Are We #1 at Being BAMBOOZLED?

How many times must we get “sucked into” some huge brouhaha or issue or circumstance that often turns out to be of little value or of limited consequence?  Many blame the media.  I concur.  Others blame politicians.  Why not?  They are to blame for many of our unnecessary problems and debacles.  And, let us not forget the so-called "Elite" who basically have too much money, power, status and access resulting in political, social and economic control over the rest of us.  Victims of this triumvirate are ordinary citizens who either don't care, aren't informed, or get left out and left behind.  Many have simply dropped out of the political, social and economic merry-go-rounds.
 
Notwithstanding, let us look briefly at some examples of bamboozles that are happening now, or that happened in the very recent past with effects lingering into our present.  We start with the most obvious right now.

1)  Donald Trump.
Remember the presidential election in 2007-08 when it appeared in early 2007 that Rudy Giuliani, mayor of the City of New York during the 9/11 attack, was leading the Republican pack of candidates by a comfortable margin?  The media was going crazy, making Rudy’s campaign the focus of just about every news-related article and TV show (some that had little to do with news).  Not only did he have the lead, but there was story after story about what Rudy’s stance on issues might do to the Republican Party.  Wikipedia helps to tell more of the story in summary fashion:
In 2007 early polls showed Giuliani -- America's Mayor -- with one of the highest levels of name recognition and support among the Republican candidates. Throughout most of 2007 he was the leader in most nationwide opinion polling among Republicans… and most polls showed Giuliani to have more support than any of the other declared Republican candidates, except in some per-state Republican polls. 
However, Giuliani's campaign hit a difficult stretch during November and December 2007, during which time his recommendation for Secretary of Homeland Security was indicted on 16 counts of tax fraud.  It was also reported that while Mayor, Giuliani had billed to obscure city agencies several tens of thousands of dollars of mayoral security expenses incurred while visiting a mistress. 
Giuliani's national poll numbers began steadily slipping and he finished a distant fourth in the January 8, 2008 New Hampshire primary. Similar poor results continued in other early contests.   On January 29, 2008, Giuliani finished a distant third in the Florida result…  Giuliani withdrew from the race on January 30, endorsing McCain.

Admittedly, Donald Trump’s current situation and campaign differ in themes, strategies and issues, but a general similarity is beginning to emerge:
1) This is a media campaign, meaning that Trump and the media are using this as an attention-getter, bringing attention to themselves mostly, and perhaps some money flow as a result;
2) Donald Trump is the obvious leader over several other candidates, but enjoying only 25-28% of essentially neo-conservative Republican support.  Although he retains that support, like Giuliani, he does not seem likely to capture much more;
3) Trump, like Giuliani, varies from Republican base conservatism, but has maintained his lead; question is, will that lead hold steady through states like South Carolina and Florida, or will it begin to show itself for what it is – the protest vote of a limited number of dissatisfied Republicans and independents?  We shall soon know.

One thing is clear: we are once again being bamboozled by the media and the analysts and the prognosticators just to capture our attention and our viewership.  The media and others already know how this will end up – they’ve seen it all before.  And so have you, my friends – but being drawn in once again by people who want to control our responses is standard fare for too many of us. 

2)  Hillary's Email.
Republicans and the media are hyping this right now.  Yes, 300+ emails have been set aside by the federal agents examining the emails, but so far there is little indication that anything really secret has been violated by those emails. While I believe that it was not a good idea for Hillary to use a private server for her State Department-related email, I also recognize that she was not the only one doing so.  It was not that unusual for high-ranking officials in State and other departments to do so.  There were protocols established in the State Department (and other departments) as to what could be used or discussed while using such servers, and what could not, but those protocols were not strictly enforced nor entirely clear.  There were even disagreements as to what should and should not be 'classified.' 
Those disagreements were within and across various departments.  The agents now examining these documents may themselves have entirely different views of what should be classified than what was considered by State Department to be "classifiable" or "secret" back when Hillary was Secretary of State. 
The point: there is no such thing as one unqualified definition across all of government that is determinant of what is considered "secret" or "classified" because it is difficult to determine the meaning of vague terms in those definitions.  But the Republicans continue to flail away hoping you will believe this fiction.

Wikipedia has some helpful information in summary form regarding levels of classification.
"The United States government classifies information according to the degree which the unauthorized disclosure would damage national security.”

Top Secret
"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe." 
Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security.  Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity level.
Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization.

Those now 'hyping' the situation are focused on what might in retrospect be seen as 'secret' but may not necessarily been so classified at the time the emails were written.  What is being missed in this whole issue are several questions of major importance:

• When did each email occur?
• What State department protocols, policies and rules governed the situation at the time? 
• Were any of these clearly violated, or were they too vague or open to interpretation? 
• Who determines if something in Hillary's emails might have been "reasonably expected to cause serious damage to national security" at the time they were written?  Not the Congress, although they can investigate and criticize all they want.  Not the President, although his State Department can determine if any of their rules were violated.  Certainly not the Republican candidates for President. 
• In the final analysis, the Courts get to decide whether there was a reasonable expectation that exposure of certain information in those emails at the time could have caused 'serious damage' to national security. 

It is obvious from the reporting engaged in so far, there is nothing but hype, innuendo and inference governing this situation to make us pay attention and to make this story seem like something huge in implication, but to date, nothing substantiates that judgment or claim.  Meanwhile, it seems we just enjoy being bamboozled, or at least, teased.
  
(3)  War on Drugs.
This is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon our society.  It has unhinged our concept of crime, has over-burdened our prison system, and ended-up incarcerating one particular group of people beyond any reasonable concept of punishment fitting the “crime.”   In addition, it has devastated our cherished principles of human rights and dignity, and has led to an on-going system of punishment and restriction that goes beyond “serving one’s time” and “paying for what one has done.”  It is a response out of all proportion to the so-called ‘crime,' and in fact, may have never really been about 'crime' in the first place.  Let's have a brief look at some history.

A war on drugs was actually initiated long before we might have expected.  At the turn of the 20th century, the drug market went mostly unregulated. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 targeted toxic drugs, and was expanded to address misleading drug labels in 1912. But the piece of legislation most relevant to the later War on Drugs was the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, which restricted the sale of heroin and was quickly used to restrict the sale of cocaine as well.  Prohibition ended in 1937 and more meaningful federal health regulations came about under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938, following upon the 'Marihuana' Tax Act of 1937, which attempted to tax marijuana into oblivion.   An alleged popularity among Mexican-American immigrants made marijuana an easy target.

The Boggs Act of 1951 established mandatory minimum federal sentences for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and opiates, and Congress further increased federal penalties with the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.  It was Dwight Eisenhower's establishment of the U.S. Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics, in 1954, by which a sitting president first literally called for a war on drugs. 
Then, Richard Nixon got the "War on Drugs" rolling in a special message sent to Congress on July 19, 1969 in which he cited a dramatic jump in drug-related juvenile arrests and street crime between 1960 and 1967.  Marijuana was ultimately caught up in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 1970s.  The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established federal anti-drug policy as we now know it.  In June of 1971, Nixon officially declared a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1" (or was he targeting young protestors?).  In July of 1973, Nixon set up the DEA to be the federal drug law enforcement agency and the coordinating agency for all the anti-drug efforts of other federal agencies.  (for more detail, see NPR Timeline: America's War on Drugs published June 02, 2008).

In the late 1980s, a political hysteria about drugs led to the passage of draconian penalties in Congress and state legislatures that rapidly increased the prison population.  "The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997."

Our drug war history begs for this question to be asked:  just why do we have a War on Drugs?  Civilliberty.com reminds us:

"The War on Drugs has always been a rhetorical convention--you can't declare war on inanimate objects, social phenomena, moods, or abstractions--and it's a rhetorical convention that has determined the way our country views drug policy enforcement. In other words:  it's a colloquial term that does not refer in any meaningful way to a specific policy or objective, but rather to a series of anti-drug initiatives that are vaguely directed towards the common goal of ending drug abuse." (emphasis added).

It might not be untruthful to say that we have little concept of why certain drugs should be legal and others be declared illegal.  The Drug Policy Alliance (drugpolicy.org) says that's because "it's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs – but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs."  For instance, the "first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws, in the South in the early 1900s, were directed at black men. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. "And one could easily add the targeting of Black men again for use of "crack cocaine."

We could rightfully say that we have been bamboozled for at least a century into thinking that if we declare certain drugs "illegal" we are addressing the problems of crime, addiction, or social disruption.  As a matter of fact, that is not necessarily the result.  In fact the point could be made, and often is, that the War on Drugs has been more deleterious for society than the drugs themselves, and has produced outcomes that have actually added to our problems as a country.  Had this nation continued along a path of treatment and rehabilitation (as others have done) instead of embarking on over-incarceration, we might have saved money and lives.

1. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 55% of federal prisoners and 21% of state-level prisoners are incarcerated on the basis of drug-related offenses. This means that over a half million people are presently incarcerated as a result of anti-drug laws--more than the population of Wyoming.
2. The illegal drug trade also sustains gang activity, and is indirectly responsible for an unknown number of homicides. (The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports describe 4% of homicides as being directly attributable to the illegal drug trade, but it plays an indirect role in a much larger percentage of homicides.)
3. As of August 19, 2015, according to the Drug War Cost Clock, the federal government has spent over $9.6 billion and states and local governments over $16.3 billion for a grand total of $25.9 billion in just under 8 months of 2015! 
4.  Arrests for drug law violations this year are expected to exceed the 1,663,582 arrests of 2009.  Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 19 seconds
5. Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 per cent are sentenced for drug law violations.

The hype and the falsity surrounding our rhetoric of the "War on Drugs" is a diversionary and misleading con job of the first order.  This bamboozle has led our society into anti-social, anti-constitutional and anti-rehabilitative modes that are at this very moment corrupting our democratic ideals. 

(4)  Iran - the War Game
Here we go again.  The War Hawks are squawking.  They demand toughness and eschew diplomacy.  They want to scare us into war with the nation of Iran by blocking an historic Agreement that is designed to at least delay, if not deny, nuclear bomb capability to the Iranians.  The Agreement is a major diplomatic accomplishment of the Obama Administration, and some Republicans cannot abide that possibility so they invent reasons for War with Iran just as they did for War against Iraq.  And guess what? 

The similarity in the drumbeats for war with Iraq and Iran is no accident: it is just one example of the most common justification employed by US (politicians) to influence public opinion in favor of the use of military force overseas, a justification which is formulated as: the necessity to deter foreign aggression, protect the United States and defend freedom. Similar justifications have been employed for overseas interventions on numerous occasions in the past.  These appeals to public opinion employ a variety of standard techniques of rhetorical persuasion.  Let me give you a few samples of the same old war rhetoric that sends us down a path to destruction every time we accept what we hear:
1)    The Bush administration’s ability to connect the invasion of Iraq to the tragedy of 9/11 was a textbook example of diversionary rhetoric.  “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon”, (and) “the international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate the construction of nuclear weapons” are current equivalents.

2)     A form of fallacious argument used in the build-up to the war on Iraq:  the phrase “Iraqi WMD programs” was bandied about so much that it became unquestionable fact, even though inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had failed to find the alleged WMD
    Rather than proving the existence of a widespread nuclear-weapons program in Iran, it is easier to let people assume that its existence has already been established and is an incontestable fact.  In addition to overt references to Iran’s “nuclear-weapons program”, there may be references to Iran’s nuclear “threat”, or vague statements about Iran’s nuclear “ambitions”, or even more tenuous allusions to Iran’s “intentions” to obtain a nuclear-weapons “capability," or more specifically, to "build a bomb."

3) The generic form of the "slippery slope" justification for war is usually, “If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here;” like the “domino theory” which was used as a justification for the US role in Vietnam: "if we don’t stop the godless communists in Vietnam, ultimately all of South-East Asia could succumb to communism." Of course, although we abandoned the war, that proved not to be the case.

When applied to Iran’s nuclear program, the slippery slope fallacy usually predicts that if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear technology, the result will be an uncontrollable wildfire of proliferation and a regional arms race.
It is highly ironic that Iran’s mere capability to build nuclear weapons will supposedly spark this uncontrollable cascade of nuclear proliferation, and yet "Israel’s existing nuclear weapons are not considered to have this same effect."

Since the end of the Second World War, the USA has been greatly worried about Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and others who have acquired nuclear bomb capability.  However, unlike the U.S.A, none of them has ever actually dropped a bomb on another country.  Even the bellicose and threatening North Korean government has been fully restrained in not dropping a nuclear warhead on someone else. 

Amazing isn't it, that now we are terribly worried that Iran will all of a sudden wish to bomb us and the Middle East into oblivion.  Doubtful, given past history.  What appears to be the pattern is that these more bellicose nations seem to want to have nuclear capability "just in case..."  Iran is probably no exception to that desire.  But a slippery slope, a wildfire of proliferation and a regional arms race?  Again, unlikely. 

There is more deterrence out there than one first imagines.  Sanctions, inspections, cut-off of trade, isolation from the world, nuclear disarmament treaties and fear of total retaliation have so far been enough to hold back the use of nuclear weapons by other countries   Will that continue with Iran?  Will they dare to release a nuclear bomb on Israel or the United States?  It's just not realistic given the total retaliatory annihilation of Iran that would ensue.

So just what is realistic in regard to Iran? 

• They probably desire nuclear weapon capability, as have many other nations
• Without the Iran Agreement being approved by the U.S. Congress, they will most likely accelerate their nuclear weapons program
• Without the Iran Agreement, they will probably increase their leveling of threats at Israel
• If the provisions of the Iran Agreement are allowed to die, and there is no Agreement, there will be no formal restrictions, no inspections and no verification process, and we will have difficulty knowing what steps Iran is taking to progress toward a bomb
• Some sanctions will be lifted by the likes of Russia and China; but more may be imposed by the US and its more sympathetic allies
• War will be much more inevitable because Republicans will push for it, along with their guest speaker and fellow warmonger, Bebe Netanyahu
• With the Iran Agreement in place, there is hope for a delay in nuclear weapons capability - perhaps 15 years, but some monitoring aspects will last up to 25 years
• With the Iran Agreement, investigations of a variety of facilities by outside observers will take place on a permanent basis
• The Agreement is the best course of action simply because it stands as an alternative to war; allowing for diplomacy, verification and even cooperation on some levels, and for re-imposition of sanctions if necessary. 
• Give Peace a chance.

We have become a people virtually enslaved to forms of rhetorical fallacy that literally capture and twist our minds, our thoughts, our ideas and our actions toward the aggrandizing of corrupt capitalists, dishonest politicians, poorly informed prognosticators, prevaricating media, dubious public servants and other bamboozlers.

We may have finally reached a new #1 in the world:  the most bamboozled, misled, and misdirected citizenry on this planet.  It is time to free ourselves from such manipulation and to begin to believe little or nothing that comes across our television screens or that is contained within social media on electronic devices until we can thoroughly examine and research the facts behind the bamboozling rhetoric.  The time has come to stop being victims of falsity and fallacy, and to begin to be the purveyors of facts to a fact-starved, and non-investigatory public.
Put a stop to bamboozling whenever and wherever you can!

Republicans Debate -- NOBODY WINS!

One thing I must say about this first debate: it was made for Republicans!  The answers had to be kept so short they didn't need to use anything but the same old bumper-sticker rhetoric for which they are famous.  Here are just a few samples, some of which are summaries; others of which are quotes:

"I'll always tell you the truth," "Leading from behind is a disaster." (Cruz)

"I'm rich!"  "I will straighten out the debt problem." (Trump)

"Obama abandoned Iraq" and left a void for ISIS to take control (Bush)

"I have always been Pro-life, unlike Hillary Clinton who supports Planned Parenthood" (Walker)

"Shift power back to the states;" get rid of the IRS; establish consumption tax (Huckabee)

"Let's have tithing instead of taxes" - everyone pay 10% of their income (Carson)

"Have to negotiate from position of strength -- Obama didn't; how going to get Iran to comply? (Paul)

"All human life is worthy of protection; Planned Parenthood is murdering millions of babies" (Rubio)

"Federal budget spends 71% on entitlements and debt costs; I have a 12-point plan to deal with that" (Christie)

I just love watching these clowns!  They are entertaining.  I especially found Ben Carson's rendition of "color of skin doesn't matter" to be laughable!  He implied that the brain is where the essence of a person resides.  Can't argue with that, but can argue with "skin color is not important."  It's extremely important if you are the black-skinned person on the wrong end of police brutality.  It matters a whole lot if you are seeking a personal loan from a bank to establish a business, to buy a car or a home.  It matters if you just want to live in the suburbs.  And it matters a great deal if you want to actually vote in certain parts of this country.  It matters a whole lot if you find yourself  before a white judge and jury.  Skin color matters -- it may not be the locus of intelligence, but it is the target of prejudice, bigotry, hatred, isolation, inattention, and abject intolerance.  Carson said something like: "it's time to move beyond skin color and not let dividers like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama define us." Shame on you Dr. Carson for standing with a Party that takes away voting rights, assistance programs, and the opportunities of affirmative action while ignoring police brutality and unequal justice directed toward people of color.

After the principal debate was over, we heard from Frank Luntz's test group that was present to record their reactions to debater utterances.  Luntz said that one of the largest positive reactions ever recorded in a (presumably, Republican) debate occurred when Huckabee said we got nothing out of the Iran negotiations; that instead of verifying what Iran does, Obama vilifies everyone who disagrees with him on Iran.  Ted Cruz also scored well with his remarks that any American citizen who goes to the Middle East and has anything to do with ISIS should lose their passports immediately; and any who actually train with or join ISIS should be understood as having signed their death warrant!

One headline the day after did not surprise me.  It said that Fox News was the winner, and I must say that I was impressed by the questions and follow-ups - even some rather unusual pressing for answers to questions asked.  It appeared to me that the three questioners actually took their jobs seriously, did a lot of research, and wrote some dynamite questions that lit a few fires along the way.  Chris Wallace lambasted Trump about flip-flop positions of his; he even at one point said something like "now that you have had your say, would you please answer my original question."

Megyn Kelly definitely irritated Trump when she questioned him about his attitudes and actions toward women.  She also pressed him on other questions he did not like, and Trump basically accused Megyn of not liking him and attacking him.  (Worse than that, he used some stupid words about blood coming from her at him which needs no further comment from me!).  The Luntz group again had some things to say about Trump's performance that were not complimentary.  They felt he skirted questions, was mean and angry, and offered no solutions for problems.  By Friday, news reports indicated that 'the Donald' had been dis-invited to a gathering of conservatives known as the RedState event.  His possible replacement - Megyn Kelly!

With that said, it makes sense to look at a few of the avoidance tactics as well as some pointed references to Hillary and President Obama, and finally at what we as citizens can expect from these candidates.

Avoidance of tough questions is nothing new to politics, or to politicians.  It happens all the time; and often it happens because the candidate knows he is in deep trouble with donors, with voters or with the media, and sometimes with his party colleagues.  Trump avoided several questions of what he would actually do to solve certain problems and instead emphasized his wealth and what that means in terms of governing.  Rubio surprised a bit with some thoughts about people emigrating from countries other than Mexico.  He thus avoided having to talk about building a border wall or using troops to stop immigration of miscreants.

The former and present Governors - Kasich, Bush, Huckabee, Walker and Christie - all touted their state records as proof of their ability to govern and to turn around our "failing economy."  Unfortunately, we only have time and space for two examples of their avoidance by exaggeration.

Jeb Bush claimed twice that as governor of Florida, he cut taxes by $19 billion dollars.  According to FactCheck, a big chunk of that came from cuts in Florida estate taxes mandated by federal law with which Bush had nothing to do.  Moreover, not all of the revenue changes were due to tax cuts, but included various fees, license changes, sales tax holidays and lottery proceeds.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker claimed his state “more than made up” for the job losses from the recession.  According to FactCheck, that’s a stretch.  He made a campaign promise to create 250,000 jobs in his first term.  Reality check: In December 2007, when the recession started, the state had 2,878,000 jobs, and as of June 2015 it had 2,882,000 jobs — a net gain of just 4,000 jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics), putting Wisconsin 34th in job growth rate during his time as governor.

Another avoidance tactic, used quite often to divert attention away from the real problem or the real issue, included references encased in a few words that denigrate an opponent.  These clowns are masters at that tactic.

Cruz:  Obama never tells the truth; Obama won't even say "radical Islamist terrorist"
Paul:  I would not arm our enemies like ISIS or their allies - they are driving billions of dollars worth of U.S.-made HumVees because current administration sells arms to terrorists.
Walker:  everywhere Hillary Clinton has traveled is in a mess;
Carson: give Generals the mission and let them win the war with ISIS
Bush: federal government should not set education standards like Duncan and Obama did
Rubio: repeal Dodd-Frank
Christie: fundamental problem under Obama: the system is broken; social security is broken
All: Iran deal is lousy; re-instate sanctions and add more; vote against it; world a more dangerous place because of this deal; gave up too much, including inspections.

It is fitting to end this summary with the question: what do we learn from these debates? Or more pointedly: what will we get from these candidates if any one of them should be elected? (Don’t forget that second tier of candidates waiting in the wings to knock-off some front runners so they can join the first team!).  You don't have to look very far to know what is in the offing.  The candidates put it in their own words (sometimes with flare, and other times with hum-drum style), and if you missed it, beware the deluge.

Dana Milbank has a good article in the Washington Post about what Republicans have not learned from 2012, even though they did their own analysis of their performance.  He reminds us:

"Back in 2013, the Republican National Committee 'autopsy' of the 2012 election concluded that to win future presidential elections, Republicans would need to be more inclusive of women, be more tolerant on gay rights to gain favor with young voters, support comprehensive immigration reform to appeal to Latinos and stand strong against 'corporate malfeasance'."

"Well, the 17 Republican presidential candidates met in Cleveland on Thursday for three hours of debate, and Americans saw candidates:

• opposing abortion without exceptions of rape or incest or to save a mother's life; 
• comparing the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage to one supporting slavery
• talking about building border walls and denying 'amnesty'. 
• silent about the Trump company's four bankruptcies (the most recent of which caused lenders to lose $1 billion and 1,100 people to lose jobs), with Trump saying that all "the greatest people in business use bankruptcy laws to their advantage."  
• setting a negative tone near the opening minutes of the debate, when Trump declared: "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.'  And again: "We don't have time for 'Tone'."
• promising to build a wall; keep illegals out.  Mexico is deliberately sending criminals claims Trump. 
• defy Roe vs. Wade; block all abortions - no exceptions; sic IRS on Planned Parenthood
• declare "The military is not a social experiment" (Huckabee about transgender recruits)

What's more disturbing is perhaps the ultimate diversion.  Do you realize what was left out and never got a question or any real attention?  Sometimes what is not said or discussed is more telling than what is debated and discussed.

1)  Women's health and well-being are not held in high esteem by this crowd.  It wasn't just Trump with a bad attitude, although his stood out to be sure.  No, it was everywhere.  Even in the audience which was made up of a lot of women.  When Trump made a disparaging remark about Rosie O'Donnell, it got many laughs and cheers.  When he attacked Megyn Kelly for her attitude and questions, there were some who applauded, presumably not all were men.

So, here we are, where the only issue of import touching on women's health had to do with abortion. Except for Trump, who nonetheless emphasized how abhorrent abortion was to him, the candidate crowd was obviously Pro-life.  Rubio and Kasich made similar attempts to say that all human life is  worthy of protection, but pretty much to a man they all agreed on de-funding Planned Parenthood (an agency that provides mostly health care to poor women) and a ban on abortions.  Scott Walker said sometime the next day that yes, he was willing to let a mother die in order to preserve an abortion ban.

Once again -- watch out for what is not there.  If these radical Republicans (and the wannabe's of the far right 2nd Team, including Fiorina) favor a ban on abortions, they mean a total ban.  There is no room in this crowd for exceptions (although some simply won't say).  This puts women in a position that is subtle but outright dangerous.  If the traditional exceptions to a ban on abortions - mother's life in danger, incest, rape, and malformed fetus (such as an ectopic pregnancy) - are not protected or allowed, then people like Scott Walker will have no compunctions about allowing a mother-at-risk to die.  This position negates the mealy-mouthed assertion by some like Rubio that all life (all the way through) is worthy of protection.  It also negates their hypocritical assertion (put forth by Huckabee) that the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution protect the lives of unborn children (but presumably not the lives of their mothers!)

DO YOU REALLY WANT SOMEONE WITH THAT KIND OF MIND-SET AS PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES?  Considering the assertion that not one Republican candidate for President in the last 40 years has ever not supported at least some exceptions to an abortion ban,
YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS MORE TRADITIONAL VALUES!  The Republican candidates this time around are not representative of the traditions of the Grand Old Party!  They are radical Conservatives who have lost the values that keep us strong and compassionate at the same time.

2)  Voting Rights.  What happened to that very important and "hot" issue?  Is the closing down of people's right to vote OK with this group?  Apparently so, from the lack of attention given to it.  Let's be clear:  these debaters are some of the people who have led the way on denying the vote to groups that vote against them:  African Americans, Hispanic Americans, people living under poverty, women, young people and even those who are disabled.  These are the deniers of automatic registration or even of a broadened registration by mail.  These are the people who believe voter fraud is rampant and must be controlled, when all the facts are against them.  These are the people who believe fervently that corporations should have the ability to control the votes of their workers; that corporations have free speech rights equivalent to individuals and should therefore be allowed to exercise that right through virtually unlimited contributions to third party groups called PACs and super-PACs, as long as they have no contact with the candidates.  Along with their five compatriots on the SCOTUS, these are the people who believe in electoral BRIBERY, and in the domination of the 1% who control the nation's wealth and many of our elections and elected officials.

3)  Race Relations.  Except for Carson's attempt to "move beyond skin color," there was little said about race relations, and no mention made that "Black Lives Matter."  Perhaps the one question about policing was meant to cover this crucial and glaringly relevant topic.  Scott Walker, of all people, got the question and his response was so vague as to fade into the ether.  Apparently his answer to police murders of black people was to emphasize training, making sure those police who don't obey the state's high standards are made to bear the consequences (but no specifics given!).

And that, my friends, is the way this crowd wants it to be: SILENT!  They don't want to engage in discussions between races; they don't want to hear about the effects of structured or institutional racism upon those of color; they don't want to know about the ravages of poverty; or the toll being taken on young men and women of color who lack the opportunities afforded white children. They don't want to hear about anything that has to do with other than law & order; keeping criminals off the streets; protecting white control and power.  They simply are hiding from reality.

And that reality is:  a blatant inequality ensconced in our most basic institutions - government offices, schools, retailers, banks, justice system (policing, arrests, trials and sentencing and incarceration).  It is in the self-interest of all races to oppose inequality wherever we find it, because such a major contradiction of our fundamental constitutional precepts is eating away at the very fabric of our democratic system.  We cannot sustain liberty, freedom, and justice for all if inequality is allowed -- and enabled -- to flourish in the lives of millions of our people.

The proof of that lies in the beliefs and mythologies of these very politicians.  They represent values that contradict our cherished democratic and republican ('of the people') principles.  They threaten our very basis for existence as a democratic nation.

They seek to construct a nation at war with:

• women and minorities, 
• Iran and any other nation that they choose; 
• the poor, 
• children and young people;  
• our federal government which they accuse of being corrupt, opposed to states’ rights and power-hungry enough to force states to comply with federal mandates and to remove the right to own guns.  

They have demonstrated their bigotry over and over again in the last seven years toward our President; they have tried to destroy every program that provides help to those who have special needs; they have denigrated Blacks, Mexicans, Islamists, women, and "welfare queens."

This is not the Party of Lincoln, and certainly not that of Theodore Roosevelt!  That Party is gone. This is not the Party of traditional compassionate conservatives.  That is dead.  This is not even the Party of Landon, Eisenhower, Dirksen, Dole or Ford.  

This is a Party more aligned with looking for a bully, a white man of strength, someone who takes no guff and speaks his mind even if that is insulting, overly bombastic or denigrating.  The GOP seeks someone who is tough, doesn't lead from behind, opposes women's rights, loves the military and uses it boldly without worrying about the costs.  This Party is looking for someone who can command public support, but not someone who is soft on criminals or opponents, and can basically control the government and the populace; especially someone who will keep his nation and its military strong at all costs.  WAIT -- I think I've got it!

THIS IS THE PARTY OF PUTIN!  (Good Old Putin!)  They just happen to be looking in the wrong country! Wow - talk about a birth certificate controversy!

And that, my friends is why this spurious Republican Party must be defeated in 2016! But not just defeated: destroyed is probably the most honest rendering.  This radicalized Republican Party is a menace to us all and needs to be put out of business.  A major defeat at the polls is the beginning of that demise.  Every American disgusted by this first "debate" debacle must be willing to put themselves on the line to GET OUT THE VOTE in favor of all acceptable (hopefully progressive) opposition candidates.

And PLEASE, Mr. Trump -- be sure to take revenge on this Party when it rejects you as its candidate -- PLEASE RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!

Republicans Just Can’t “Cut It”

"WASHINGTON, Jan 6, 2015 (Reuters) - More macroeconomic projections will be included in cost estimates (work done by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation) for major fiscal legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives under a rule change approved on Tuesday, a move critics said could mask the true impact of tax cuts.  The move toward "dynamic scoring," as the approach to gauging the budgetary effect of tax and spending changes is known, was part of a rules package passed on a 234-172 party-line vote as the Republican-controlled Congress began its work.
White House Budget Director Shaun Donovan said in a blog posting that adoption of dynamic scoring would "risk injecting bias" into a decades-old, non-partisan budget process;  "...it could allow Congress to adopt legislation that increases federal deficits, while masking its costs," Donovan said." (By David Lawder)

But that is what Republicans have done all along -- mask the true impact of their tax cuts and their budget cuts.  If they were truthful about any of their budgetary manipulations they would be exposed to the world as the bamboozlers they truly are.  Just take one flagrant example.  Republicans claim to be the Party that wants to reduce the deficit, yet their track record is a very poor one in that regard.  Just take a quick look at the numbers for the last 40 (maybe 100) years or so.

Let's start with a simple comparison done by Stephen Bloch of Adelphi.edu who found: 
"In the past 100 years, there have been eight Democratic and nine Republican Presidents. Five of the eight Democrats oversaw average deficits smaller than they inherited, while seven of the nine Republicans oversaw average deficits larger than they inherited."

Focusing in a bit more, let's take a look at a chart from Mr. Bloch at adelphi.edu.  Let him explain:
"I consider the fiscal year spanning a Presidential election and inauguration to be part of the outgoing administration. This is usually a fair assumption, because most government programs take a while to start, and last for multiple years. Fiscal 2008-2009 is perhaps an exception: both the outgoing and incoming Presidents enacted expensive economic-stimulus programs that were written to take effect immediately. Accordingly, in the following tables, I've given George W. Bush two rows in the table: one for his whole term, consistent with all other Presidents, and one counting only his first seven years, ending with the figures of September 2008, by which time a recession had started but the government measures to deal with it hadn't been enacted yet.
I subtract the deficit in a President's first year from the deficit in the year after that President stepped down (or, in the case of the current President, from the most recent deficit figures I have). This change in deficit is then divided by the number of years it took to achieve it.


Comments on Table 3:Since Kennedy, "every Democratic President has left office with a smaller deficit than he inherited, and every Republican President except Nixon has left office with a larger deficit than he inherited. This may be because Republican Presidents have placed high priority on cutting taxes, and placed lower priority on (or had less success at) cutting spending. Democratic Presidents have perhaps had equal success at cutting spending (I haven't researched those numbers), but have not been bound by promises to cut taxes."
Another writer, David Haggith, in a 3-year-old post at http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/deficits-debts-democrats-vs-republicans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/ makes the point another way:
""It seems to me the Tea Party's hero is Ronald Reagan...he is clearly the source (the head waters) of the present economic deluge. You can see how the debt problem hugely ramps up when Reaganomics begins, reverses when Clinton takes us away from supply-side economics by raising taxes on the wealthy, and immediately resurges when Bush takes us back to even larger tax cuts for the wealthy than we saw under Reagan. Debt growth is EVEN STEEPER under George Bush than it was under Reagan. Why? Because his supply-side cuts in taxes to the wealthy were even larger than Reagan's.
We have enough history now to (see that) supply-side economics SHOULD BE a dead idea. Tea Party votes are ALL FOR supply-side economics. So, their ideas are bankrupt. We have CLEAR proof of what worked in history.  It is about the need to make tax increases for the wealthy at the same time one makes spending cuts. The combination for a strong economy that pays its own way is making sure the wealthy pay their own freight and cutting expenses."
Then, he adds this:  "Right now, Republicans and Democrats have created a smoke-screen tax system that appears to tax the rich at a higher percentage rate, but does not, in fact, do so. The rich receive enormous tax breaks...which reduce their effective income tax rate to LESS than the average person's rate. Most importantly, the rich do not make their money off of wage income. They make it off of capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at the same percentage rate that the BOTTOM of the middle class pays. So, the rich wind up enjoying an effective tax rate that is actually lower than anyone in the middle class."

You are being bamboozled every time you believe that Republicans are saving, or will save, us money.  Why?  Because their economic concepts are fundamentally flawed unless you can believe the fairy-tale that money actually trickles-down from the wealthy to the middle and lower income groups.  It doesn't.
But that's not the only flaw in their constructs.  They also believe that cutting programs that benefit most of our population will bring us to fiscal solvency.  Republicans don't save money on welfare cuts or other cut-backs that reduce social welfare spending.

They actually cost us more money in the long run, and here's why:
(1) They tend to shift the so-called savings to other areas of the budget.  That's what lowering taxes on the rich is all about -- welfare for the rich is not free.  The extra money for those breaks on taxes for the rich has to come from somewhere.  And it does -- right out of your pocket, if you're middle class, and out of those social program cuts that affect the lower middle-income class, those living at poverty level and those who are known as the "underclass."   Shall we say it?  It's Robin Hood in reverse!  Rob the poor to pay the rich!  Republicans believe it is their solemn duty to aggrandize the rich and they do so by removing all economic supports from the 98% who must work extra jobs or overtime just to keep up with costs of daily living.  

But there is one more shift of the savings from program cuts that must not go unnoticed.  Defense spending.  Republicans don't like it at all when commentators and writers point out the enormity of the military budget, and the undeniable truth that the Congress has so often substantially increased the Defense budget from what was requested by DoD!  Nor did the capitalistic Republican cohort care for the questioning of private contracts by Senators like Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  So many of those private contracts are going to Friends of the GOP that they go into protective mode every time someone questions the billions of overruns in such contracts.  And, one more thought:  why all this talk of war with Iran?  Is it just because Republicans are overly-bellicose in their approach to the rest of the world.  Probably not.  They do, however, know that such "war-talk" provides them with one more excuse to keep the Defense budget soaring, thereby deflecting any questions about where that money is going that gets cut from welfare programs!

(2)  Republicans actually increase costs to our government by short-sighted actions that they claim will cut the deficit and bring us to a stable and balanced budget. 
So, let us first be clear on what Republicans want to do.  They say they want to cut the deficit, but more than that, they want to reduce the tax burden on the rich.  That is why, from way back, Republicans have manufactured phrases like "take responsibility for yourself" "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "entitlements."  They desperately want all of us to believe that the rich should not have to pay for those in our society with special needs.  They want us to believe that it is unfair for wealth to be re-distributed by the government; they want any such re-distribution to be done through private philanthropy as a personal gesture of caring.  But their inconsistency is glaring.  How can the wealthy 1 or 2 % accept any tax breaks or tax subsidies or advantages from government coffers since such welfare must necessarily come from taxes on the earnings of others?  Their naive view of private philanthropy is also disturbing; for private philanthropy is not controlled by need but by personal viewpoints and personal choice, and is too dependent on donations.

And so, we have Republicans gutting programs that subsidize people with special circumstances and needs.   The list is so long that it cannot be inserted here (see one list of proposed Senate cuts by Republican leadership at http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/List_of_spending_cuts_in_Senate_bill.html 
But we might just mention WIC, TANF, SNAP (food stamps), and Head Start.  We could also cite special programs for Veterans, the homeless, and single mothers, plus Pell grants for students.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg, since right now, the radicalized Republican Party is attempting to lay the groundwork for the dissolution of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing about the repeal of "Obamacare."  Of course, they don't often talk about "dissolution."  Instead they disguise their intent by talking about "privatizing" Social Security; "vouchering" Medicare, and "devolving" Medicaid to the states.  It's all of one piece -- radicalized Republicans are hell-bent on destroying what they term the "welfare state" (except for the portion that is "welfare" for the rich!).

And what is my point?  Simply this:  Their cost-savings measures actually cost us more money in the long run especially for healthcare, remedial education, job training, incarceration, food and housing. 

A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 2014 may be enlightening in this regard.  In discussing the Republican plan to block-grant SNAP, SSI, and child nutrition programs to states, the CBO presented the following:

"By CBO estimates, this option (to block-grant these programs to states) would reduce spending on SNAP by $281 billion from 2015 through 2023—or by 41 percent of the amount that would be spent under current law. For SSI, mandatory spending during that period would decline by $49 billion, or by 9 percent. For child nutrition programs, the reduction would be $74 billion, or 33 percent. For SNAP, the effect on projected spending would be larger early on, whereas for the child nutrition programs and, in general, for SSI, the effects would be larger in the later years.

"A rationale against this option is that, from 2015 to 2023, it would cut mandatory federal spending for programs that support lower-income people by $404 billion (with an additional cut of $42 billion in discretionary spending, if appropriations were reduced as specified). Who was affected by that cut in spending and how they were affected would depend on how states structured their programs and how state spending changed. But such a cut—amounting to 28 percent of the projected mandatory spending on SNAP, SSI, and child nutrition programs during those years—would almost certainly eliminate benefits for some people who would have otherwise received them, as well as significantly reduce the benefits of some people who remained in the programs.
"Another rationale against this option is that block grants would not be as responsive to economic conditions as the current federal programs are.  If federal spending did not increase during a future economic downturn and the number of people eligible for benefits increased, states that could not increase their spending (probably at a time when their own revenues were declining) would have to reduce the benefits received by each participant or tighten eligibility, perhaps adding to the hardship for families just when their need was greatest."

What the CBO doesn't tell us is what exactly would happen to the people who lose their benefits?  And therein lies the rub. 

What cost analyses fail to do is to calculate the unintended and unacknowledged effects on the overall budgets of cities, towns, communities, counties, states and the federal government in terms of the long-term effects of such cuts or transfers of funding.  Does the homeless problem get larger and eat up more money for emergency room care?  Do children become incapacitated in school settings because of hunger, or because of lack of health care, and does that cost us in lost potential?  Does the cost of police presence increase because stealing of food and other essentials rises?  Does incarceration increase because of desperate people doing bizarre things out of their desperation?  Do mental health facilities have to increase their intake and staff in order to accommodate those who go "off the deep end" because of their situation? We could go on and on, but let us turn to another report that spells-out quite clearly some of these long-term costs, especially for children and families, that Republicans ignore.

From the Children's Defense Fund 2014 Report on Children:
"Child poverty costs the nation at least $500 billion each year in extra education, health and
criminal justice costs and in lost productivity.
Child abuse and neglect cost the U.S. $80.3 billion each year in direct costs and lost productivity.
A single case of nonfatal child abuse and neglect costs $210,012 over a lifetime, and a case of
fatal child abuse and neglect $1.27 million, mostly due to lost productivity.
Gun deaths and injuries cost the U.S. $174.1 billion each year, or 1.15 percent of our total gross
domestic product (GDP).
Racial and ethnic health disparities cost the U.S. an estimated $1.24 trillion in medical costs and
lost productivity between 2003 and 2006.
The high school students who dropped out of the class of 2011 will cost the nation’s economy an
estimated $154 billion in lost income over the course of their lifetimes.
The gap between Black and Hispanic compared to White high school achievement in 1998 cost
the U.S. $310 to $525 billion in lost GDP by 2008 and the income achievement gap cost $400
to $670 billion.
The achievement gap between American students and those in top-performing countries like Finland and Korea in 1998 cost the nation $1.3 to $2.3 trillion in 2008 or 9 to 16 percent of GDP.

We Can Afford to Do Better The amount the U.S. spends per minute on corporate tax breaks would pay the salary of 16 child care workers. More than 220,000 children are currently on waiting lists for child care assistance. Expanding child care increases poor mothers’ work participation.
Three days’ worth of the amount the U.S. spends on corporate tax breaks would provide a whole year’s worth of SNAP food assistance for the estimated 737,000 children who don’t have enough food.
The amount the U.S. spends a year on corporate tax breaks for private jets would pay the salary of 6,400 high school teachers.
All poor infants and toddlers could have been served by Early Head Start if the government diverted just 18 days of defense spending. Currently only about 4 percent of eligible children reap the benefits of this high quality early learning experience. Quality early education programs return 7 to 10 percent a year for every dollar invested.
More than 17,500 low-income children could enroll in Head Start for a year for the cost of just one F-35 fighter jet among the nearly 2,500 the Department of Defense is scheduled to buy."

Republicans in the House want "dynamic scoring" of budget and programs.  Well here is my version: score the dynamic effects on people in the long run, and weigh that against budget cuts that show a savings only in the short run.  

Garrett’s Passport

On July 6th, sometime after one o’clock in the afternoon, a plane left JFK Airport bound for Germany.  A young man of sixteen years, named Garrett, was not on-board,  although he was supposed to be.  His classmates were on a journey that would last about a month, going to Germany on an established exchange program, each of them assigned to stay with a well-chosen German family and to absorb all the culture and sights they could.  No one could possibly know the effects of such a trip on young minds and hearts.  But for Garrett, it was something for which he had prepared, and the effects might well have been life-altering or at least life-enhancing, for him. 
His mother, Betsy, tells us a bit about Garrett’s background and some decisions she and her husband made as parents.  You need to hear what she has to say:

“Throughout the past 16 years, I have had to make hard, uncertain decisions that ultimately ended up being steps into my son’s future.  One of the most important decisions that Garrett’s father and I ever made was that one of us would always be home with him; that he would not be raised in day care, but rather by us, with our values and our sense of humanity.  That decision was not only the easiest but also the hardest one I have ever had to make.  I knew it would not be easy with both of us being ‘blue collar’ but vowed to make it work the best we could.  When Garrett’s father suddenly passed away in 2006, I had to revisit that decision.  Many thoughts raced through my head, including how I would pay the bills, buy his clothes for school, do any special events and even how to buy Christmas presents. 

The answer came when I looked at my son.  At 7 years-old, he was the most loving, compassionate, honest, well-natured and forgiving person I knew.  He was smart, curious, passionate about learning in school and in life, and in his short life had taught me more about being human than any other force ever has.  I suddenly realized that I had a hand in that!  I made the choices that brought him here, to be this person, to be made up of who I wish to be.  So, I continued to stay home with him, giving up many things along the way, including many of the things others consider ‘staples’ in the life of parenthood.

Believe me when I say, it hasn’t been easy.  On an average monthly budget of $550, I have never been able to own my home, have a closet full of clothes, pay all my bills every month without help from outside sources, own a cell phone, have cable or be able to afford a vehicle.  So obviously I never found it necessary to spend the money on a driver’s license when it was much needed elsewhere.  A couple of years ago, when my sister was diagnosed with MS, I decided to spend the money for a driver’s permit so I could help her when needed.  (How could she know that driver’s permit would be a source of difficulty when it came time to obtain a passport for Garrett’s trip to Germany?).

This trip to Germany had been on Garrett’s radar for over a year.  He and his mother had begun thinking about it in April of 2014. They knew that one of the prerequisites for going was being a host family themselves when it came time for the German students to come to the United States as part of this exchange program.  The Program itself has been in existence for 30 years, and was funded by the German government in order to build relationships between U.S. and German students and families.  However, Betsy knew that her circumstances – poor, no vehicle for travel, living in a small town with one convenience store and no other teens in the area -- were not conducive for offering the best sort of experience to a German exchange student.  She explained her misgivings about being a sponsoring family to two of his teachers, and got the following response:

“In my opinion, Garrett is on top of the ’to go’ list.  He is exactly the type of student I want to take and who would benefit the most.  I will absolutely try my best to take Garrett.  He is one of the nicest and most dedicated students I have had this year.  This would be such a great opportunity for him.  Mrs. Smith (his other teacher) and I agree on this.”

Those same two German language teachers helped Garrett enroll in the German American Partnership Program (GAAP).  But there was still a major obstacle to be overcome.  For the past year, Betsy and her mother had been saving what they could and even collecting cans and bottles in an attempt to raise a goodly portion of what was needed to fund the trip.  The cost would amount to over $3,000, and with just a few months time in which to raise that kind of money. Betsy realized she just could not do it.  Again she wrote to his teachers, and again got an unexpected, but much appreciated response:

“I hope that Garrett has told you by now that he has the option to go to Germany on the exchange trip this summer.  I’m very excited that I have enough funds to provide Garrett with a full scholarship.”

Incredibly excited and proud, Betsy and Garrett went to the Tompkins County Courthouse in Ithaca, NY and applied for his passport, because as a minor, a parent had to be the applicant on his behalf.  The clerk they encountered was helpful in working with them to prepare the necessary documents and forms.  Feeling everything was in order, the clerk suggested that Betsy pay an extra fee of $60 to have the passport “expedited” which would supposedly put it on a fast track and at the end of the process would include overnight delivery to their home.  The clerk also suggested that they should indicate a date of July 1st for delivery since any later would run into the July 4th holiday.  And so, thinking everything that was necessary had been done and submitted as required, Betsy and Garrett spent the next week and more talking and planning, looking forward to the incredible life-changing experience that would shortly come his way.  Or, so they thought.

One day shy of three weeks later, an email arrived from the National Passport Center in Sterling Virginia indicating that the only form of official photo identification Betsy had – that driver learner’s permit from the State of New York-- was deemed “insufficient for passport purposes.”  She would have to submit another form of ID from a list of options given her in that email.  Only one of the options was viable:  a non-driver’s ID from NY State, but, as she soon learned, she would have to give up her learner’s permit in order to obtain it.  Betsy did not hesitate, she went to the DMV with Garrett’s Big Brother Bob and they turned in the learner’s permit and applied for the non-driver’s ID with photo.
To tell the rest of the story, we need to switch to a timeline that traces the next 18 days that were filled with false information, confusion, frustration and a web of words, rules and government red tape that left this family feeling cold, angry, lost and hopeless.  They were at the mercy of a bureaucracy that gave them the impression they were unworthy, insignificant and basically unheard and unimportant.   We go back to May 27th and proceed from there:

MAY 27 2015         Betsy received e-mail from German teacher stating that Garrett was given a full scholarship to enable him to join his sophomore class on a trip to Germany

MAY 29 2015
    Garrett and his mother went to the Tompkins County courthouse to apply for his passport. His application was looked over by the clerk, documents were taken and copied and they were told with it being expedited it would arrive in 3 weeks.
    Two checks were written. One for $140, which included an expediting fee of $60. The other for $33 to the county clerk’s office.

JUNE 18 2015
    Betsy received an e-mail from National Passport Center in Sterling VA stating, “The learner’s permit of the consenting parent is not sufficient identification for passport purposes.” Garrett’s mother called the number listed (1-877 number) in the e-mail and spoke with ‘Rich’ (whereabouts unknown). Explained that other than her learner’s permit the only other forms of identification she owned were her birth certificate, social security card and NYS benefit card (which included her photo). Rich responded that he would have to send an e-mail to a supervisor (location unknown) stating the issue and informing that person of the other forms of I.D. that could be submitted. Betsy was told that she would receive an e-mail or phone call from someone either Monday or Tuesday if anything further would be required and that if she did not hear from anyone by Tuesday to feel free to call back.

June 22 2015
    Betsy called back to see if there was any update on Garrett’s passport. Spoke with “Virginia” (location unknown) who told her to “sit back and wait for a call.” When asked if she could tell which supervisor would be handling the email that Rich had sent on the 18th she replied:, “there are so many supervisors” and “there is no way to tell which supervisor would be handling it” and “anyway there is no contact information for the supervisors.” Betsy then asked if she could be transferred to someone who might know who received the email as she was desperate to get the situation resolved. ‘Virginia’ said she would transfer her call to “a supervisor.” After a long wait, from 10:48 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., the transfer call was finally answered…by another customer service representative. A woman named Robyn informed Betsy that she could “see that Richard had put in an urgent request to call” back.  Unfortunately, Robyn said there was no way for the mother to call the passport center in New Hampshire herself; that the people in New Hampshire would have to call her.

JUNE 22 2015
    After realizing that there was just one alternative left which was to apply for a Non-Driver’s Permit with photo, Betsy called the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles office asking  how long it would take a state Non-Driver ID card to be received, and was told 3 weeks. When Betsy explained why it was needed much faster, she was again told 3 weeks. Feeling she had no other choice on that matter, she thanked the clerk and hung up.

JUNE 24 2015
    Garrett’s Big Brother for the last 9 years (from the Big Brother-Big Sister program) who does much business with the DMV, found out that Betsy could apply and have expedited a state NDID card with the consequence of having to cancel her learner’s  permit.  She and Big Brother went  immediately to the local DMV office, cancelled the learner’s permit, applied for the NDID and paid another fee of $10.  They were given a 1-800 number to call to have it expedited and called minutes after leaving the DMV after paying the estimated $20 fee for that. When she returned home, Betsy called the National Passport Center (location unknown) informing them that she had applied for a state-issued NDID.  She was told when it came through to fax it to:
FAX #     (603) 422 0009 (area code indicates this was a number in New Hampshire)
ATTN: E F  DESK
REF #   268788414        

JUNE 26 2015
  Betsy’s new NDID card arrived by UPS. Having been  told there were no email addresses for the National Passport Center, she immediately scanned the front and back of the new I.D. card, and emailed it to Big Brother Bob who wasted no time in faxing  the copies and a cover letter to the National Passport Center. Just a little over an hour later, Betsy called the passport center again and was informed that the fax had been received and was being processed. If anything more was needed they would call her.

JULY 3 2015
    Betsy received a phone call from “Georgiana” at the National Passport Center (unknown location). Georgiana had called to ask if Betsy still planned to send in a copy of her NDID, so that Garrett’s passport could be processed. Betsy’s heart sank and she started to cry, then asked: “what do you mean? I was told last Friday that my I.D. had been received and was being processed.”  Betsy then explained that she had called the 1-800 number and was told that unless she heard from them, the application would be processed and Garrett’s passport would be sent out in time for him to make his trip. The mother was even told that when someone pays to have their passport expedited, the passport center does their best to get it to them in time.
Georgiana explained that the mother “was outright lied to.”  In fact when she called that 1-800 number, the clerks there only receive calls and have no access to any faxes or paperwork. Further, that call center “would have no way of knowing” if any information was ever received. Georgiana also made sure to tell Betsy several times that normally she would not have even received a follow-up call because the passport center was actually closed that day but that she herself and a few others had offered to come in only to return phone calls. She then asked if Betsy would like to speak to a supervisor regarding Garrett’s application. Although they both knew it would not help him to get his passport in time for his trip, Betsy agreed to have someone call her back.

JULY 3 2015
    Received a call from “Kristin,” a supervisor at the National Passport Center (location unknown, presumably Portsmouth NH).   She stated the same things that Georgiana had indicated: that Garrett would not be able to receive his passport in time for his flight on July 6th. That they did not receive any fax of a Non-driver ID. That the call center she had been calling was in Michigan where they had no way of knowing if a fax had even come in because such  information goes to New Hampshire. Betsy was also informed that the address in Virginia is only a mail hub.
When Betsy asked why the NYS Driver’s Learner Permit was not sufficient proof of identification, Kristin kept repeating, “Because we don’t accept it.” That was the only answer she would give, none as to WHY it was not acceptable. As to WHY no one could have called Betsy before the last day to receive mail, she again gave the same answer Georgiana had given:  that usually no one is even there today; they were just making a courtesy call and even though it was too late for Garrett to go on his trip “might as well go ahead and send in the copy of the non-driver I.D.”  After all “you did pay for his passport you might as well have it,” which made it seem like some sort of consolation prize.
She then gave out a direct number for the supervisors’ office (again a New Hampshire area code) in case Betsy had any further questions (603) 422-0304 and an email address (NPCEF@state.gov) so the NDID copy could be sent directly to them for processing on Monday July 6th when the office (New Hampshire presumably) would reopen.
Keep in mind that all the time previously, the mother had continuously been told that there was NO direct way to contact the supervisors. That the only way to get in touch with them was to call the call center and have one of the agents email them and then wait for them to either call her back or email her.

July 7 2015
    Garrett received his passport this morning.  But it was too late.  The plane for Germany left the day before!
It took 5 everyday people, two staff in Senator Gillibrand’s office, one fax, numerous phone calls and emails, $203, 5 weeks and 4 days for Garrett to receive his “expedited” passport.

It is perhaps fair to say that this is not a tragedy of major proportions.  Perhaps Garrett will get another chance at a trip to Germany.  And, after all, the State Department does indicate that it might take 5-6 weeks from application to actual receipt of a passport.  And, maybe, if more pressure had been applied at the right moments and on the right people, the passport might have been delivered on-time.  All well and good for you to say.   I cannot let it go as easily because my own brother is Garrett’s Big Brother, and I know the investment it takes to raise or to mentor a child to be all that he or she can be; to walk in the right paths and ultimately contribute something meaningful to life and to humanity.  That is difficult enough with the teamwork of two parents; it is at least doubled in difficulty when a single Mom has to do so on her own with some use of outside resources.

But maybe -- just maybe-- there are some important points worthy of further consideration.   It is my contention that we should not easily dismiss this case because we cannot know what might have been produced by this one experience.  We cannot know what might have been contributed to others because of the vision opened by this trip.  We cannot know what potential may have been thwarted by not expediting this passport on time.  So, please: read the rest of the story!

Garett's Passport, Part 2

Garrett’s mother, Betsy, raises some interesting issues of disadvantage, potential and good faith in her telling of this story.  Listen to her words once again:

“Government and its agencies can change lives, protect, guide and create opportunities that otherwise could not be possible.  Government can be a place of wonder, achievement, strength and unity.”

“The thing is that maybe most do not realize that those of us in my position do not have much time to care about government because generally most of us are in a place economically or socially where political affairs or the affairs of government agencies do not take much precedence in our lives.  Straight out: we’re poor; our voices are not heard and our lives are just not important enough because we do not hold the money, status or clout to really make a difference.”

“When situations like this happen, we are helpless for lack of knowing the ‘right people,’ hiring a lawyer, or being able to raise monies needed to make things happen as swiftly as we need them to.  Instead, we are left to rely on good faith, on people doing their jobs and on basic human decency.  All of which usually fail for us.  When it comes to asking for help from places like the National Passport Center, our lives are just not important.”

Perhaps some very poignant words in a letter from Garrett's German teacher are also worth careful consideration at this point, especially by those willing to easily dismiss this incident.

“I am Garrett’s German teacher and one of the two teachers who helped Garrett enroll in the German American Partnership Program (GAAP) exchange program. 
When my German teacher colleague talked about a candidate who might earn a scholarship to go on the almost 4 week trip Garrett’s name was the first and only student discussed.  He is a stellar example of a student who deserves this award. You will never find a more likeable, kind, considerate, polite, helpful student. 

Garrett stands out!  He does not complain or blame others.  He accepts responsibility and does so with a thankful demeanor.  So, if you put his success in German together with a personality that is so rare these day, he should have been on the trip to Germany which is now in its second week.

I have known Garrett for 4 years and have taught him German for 3 of the four years.  He had his doubts about German when I had him in 7th and 8th grade.   There were times when I had to nudge him a bit to study and come in for extra help.  He succeeded and passed the 8th grade proficiency exam.   

I now have Garrett in my honors Level 3 German class.  Let me repeat:  HONORS LEVEL 3!   This is a huge leap!  The honors level students go on to AP German and earn college credit.  Garrett was a wonderful student and as committed to success as they come. He is a serious student and an ambassador for our country (emphasis is mine). 

To hear the news that his expedited passport was somehow mishandled was an outrage to me.  How could this happen?  Everything had been done right at our end here.  There should be no excuse!  For liability reasons, Garrett could not fly on a later flight.   
I hope you can do some good in making sure that those in the passport office realize that they are dealing with young folks too.  Their hopes and dreams are dependent on all doing an excellent job.  Mistakes cause incredible disappointment, not only for the student but for all who care as well.   

Since my usual inclination is to leave my readers with some suggestions for possible actions or some thoughts for solutions to problems, here are a few such considerations that grow out of this incident  (all of which were sent in a letter to the White House which issued an inadequate perfunctory reply).

• Investigate National Passport Center offices involved to determine what they did in this case, and whether they have failed to issue other passports as a result of neglect or of policies that put certain groups at a disadvantage. We also need to know why they hid the identities of supervisors; particularly if they were told to do so. 
• Order all departmental and unit supervisors to stop hiding from the public.  Make their contact information public. 
• Every office within government that serves the public directly should have a person who acts as a Citizen Advocate or Ombudsman whose contact information is always available and who should not be hired by, or beholden to, the office or department in which they serve, and should not be Public Relations officers whose main duties seem to be to protect their agencies.  Perhaps the Inspector General’s Office should be renamed to reflect a more dynamic mission on behalf of the People, such as Office of Citizen Advocate. 
• Information given out to consumers must be accurate and effective.  Wrong phone numbers, inadequate information and lack of information are inexcusable.  Moreover, the sending of faxes to another office in another state other than where the application is being processed is the epitome of  inefficiency.  We have too many mailing centers, fax centers, and phone hubs that are disconnected from main offices - this extends across the bureaucracy.
• Communication and instructional training must begin at the local level where the passport application process is begun.  The local county Court worker who worked on the application in this particular case did not have the necessary information to know that the mother's NYS Learner's Driving permit was not acceptable as proof of identity.  Electronic communication within government across departments and jurisdictions must be brought up to a standard that will eliminate this lack of knowledge.
• Internal evaluations must be organized to maximize Mission fulfillment and public service.  Every department and unit should have to annually assess its internal operations against published Mission and Purpose statements.  It should be required that such evaluations involve complaints from the public and past complainants should be invited to attend such evaluations to air complaints thoroughly.
• Regulations regarding passport application requirements need a thorough review.

(1) Is it the purpose of the State Department to facilitate the granting of passports, or is it their purpose to restrict the application process so that it is difficult for certain "undesirables" to obtain passports?  My response is that ID requirements for a passport are too restrictive, and may be the result of a “law and order” mentality attempting to prevent a minuscule number of  people from leaving this country for illegitimate (perhaps illegal) reasons.  It is not the business of government agencies charged with serving the public welfare to act as policemen, nor to restrict or disadvantage the majority of people in an attempt to restrain a small cadre of miscreants.  

(2) In this particular case, it may come down to a simple change in rules:  allow a picture ID from more sources to be sufficient for passport application.  In particular: a driver learner's permit with photo from a state government agency should never have been deemed "insufficient for passport purposes."  Perhaps an Executive Order could quickly change that Rule.

(3) Moreover, it should be the job of a government agency that serves our citizens to facilitate each client's need, circumstances, request or complaint in the most expeditious manner, unless doing so would constitute a clear and present danger to the United States.  It should be the clearly defined function of policies and rules to facilitate and accommodate instead of to restrict and disadvantage the requests of ordinary law-abiding citizens.  The pertinent question here is whether there are cohorts of citizens who are being put at a distinct disadvantage in obtaining a passport or other governmental services?

I cannot help but think that each of us, and all of us together, have lost something valuable because of this one incident (and every time government fails to measure up to its potential).  Let me be quite clear:  governmental or private  investment in one child’s potential is worth the trouble of acting beyond one’s normal routine!  All it would have taken is for one government worker to have pin-pointed this application and invested some extra time to see it through so that a young ambassador named Garrett could have been on that plane to Germany that left JFK sometime after 1:00 p.m. on July 6, 2015!

Flag Removed: one more Detour?

It's just amazing how easily many Americans are distracted from real issues.  As a society, we sometimes have a hard time focusing on the heart of an issue even when it stares us down and flies directly into our field of vision; into our very faces. Such a detour was just taken in South Carolina, and it has served to direct our attention away from the main issues.

Perhaps it is instructive to note a few examples from our history of other diversions from primary issues:

Real Issue: Challenges that Communist theory imposed on Capitalist theory and practices
Sidetrack: Investigations by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's into communist sympathizers within the government, the entertainment business, and the army.

Real Issue: Does Saddam Hussein and his regime pose a real military threat to the United States?Sidetracks: Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear fission material from Africa and attacks upon his own people used as propaganda

Real Issue: Right to Vote granted to all citizens
Sidetracks: Voter fraud (practically non-existent), voter IDs restricted to certain types, subtle voter suppression (closing of certain election offices, last-minute change in poll locations, changing hours of openings to inconvenient times, closing of bathrooms at polling places, etc.)

Real Issue: Gun violence is causing deaths and injury for innocent children and adults at a rapid pace.
Sidetracks: More guns in hands of more citizens will curb gun violence; Right-to-carry concealed guns in any circumstances for protection; 2nd Amendment rights must remain unrestricted in case government powers attack their own citizens; Mental health care is the key to reducing gun violence by a few disturbed individuals

These are but a few of the distractions from real issues that have been perpetrated and perpetuated by political prevaricators. And still, too many citizens are willing to be bamboozled over and over with not even a whimper of protest or just plain truth-telling about the detours around real societal issues. It shouldn't be any surprise, then, that here we are at a familiar juncture: the substitution of a secondary issue for the real issue of white racism.

As reported by Reuters, few politicians acknowledged the source of the S.C. tragedy, except for Hillary Clinton who spoke out in favor of actions beyond sympathy:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidates steered clear on Thursday of addressing the role gun rights and racial tensions may have played in a deadly mass shooting in South Carolina as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton called for the United States to face what she called the "hard truths" underpinning the tragedy."

Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina also decided to act, signing a bill that calls for the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the grounds of the State Capitol, as a gesture of remorse and "renewal" and perhaps as a way to memorialize the nine African American Christians killed by a young man, Dylann Roof, connected to a white supremacist philosophy and activism. (For more on the history and reactions to this symbol, consult: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/22/416548613/the-complicated-political-history-of-the-confederate-flag)

As a symbolic gesture (removing a symbol of slavery and racial hatred), it may have broad appeal and some validity, and should receive a modicum of attention and praise. But, as a solution to the issue of race enmity and control perpetuated by a white power structure that has institutionalized racial denigration, it must be seen primarily as a diversion from the real issue of racism that has been eating away at our democratic ideals and system of government for over 240 years.

How does the removal of the Confederate battle flag change the fact of the more than double unemployment rate among Black citizens as opposed to white citizens? Or, how does such a gesture change other equally important anomalies in the state of South Carolina:

• How does that gesture change the voter ID restrictions imposed by South Carolina to affect (mostly Democrat) voters who happen to be African American?
• How does the flag's removal have any affect on the inadequate schools that African American children are attending in most of our cities? 
• How does that gesture change the fact that over 50% of African Americans (mostly working poor) are living below the federal poverty level?
• How does it change the fact that South Carolina is one of a shrinking number of states that still incarcerates children (disproportionately Black) in secure detention centers for status offenses before their cases are even heard in court? Research shows that incarcerating children — even for very short periods of time — increases the likelihood they will have further involvement in the juvenile justice and adult prison system.
• How does it change the fact that only 8% of the businesses in Charleston are Black-owned when the percentage of African Americans in that city's population is 25.4%?
• How does it change the fact that people of color are still (for the most part) able to live only in areas that are not known for racial diversity? 
• How does it affect the millions of South Carolina residents, including persons of color disproportionately, who have need of adequate health insurance and adequate health care?
• How does the symbolic removal of the flag affect the new Jim Crow system: the out-of-proportion incarceration of men of color (supposedly for drug use or selling), and the lesser disproportionate sentences for similar crimes of white persons (cocaine use or sales in particular)?
• How does the flag gesture change the unwarranted profiling of Black persons codified in S.C. law in 2005: "SECTION 5. Article 48, Chapter 5, Title 56 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: Section 56-5-6560.  (A) Any time a motor vehicle is stopped by a state or local law enforcement officer without a citation being issued or an arrest being made, the officer who initiated the stop must complete a data collection form... that must include information regarding the age, gender, and race or ethnicity of the driver of the vehicle."

Another writer echoes these sentiments when writing on this same topic (Juan Cole article dated June 23, 2015):

"Governor Nikki Haley announced on Monday that she would attempt to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the statehouse, recognizing the pain it causes the one-third of the state who are African-Americans (about a quarter of whites also don’t care if it is up or not.)

This step is a welcome one... But it is only a symbolic measure and South Carolina’s 4.8 million residents can only achieve greater racial harmony and civil rights through practical steps. Among the most pressing of these steps:

Congressional districts in the state should not be drawn by the legislature, elected on a partisan basis, but by an impartial panel. Nearly a third of the population there is African-American or mixed, but it is not proportionally represented in politics because of gerrymandering. Six of the seven US representatives are white Republicans.

South Carolina should expand Medicaid as part of Obamacare. 178,000 people there have gotten caught in the coverage gap, and they are likely disproportionately African-American. South Carolina health statistics are Third World, and the state needs to address this problem. Instead, the spiteful South Carolina legislature tried to nullify Obamacare.

Some 22 counties are low-education, with 25 percent or more residents having less than High School. African-Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged educationally. The state needs more funding for high schools. 
The welfare of all South Carolinians would increase with these steps."

In my opinion, this gesture of removal of confederate flags will not be a catalyst for improving race relations and resolving institutional racism any more effectively than some other past symbolic gestures:

affirmative action
Republican Party members of color in leadership roles, especially former chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele
statues of Martin Luther King, Jr.
the election of a Black man as President of the United States

We are dealing here primarily with a gesture that may have some substance as a memorial to the nine South Carolina victims, but is nonetheless a detour and diversion from the real issues at hand in regard to institutionalized racism. We hear that this gesture will help to improve race relations. It may seem that way, and improvements in individual relationships and understanding between Black and White are not to be dismissed. But, it will take more than removal of a flag to increase meaningful relationships between the races, or to undertake the arduous task of undermining and opposing racial discrimination that is embedded in many of our institutions and their policies. For instance, we must:

• have face-to-face discussion and debate; engage and listen to the voices of minorities
• elect more African-Americans to office (although the number of black public officials has increased dramatically since the 1960s, Blacks make up only a few percentage points of the one-half million elected public offices in the United States)
• through businesses and labor unions, offer training, jobs and leadership opportunities to African-Americans
• remove barriers to employment, entrepreneurship, home and business ownership, education, training, healthy lifestyles, adequate housing and increase opportunities for success in all these areas
• demand equal justice and safety
• demand widespread Community Review Boards to monitor police brutality, harassment and unwarranted arrest of African-Americans (mainly young men)
• provide vista-widening opportunities for poor people and minorities to expand their goals and their horizons, especially for Black children and young people
• volunteer in agencies, locations, institutions, centers, and programs that also engage African-Americans
• encourage the establishment of pre-K education as well as after school activities for all children
• support community centers in urban communities
• encourage the roles of mentors, advocates, navigators, and champions in every possible instance where one-to-one encouragement and caring support is needed (and desired)

This is just a partial list of activities and institutional reforms that might be productive for creating real relationships and common cause for white people and people of color. But this list can claim no particular grandeur in terms of overcoming pervading obstacles and barriers of institutional racism. That is a subject that has been dealt with before in my Blog postings (particularly Jan. 16, 2014, Feb. 17, 2014 and June 22, 2015). However, none of these postings can satisfy completely because the subjects of racism and poverty go to the heart of who we are as a people, what we are as a democracy, and why we are here to begin with as human beings.

Let us look again at the very basic roots of institutionalized racism so that we can begin to realize the long-lasting commitment that it will take to combat these institutionalized demons.

The Very Basic Roots of Institutionalized Racism:

1. Slavery & Jim Crow. Laws and customs embedded in our Constitution where Black slaves are seen as less than full persons and slavery is protected
2. Language and symbols. "Black" is bad, evil, morbid. 
3. Profiling and Stereotyping. "Black" as equivalent to ignorance, irresponsibility, inferiority, dependency, criminality. Aboriginal or ape-like.
4. Racial Superiority. The belief that White people are inherently superior to black people; a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
5. Racial Control. To maintain a superior society controlled by Whites, restrictions and limits are placed on those felt to be inferior to prevent "them" from ever gaining control of society's functions or institutions.

In light of these fundamental catalysts, we might better understand some dictionary definitions, beginning with Wikipedia:

"Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society. When the differential access becomes integral to institutions, it becomes common practice, making it difficult to rectify. Eventually, this racism dominates public bodies, private corporations, public and private universities, and is reinforced by the actions of conformists and newcomers."

"Institutional racism is distinguished from racial bigotry by the existence of institutional systemic policies, practices and economic and political structures which place minority racial and ethnic groups at a disadvantage in relation to an institution’s racial or ethnic majority.

• One example is public school budgets (including local levies and bonds) and the quality of teachers, which in the U.S. are often correlated with property values: rich neighborhoods are more likely to be more 'white' and to have better teachers and more money for education, even in public schools.
• Restrictive housing contracts and bank lending policies have also been listed as forms of institutional racism.
• Racial Profiling by security guards and police, use of stereotyped racial caricatures,
• The under- and mis-representation of certain racial groups in the mass media, 
• Race-based barriers to gainful employment and professional advancement.
• Differential access to goods, services, and opportunities of society can be included within the term institutional racism, such as unpaved streets and roads, inherited socio-economic disadvantage, and "standardized" tests (each ethnic group prepared for it differently; many are poorly prepared).
• The actual lack of services and goods and resources that are afforded to white persons and communities: large grocery and department stores, adequate child care, adequate job opportunities, internet access, an adequate transportation system, adequate health care, etc.

Victory over institutional racism cannot be won without a persistent dogged approach to the factors that lie at the roots of these problems. There are no easy solutions, but at the same time, there is no time to waste either. We cannot put off the solutions and the efforts until some magical time when people will be more receptive or conditions more perfect for change. The time for action is now. Speak out and act out at every opportunity to expose institutional racism and personal bigotry.