really just a slight nudge to bump the populace into believing in a new religion.

Of course, those who do not understand history are often forced to repeat the darker tragedies of the past, particularly if they allow themselves to be manipulated by forces that cynically use Anti-Nazi rhetoric while employing the very same tactics of the Nazis. Let’s run through the checklist:

Conservative demagogues blaming a relatively liberal or non-political body of people for the ills brought about by a previous conservative government? Check

Large crowds incited to violence, the quashing of rational debate and open dialogue? Check.

High unemployment, wounded veterans average citizens would rather not be reminded of, and an economy in the tank? Check.

Claims that the “grass roots” groups holds a monopoly on godliness and morality while simultaneously claiming atheism or anti-Christian values in the government? Check.

Conservative demagogues urging political assassination and discouraging rational exchanges of ideas? Check.

Is Tim Philips the new Fuhrer? Probably not, but combined with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the host of right-wingnuts intimating that violence and political assassination are legitimate methods of enacting political change, we certainly have a rather willing SS in place and the brownshirts from small town America are right there, manning the stockades of Berlin…I mean moral, upstanding small-town Main street.

By the way, how many Hitlers have there been? Fearless History counts at least half a dozen: Hitler himself, Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and now (and perhaps most ironically) our President of the United States, Barack Obama. I have no doubt that Glenn, Rush, Tim, and all the other conservative pundits out there are smart, perhaps even well educated, but they are cynically selling something; conservatism. And like any salesman, they will do anything it takes to make the opponent look like the scion of the devil himself – Amway stoked the fears of Satan in its smear campaign against Procter and Gamble; a claim that is unbelievable now but which worried the bejezus out of “small town” (and small mind) America. And just as Amway wanted you to buy their product at all costs, so too does the neo-conservative elements want you to buy their version of history.Of course, if you believe them, then you probably believe that a pill can enlarge your penis, an exiled Prince from Namibia wants YOU to help him move money, and that cute girls want to talk to YOU right now.

“God! What fools these mortals be!” – Puck

I think George Orwell had a name for the kind of rhetoric being employed by conservative evoking Nazism: Doublespeak

How many Hitlers? originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on August 10, 20092009-08-10T04:01:13ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

With Mr. Beck’s persuasive arguments about Health Care, as well as Mr. George Will’s obviously well-informed belief in the good of “market forces,” I propose that the United States seriously re-examine all responders to a 9-1-1 call. If we take for granted that the cost for a ride in an ambulance, treatment by medical professionals at a hospital, and medications to prevent relapses are all operating at peak efficiency – and that governmental oversight is generally inept – then it stands to reason that the other responders to 9-1-1 should also be a pay-as-you-go service.

For instance, that same 9-1-1 call summons police officers. Police departments all over this country suffer from manning shortages and cutbacks mandated by idiotic bureaucratic politicians who are only in the game to take power away from the people; perhaps it is time to re-institute a system of protection based upon the Health Insurance model. Middle class workers could have a “criminal insurance” plan offered at their place of employment which would offer such options as noise complaint coverage and expedited investigation of breaking and entries, to name just a few. The plan would allow customers to tailor the coverage they desire to the neighborhood they live in and exert complete control over the police department. Of course, in order to appease the left-leaning Liberals in society, there would be a recourse for action that would allow low income, non-participants in the plan to have their grievances heard, as well as fill out police reports, at the local “urgent response center.” These “URC”s would guarantee low income families, businesses, and organizations the right to lodge complaints and be serviced by new officers who are learning the tricks of the trade and how to deal with the public. Of course, much like the Health Care industry, this may result in higher-than-normal costs to the consumer which they could then take out loans to pay off.

Furthermore, it would discourage living in “blighted” areas where recurrent criminal activity could be grounds for disqualification of coverage due to “pre existing criminal history” of the area and thus create a more efficient, profitable method of law enforcement. By privatizing the enforcement of law, the cost to tax-paying individuals is reduced, politically-minded bureaucrats are shown the door, and the quality of coverage would be increased.

Another service summoned by the dialing of those three digits is the fire department. Until now, fire departments were subject to the same problems that police departments have long been subject to. Before big government encroached upon the livelihood of average Americans, fire brigades were an all-volunteer service, manned by the hearty and the brave who took it upon themselves to be guardians of the public good. A return to reliance upon one’s neighbors for protection in times of dire need might just be the trick to solving the systemic ineptitude of the current Big Brother-run departments throughout the country. Each community could contribute whatever it could afford to the prevention of fire. More affluent communities, of course, might benefit from cutting edge technologies such as respirators, fire engines, helicopters, and radios, but even less well-off communities would have some level of service. Buckets and ladders could be donated by private corporations who, in return for their support, might have their corporate logo emblazoned on the side. Some neighborhoods might, of course, be untenable for a not-for-profit entity and cause some residents to avoid living in tenement housing where fire is a constant threat to the wellbeing of society. Interestingly enough, these tenement housings and other high-risk fire areas will most likely be places of high crime as well, so abandonment of these areas might be in the public interest.

To contain the threat of fire and crime which may continue as irresponsible people continue to insist on living in such poverty, perhaps large fire-retardant barriers could be constructed to ensure the public safety of dues-paying, charity-donating citizenry. These “hazard containment devices” (or HCDs) could be provided by the largess of the corporate community which, again, would be allowed to emblazon their logo on the wall; free advertising for the corporations and high-tech security for the average citizen – it’s a win-win situation.

In closing, I must admit that Mr. Beck has certainly opened my eyes to the possibilities of a privately-funded United States of America. I imagine once word of privately-funded police and fire departments operating at peak efficiency gets around the international community, other world leaders will be clamoring to have their crimes investigated or their fires extinguished by the best system in the world. And what a boon to American culture and self-reliance! After all, as Mr. Beck clearly points out, health care is not a right. But neither is protection from fire or enforcement of laws. And before I am bombarded with a barrage of leftist-leaning Socialist rhetoric I challenge you, all of you, to show me a portion of the Constitution or an Amendment which guarantees the right to not die in a fire or to have the law paid for by a bloated, over-reaching federal government.

Prophet of Profit originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on July 28, 20092009-07-28T22:08:14ZF j, Y.

Related posts:

1. Thanks, ‘You Lie’ Guy!

I, and many people like me, approached education that way in college as well: the readings, homework, and classes that seemed insurmountable! The temptation to give in and cheat to pass the class! The triumph at completing the class and earning my grade, whatever it was!

Why is it, then, that so much stock is put in the end result by students, parents, and administrators alike? No Child Left behind increased the emphasis on test results – absolutely, it did – but the problem was already there: students had to pass – NO! they had to succeed! – or the school was a failure long before George W. Bush put pen to paper to sign that law.

In Universities – no longer the “Ivory Towers” of state-and privately-sponsored public improvement – make every effort to not issue an “F” to a student who does not pass muster; mechanisms like “Incomplete” or “Withdraw” have replaced failing and marginally failing grades.

Why?

Maybe failed students get upset and either complain or drop out of school. Maybe this translates into loss of revenue for the school. Maybe angry parents (who theoretically might become donors) complain that their darling son/daughter was maligned, mistreated, or picked on. Maybe from banks who supply the ever-increasing loans (and their “originating fees”) to the would-be student and thus the school. Does it matter?

There was a time when ivy league colleges would confer “gentleman’s c” onto the scions of rich benefactors, a fact sneered at by hard-working students and faculty alike. Today, “C” is the new “F” and most students are expected to earn “A”s in every subject, regardless of their level of comprehension or participation.

For their part, many professors and teachers work hard to engage their students, make them do homework, require high standards from their students. By and large, however, these efforts are being undermined by a culture – American, corporate, collegic, whatever – that prizes the “A” over the knowledge gained in the class. Take for instance, Slate.com’s 2001 article “How to buy a good college term paper” A veritable buffet of brazen BS – how to pass off a biology report as your own, how to out-fox the overconfident Literary Criticism professor, how to pretend to learn history’s lessons without really thinking about unpleasant subject like slavery, colonization, and war.

Pre-industrial Chinese administrators and bureaucrats had to pass a rigorous, gut wrenching, mind-melting test before they could become a member of the government. Janissary administrators spent decades of their lives studying to become wardens of the Ottoman Empire. Thomas Jefferson studied Latin, philosophy, history, and poetry years before drafting the Declaration of Independence.

A nice story for a forgotten age? Am I Don Quixote? Do I yearn for a time of make believe honor and never-was ethics?

Or am I calling upon Americans to decide that the visible, tangible results of an “A” are worth less than the paper they’re printed on and demand students actually learn. Einstein was considered an indifferent student at best and Thomas Edison’s schoolmaster once remarked that young Tom was “addlebrained.”

In closing, what good is an “A” if the recipient doesn’t think, evaluate, and criticize? What “success” is worth being ignorant of the forces at work in the world? What amount of money is worth becoming the next Ken Lay, Bernard Madoff, or R. Allen Stanford?

Success at any price? originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on July 18, 20092009-07-18T05:00:24ZF j, Y.

No related posts.

A recurrent theme in conservative rhetoric is “market forces” – one would say it is the mantra to the God of Capitalism. But in reality, it is the delusion of the rich that is passed on to the working and middle class in an effort to prevent you, the American people, from questioning why the economy seems so unfair. “Market forces” therefore become synonymous with “God’s will.”

But here’s the problem: “market forces” are a myth.

Take for example Sen. Hatch’s objection to “wages set at levels desired by Unions,” taxes on the wealthy and economic policies which stifled growth. Prior to the New Deal, unions were technically illegal organizations, and it was permissible for the owner of a factory, consortium or monopoly to fire — or worse — anyone who asked for a raise.

Market forces, theoretically, should dictate that the owner of Steel Factory A could entice workers from Steel Factory B with higher wages. But in reality, both owners conspired to keep wages at artificially low levels. On top of that, in order to keep workers in line, factory owners would foster racial divisions by threatening to hire Black/Polish/Lithuanian/Italian/etc. workers at a lower rate than you and your Irish/German/Greek/etc. friends, and you would be put out on your collective ears.

Further still, if you and your friends decided to exercise your Democratic right to freedom of assembly to discuss the unfairness of work hours, working conditions, firing practices, etc the factory boss would hire criminals and thugs (so-called “union busters”) to attack you and your group, physically beating them, killing people and burning their houses.

In short, business owners held all the power in the economy. They drove the Republican response to the Crash of 1929 and enticed Herbert Hoover into reducing the budget, reducing federal spending, and relaxing laws on monopolies in order to encourage business – all of which deepened the Great Depression. By January 1931, the unemployment rate was nearly 25%.

Fast forward to 2007-08. Large corporations, hand in hand with pro-business Democrats and Republicans, dismantle the average citizens’ ability to declare bankruptcy, dispute unfair lending practices and to seek redress for wrongful termination. Credit Reporting Bureaus, for example, represent the largest single databases of information about you, the “consumer” (please note you are not a “citizen” but a “consumer” like cattle), which is used by government and private employers to determine your eligibility for employment, housing, loans and to track your criminal record.

On top of that, Banks and other lending agencies use their incredible financial and political power to change the terms of your loans (credit cards and other) without notice and without restraint. It is not unusual for “high risk” credit cards to charge up to 30% interest – even prime customers are seeing their rates skyrocket to the double digits through no fault of their own. Beyond that, the minimum wage had not increased in over a decade, work hours have become longer, and American citizens are increasingly relying upon a never-ending cycle of debt to make ends meet.

“Market forces” are NOT God’s will and they are vulnerable to manipulation by profit-oriented CEOs, CFOs, and other executives who – I hasten to mention – receive “golden parachutes” upon their exit. Market forces, theoretically, would completely punish failure – a CEO of a failed bank would be as destitute as the bank teller in a “Market Forces”-driven world – but they receive tens of millions in compensation for a job well botched.

It is difficult for Americans, and conservatives in general, to let go of the semi-religious myth of the “free market” and the lies of “market forces,” but we must. The government – which is an extension of the people’s will (why else vote and participate) – is responsive to Democratic forces.

On the other hand, big business – businesses which have a global presence – are NOT responsive to the purchaser’s wallet mostly because they own your wallet and all the cash within and thus can not be manipulated.

A large, powerful body which the people can manipulate and influence or a large, powerful entity which is deaf to cries from shareholders and consumers alike: which is the real bad guy here?

And Sen. Hatch? Please, read a history book by an actual scholar next time.

Market Farces originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on July 10, 20092009-07-10T17:50:23ZF j, Y.

Related posts:

1. Then who?
2. An Argument Against Economic Inequality
3. The Stages Of Economic Grief