Her essay in today’s Bangor Daily News is perhaps one of the clearest and most concise pieces that dares to tackle the soft and fuzzy slush associated with “politically correct” speech.
An excerpt:
Politically correct linguistic gymnastics is part of our everyday conversation. As panderers promote victimhood, multiculturalism and identity politics we’ve had to become excruciatingly careful how words trip off the tongue. It’s exhausting. After all, a little slip-up, and bam — you could find yourself on the unpleasant receiving end of a sermon, a scolding or even a lawsuit.
Part of me is tempted to let that statement flutter alone in the social media stratosphere without context. I am curious about the the reaction, but I am not anxious to begin looking for a new job, new clients, new friends and a new wife.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Seattle Times photo
Of course, I’m talking here about degrees of racism. But isn’t that the way it usually goes with us garden-variety racists?
Originally, I was going to write this post after speaking with an African-American “acquaintance” of mine, a woman I have long admired from a safe and comfortable distance. We have tentatively scheduled a cup of coffee — or maybe a pint of beer sometime in the next few days, when her schedule settles down.
I know of this woman only through third parties. Recently, we have become “connected” on a few social media platforms. I find her writing haunting and jarring.
So why did I deviate from my original plan?
1.) I am intimidated by this woman; and
2.) This week is so timely for this discussion, this musing of mine. For one, this week we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the stirring and famous speech by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We also have all the fallout from Gov. LePage’s latest verbal snafu; but more importantly . . .
3.) I am afraid that I would be less than honest if I met her before writing this. Meaning: I would try to be more careful, bend to my “white-man guilt” by being overly empathetic and trying desperately not to offend. In summary, I would probably open the flood gates of bullshit.
Others take a shot at redemption in their later years. They either soften or gradually see the light; or — more appropriately — begin smelling the rot of their own garbage. Strom Thurmond comes to mind, here.
I fall asleep at night comforted that I am not David Duke, David Marsters or even Strom Thurmond. I am more like Governor LePage, and more like most people I know.
I am a tiny bit racist. So I get to skate with the hip, the self-aware and the all-so-cool white folks who either ignore their racism or make excuses for it.
It is not excusable.
Physician, heal thyself
I had this race epiphany a few days ago while reading a media report about Governor LePage and his attempt to “clarify” and explain allegations made by anonymous members of his own party. Essentially, LePage denied ever saying that President Obama doesn’t like white people.
The governor’s defense centered upon his assertion that President Obama has repeatedly missed opportunities to heal our nation’s racial tensions, fumbling or ignoring golden opportunities to bring white and black people closer together.
For just one bat-shit crazy second, that explanation almost made sense to me. It was then that I could no longer deny that I was a racist.
Now, before I bring down the full weight and wrath of those ultimately loyal to LePage, allow me to back up.
The governor was a little bit right in his criticism of President Obama on this front. But here’s the problem, LePage almost three years ago abdicated the moral high ground when it comes to easing racial tensions.
Most of us remember that cold day in January 2011 when local and national media went into overdrive regarding LePage’s alleged racism. He didn’t just decline an invitation to attend the annual Martin Luther King Day breakfast in Portland. Instead, he proudly (with what would become his trademark bluster) told reporters that “the NAACP can kiss my butt.”
If LePage is worried about missed opportunities to heal racial divides, he’s got a damn funny way of showing it.
Consider what he could have said. “I’m not sure why you folks in the media are making such a big deal about this. I simply declined an invitation because my schedule is full, but lets all remember that I consistently attended local MLK breakfast events in Waterville during my tenure as mayor. I also have taken a young African-American man into my home and helped raise him as a member of my own family. I strongly resent any implication that I am a racist. Let’s get busy talking about the important issues we are facing in Maine government.”
Nope, LePage could not resist coming on strong, full of sound, fury and arrogance. He began a path of allowing his pride to trump his greed.
How do we move forward?
I do not think our governor is a more successful version of David Duke, but I do think he has missed plenty of opportunities to talk in a meaningful way about an issue that is still very relevant in today’s world — even 50 years after the delivery of the I Have A Dreamspeech.
So, I am also a little bit racist, but I am also a little bit greedy, a little bit of a misogynist and a little too quick with anger.
Unless I am willing to look at these things, to painstaking examine my own heart, I have no authority to opine on these issues. We must be willing to confront the things we don’t like . . . even those things that lurk in the darkness of our own souls. Otherwise, the garbage festers and it can grow and infect other parts of our being.
As I said before, these things are not excusable but there are reasons for their development in even the best of people. Part of it is our cultural and genetic pre-disposition to assimilate within the familiar.
In this way, I suspect strongly that I am not alone; that the majority of folks I know are just a tiny, tiny bit racist. We can work on it if we can be honest about it. If we start with the man in the mirror.
White-man guilt
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States embarked upon a period of “Reconstruction.” Today, we would call in FEMA and lease some trailers.
The concept of giving former slaves 40 acres and a mule as reparation for their slavery was short-lived. Much of that land was eventually returned to its antebellum owners. From time-to-time, some guilt-ridden white folks and a lot of still angry black folks talk about the concept of ‘reparations” as the only way to heal the racial divide. Affirmative-Action programs were apparently a lot easier to digest.
Only weeks before being sworn-in, President Jimmy Carter granted an interview to Playboy magazine. It was the November 1976 issue. I know this because I was 12 years old and was an avid reader of my father’s hidden stacks of Playboy magazines.
Patty McGuire was that month’s centerfold. She was later named Playmate of the Year in 1977. She liked CB radios. I desperately wanted a CB radio back then. I saw Patti, and I knew it was a match made in heaven . . . but I digress.
Carter was trying to heal the cynicism of a post-Watergate nation by being painfully honest. In that issue of Playboy, he confessed to “having lust in my heart.”
Unfortunately, Carter had a lot of other tasks at his feet, many of which did not work out so well. But confessing lust in a Playboy interview is sort of like criticizing missed opportunities for racial healing after telling the Maine chapter of the NAACP to kiss your butt.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana
A Facebook friend reminded me that it was 122 years ago today, on December 28,1890, that more than 300, unarmed native Americans were slaughtered in South Dakota by U.S. Forces. The dead included women and children, and this travesty is recanted in horrific detail through the pages of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
Colonel James Forsyth was later charged with The Killing of Innocents, but was exonerated and promoted. 22 of the soldiers that day were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Do you remember being taught that lesson in public school? Probably not. It’s a piece of American history we like to forget.
“I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes young. I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. My people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream… the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead.” -Black Elk (1863-1950); Oglala Holy man.
The Lakota and other tribes were labeled as terrorists in Washington, DC, long before we created the Patriot Act to keep ourselves “safe” from terrorists.
As we once again debate how to keep American citizens safe, many people dismiss the quaint notion of government tyranny. Tyranny happens in other places, not here…not now…they say.
Generally, these believers in government authority and the government’s sole discretion in keeping us safe are white folk who rarely consider the downsides of an unbalanced distribution of force and power. These believers in government sanctity forget about the rather recent atrocities in Dafur, Serbia, Libya or Nazi Germany.
I spent the summer of 1987 working on the Cheyenne River Reservation in Eagle Butte, South Dakota. Back then, I thought wanted to be a priest.
I was 23 and full of my self as most 23-year-old men are. I strived to be sensitive, to be politically correct. The wise Lakota who surrounded me would gently smile when I used the words, “Native American.”
I tried my best to be empathetic, compassionate. I desperately wanted people to know that I was enlightened and not a typical white man; someone who could listen without judgment or prejudice.
One of the men on the reservation set me straight. “If you think you can assuage the sins of your past with a couple of words, you are sorely mistaken.”
He stepped outside to have a cigarette. We never crossed paths again.
So here are two pictures. One is from 122 years ago; the other is from 1987.
Take a good look, and you tell me… have we learned anything from history?
We are all, it seems, struggling to come to terms with what happened yesterday in Newtown, Connecticut.
As the awful news began to unfold, I urged friends and family members to pause and refrain from using this tragedy to further support political/policy agendas. I was unable, –am still unable — to comprehend what happened. It seems impossible to shoulder the weight of this horrific tragedy.
“Today is not the day to have these conversations,” I wrote on my Facebook page yesterday. “Today is a day to grieve and to support one another.”
Those words strike me as empty, hollow. . .meaningless. Over the last 24 hours, our nation has experienced a range of emotions: rage, grief, shock, fear and despair.
So, how do we move forward? How do we reconcile those feelings, the raw emotions that carry us into another day?
Understandably, many of us are searching for answers, for meaning. We have different opinions, and I submit that those opinions are all vital, all necessary for the larger conversation that we can no longer ignore.
The response to my Facebook post was generally respectful. Some people, however, chided me..saying yesterday, the day before, last year was the time for that conversation. I agree with those well-intentioned Facebook friends of mine. I only wonder if they will now join me in that conversation.
Four days after the Tuscon shootings, I penned an op-ed that was published in the Portland Press Herald. I got lots of supportive feedback and some nice comments for my willingness to speak publicly about my own mental health issues and how those issues affect each and every one of us, but we all moved on to more important things . . . like arguing about Rick Santorum, Wal-Mart and Honey Boo-boo.
As I struggle to find light in this time of darkness, there is only one small measure of comfort: for the first time, I am seeing and hearing numerous people address mental health as one of the core issues for that conversation. More people, it seems, are ready to have “that”conversation.
But it is not the only issue we must be willing to confront. I consider myself an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, but today I am left with questions for which there seem to be no easy or convenient answers. I loathe knee-jerk reactions, but I am willing to reconsider all of my opinions so that I can join that larger conversation in a meaningful and productive way.
Ironically. as we all began dealing with the tragic fallout from yesterday’s rampage, another new story from half way across the globe was unfolding.
Questions about China’s inadequate mental health system are increasing in the wake of multiple incidents of school children being attacked and killed by knife-wielding, mentally ill people. Over the last few years, numerous school children have been killed and scores more injured by knife-wielding mad men.
That is not an argument against gun control. That is an argument that shows gun control is not the entire solution.
News commentator Bob Costas didn’t hesitate to offer his opinion about gun control less than 24 hours after an NFL player shot and killed his girlfriend before shooting himself in front of his coach. Just one week later, another NFL player was killed because he was riding in a car with a drunken teammate. It’s no surprise that there was no call for tighter alcohol controls.
Railing for gun control may help us feel a bit safer; but if we don’t have that conversation across a larger context then we can expect more of the same . . . senseless violence that shocks and angers, but then slowly fades away into distant memory.
On a final point. How do we ensure better background checks to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing or obtaining firearms?
Should someone like me, someone who struggles with depression and has been hospitalized sacrifice our privacy and have our health care records disclosed? Should family members of mentally ill people lose or sacrifice some of their rights under the Constitution?
I do not know the answers to those questions. But I do know, there is no way to guarantee safety. We live in a dangerous world, and if we are willing to sacrifice liberty for security (and considering the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, and long shoeless TSA lines, we are) we may end up with something we never bargained for.
There is a disturbing new trend in the U.S. military, and it’s killing our troops with increasing frequency.
No, we’re not talking about roadside bombs or militant terrorists. We’re talking about something that is much more frightening: suicide.
The U.S. military’s highest court is wrestling this week with whether it makes sense to punish service members who attempt suicide.
According to an article in USA Today, the military’s Court of Appeals appears perplexed about whether it makes sense to prosecute soldiers who make an attempt to end their own lives. The uncomfortable subject matter reared its ugly head during an appeal filed by attorneys for a Marine private who was court-martialed after slitting his own wrists.
From the article: Underpinning the case is the question of why the military criminalizes attempted suicide when it does not treat successful suicide as a crime.
“If (the marine) had succeeded, like 3,000 service members have in the past decade, he would have been treated like his service was honorable, his family would have received a letter of condolence from the president and his death would have been considered in the line of duty. Because he failed, he was prosecuted,” noted Navy Lt. Michael Hanzel, the military lawyer representing [the appellant].
Suicides among active-duty troops have soared in recent years, from less than 200 in 2005 to 309 in 2009, and a spike this year has put 2012 on track to set a new record high.
As someone who struggles daily with a mental illness, this story caught my attention for a number of reasons, including my own dismal military performance.
I received an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force, but it’s hard for me to think of anything “honorable” about it. Like me, this young Marine was never in a combat situation, making it all the more difficult for most people to understand — nevermind legitimize — his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to the article: “Mental health experts say criminalizing attempted suicide will undermine the Pentagon’s efforts to prevent troops from taking their own lives. Those laws might make troops reluctant to come forward, seek help and be candid with mental health counselors if they fear potential prosecution.”
So, we are left with a situation that clearly mirrors the foundations of Joseph Heller’s classic novel, Catch-22.
Essentially, the Catch 22 argument is one that predicates an outcome upon a contradictory set of rules. For example, if you are sane enough to seek discharge from the military because of a mental impairment, then you are not mentally impaired. You can only be mentally impaired if you are in complete denial that you are mentally impaired. Thus, you cannot say that you are mentally impaired and must remain in the military.
It’s actually understandable why the military is wrestling with this case. It’s damn hard to know the difference if someone is simply using the guise of a mental impairment to escape the otherwise uncomfortable bounds of their own consequences. I say this as someone who has made a serious suicide attempt.
I mean the kind of suicide attempt when you don’t write a note. You don’t make a call. There is no drama. There is just cold, dark, insufferable pain that you desperately want to end.
It happens. It’s not convenient or a light subject but it cannot be ignored without consequence.
Today, I am doing everything possible to avoid ever being in that situation again. But how much harder would that be if I knew I could be criminally prosecuted for my admission?
A couple of days ago, an exhausted and emotional President Obama visited privately with some of his campaign workers and reportedly got pretty choked up. At one point, the president’s tears began to flow.
For some reason, the White House decided to release this rare footage, despite the fact that it was recorded at an event the media was not allowed to attend.
Now let’s compare this to the public reaction from just two years ago, when Republican House Speaker John Boehner cried while being interviewed on 60 Minutes about his new role as Speaker of the House…..well, you remember, right?
Here’s what Bill Maher had to say:
“Did you see the new speaker of the House John Boeher cry? He cries a lot. Mr. Boehner you’ve got to stop crying. For one, your tan is going to run. And what’s he going to do if he loses next time? Put on a Bjork record and cut himself?”
Over the last few days, media pundits and amateur pundits on Facebook have been telling us that it is time for cooperation. It is time for the GOP to brush off its brutal losses and begin working with the Democrats. To steal a phrase, It’s time to put people before politics.
But it’s damn hard to accept the media’s blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore, why is it so bad for a man… a strong man, or any man for that matter– to cry? Is it a sign of weakness?
Both Obama and Boehner were captured in honest moments of raw emotional expression. The ability to appropriately express your emotion…whether it’s grief, joy or some hidden pain is generally a sign of good mental health. Do we really want our nation’s leaders bottling up their emotions?
Now, here’s a test. Watch this video and see if it makes you cry….even just a little. I dare ya.
My friends and family know that I cannot watch this scene without crying like a baby. If I were a Democrat, I suppose that would be an endearing quality. But if I am a Republican, I best prepare for some intense criticism.
It will be a lot easier for our nation to heal, if we can just move beyond some of the hypocrisy.
The letter I wrote to President Barack Obama on November 7, 2012:
Dear Mr. President:
First and foremost, please allow me to extend my most sincere congratulations on your hard-fought victory for a second term as our nation’s president.
Before I proceed further, I think it is appropriate that I disclose I did not vote for you, either in 2008 or yesterday. That said, I respect your office and believe you are a decent man who is committed to moving our nation forward to a better future.
I am writing you tonight to share a few thoughts and some unsolicited advice, knowing full well that it is highly unlikely you will read this note.
In essence, Mr. President, I believe you now have a rare opportunity with a second term. You have been unshackled from the constraints of re-election concerns, and I am hoping you will at least consider some of my points.
Although I applaud your efforts to tackle the complexities of our nation’s health care system, I have deep reservations about the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I encourage you to consider pushing for the so-called “public option” as an enhancement to your signature piece of legislation.
Why would a Republican urge you to consider a public option? Because I believe that we must continue looking at innovative ways to contain skyrocketing costs and improve quality of care. As it stands, I see this legislation as a giant gift to the same industry that created the “health insurance” nightmare. A public option would, at least, provide us with the comfort that our government mandates health coverage but not payment to a myopic, for-profit industry.
Yes, I understand the limitations of public policy development, and I can appreciate the value of sincere compromise. But I believe a public option would require private insurance companies to remain competitive instead of giving them a giant gift of additional revenue sources.
Secondly, I would like to see you tackle the immigration issue with the same clarity and conviction you displayed two years ago in your fight to repair our nation’s health care system. I would favor a system that rewards hard-working people who wish to become citizens of our great nation without tolerating those who intentionally attempt to elude the system.
Certainly, we have the technology and means to streamline the naturalization process, and we should be encouraging and welcoming more people to participate in our system of government rather than focusing so much of our time and financial resources in pursuit of a punitive process that yields so few benefits.
Finally, I hope that you and your administration will focus more of your efforts on our sluggish economy and our crushing national debt. We all know that too many Americans are in deep despair and facing serious and significant financial hardships. I urge you to be mindful of these implications as you consider each and every policy initiative that comes across
your desk.
A few months before I was born, President Kennedy urged his fellow citizens to ask themselves what they could do for their country, not what their country could do for them.
I want you to know, Mr. President, that I stand ready to accept that challenge; to further commit myself to working with my neighbors and all fellow citizens for the betterment of our nation. I reject the idea of living in fear and constant anxiety about an uncertain future. I stand ready and able to help you and every other American who is willing to work on behalf of our country.
Although I will continue to criticize some of your ideas and policies, please rest assured that I will also stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you at all other times.
I sincerely hope that you are able to receive my words as they are intended, and I hope that this correspondence finds you, the First Lady and your two beautiful daughters safe and content.
The city of Biddeford is a lot of things; among them it is a college town that is home to the University of New England, a liberal arts college nestled along the banks of the Saco River.
In numerous conversations this evening with city election clerks and poll workers, I heard repeated stories about record voter turnout and incredible same-day voter registration statistics among UNE students.
It’s nice to see our nation’s young people get involved in politics, I only wish they actually cared a bit more about the community that serves as their temporary home.
Why do I say this? Why am I so callous?
Well, maybe it’s because I think college students, especially, ought to be a bit more “educated” on issues of national, state and local importance. Our nation’s college students represent our future. They are the up and coming leaders of tomorrow, but apparently can’t be bothered to invest a small measure of time in their host community.
Even with a perfunctory review of the numbers, it becomes quickly apparent that the students cared about only two issues: the presidential election and a statewide referendum question regarding marriage equality.
UNE is located in Biddeford’s Ward One, the predominantly coastal and more affluent section of the city.
In Ward One, 1,445 voters cast ballots regarding Marriage Equality, not including 59 blank ballots.
In Ward One, 1,496 voters cast ballots to choose the next president, not including 8 blanks.
But what happened when these voters were asked about who should be their state representative in the Maine Legislature?
Hmmm…. there were 97 blank ballots
How about the Maine Senate? 173 blanks
How about Local Bond Questions regarding road pavements? 228 blanks
How about the local school budget? 138 blanks.
Ok, so maybe most voters don’t drill down that far…but let’s compare the number of blanks on those election issues against some other neighborhoods in the same city, like my neighborhood…
State Senate: 72 blanks (a difference of 99 fewer blank votes compared to Ward One)
Paving Bond: 143 blanks (a difference of 85 fewer blank votes)
Local School Budget: 69 blanks (a difference of 99 fewer blank votes)
Across the board, Ward One had a higher number of blank ballots than any of the city’s other six voting wards (both in actual numbers and as a percent of totals)
For better or worse, Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant is also serving as a representative in the Maine House of Representatives. He is a Democrat. He lost by a margin of just 8 votes to his Republican challenger. Wow…what if just a few more students had cast a vote in that race???
Many of the students, including a young woman from the neighboring town of Kennebunk, used only their UNE student ID as a means of proving residency in Biddeford. But they did have to swear an oath to certify that they had not voted anywhere else.
Out of curiosity, how is it that college students who can wait in line 36 hours for the latest I-Phone or score coveted Dave Matthews concert tickets months before a scheduled concert not be able to register for voting until the actual day of the election?
Nah, it couldn’t be they want to wait until the last possible minute in order to avoid scrutiny. They really do care what’s happening in the world. They just forgot that Election Day was creeping up on them.
Maybe we should require you to register to vote when you buy an I-Phone or some concert tickets. Wouldn’t that be convenient? Then they would not have to rent so many passenger vans to vote. Then they would not have to put such a strain on our strapped city resources. Then, maybe these educated kids might be able to fill out the entire ballot.
You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Just moments ago, Mitt Romney did what he does best. He chose the safe bet and once again fumbled the ball in his quest to be the next president of the United States. Mitt ended all speculation by announcing his choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Of course, the right is thumping its chest, joyously proclaiming that President Obama will no longer be able to ignore our country’s miserable economy during an especially malicious campaign.
GOP Nominee Mitt Romney
Meanwhile, the left is busy buying bottles of champagne, prematurely celebrating their victory while putting together a slew of campaign ads that pronounce Ryan as the guy who wanted to kill Medicare. For the record, check what Politifact has to say about the left’s Medicare innuendo.
My prediction? Obama wins by 3 points when he should lose.
Yes, I just said President Obama should lose the election.
Yes, I just said that President Obama will win a second term.
With just one sentence, I have managed to piss off loyalists on both sides of the aisle. So now that I have your attention, allow me to explain my rationale.
Why Obama will win
Romney’s selection of Ryan as a running mate only serves two purposes: 1. it forces Obama back into the debate about the economy, and 2.) it spikes the temperature on the right. But just like four years ago, the GOP has done absolutely nothing with this pick to take from the political center…That is why Obama will squeak out a narrow victory. Palin gave McCain an early bump, but it came up far short on drawing critical votes from the political center.
Why Obama should lose
President Obama screwed up royally even before he was sworn into office for his first term. He set the bar for his presidency far too high. In short, he over promised and under delivered.
That alone is reason enough to justify my decision not to renew his employment contract.
Ask yourself this: Why would such an allegedly smart guy promise so much so soon?
It’s simple. Obama’s “Hope and Change” was a tactic born of grandiose arrogance and fueled by a troubling naiveté of how the world works.
Remember four years ago? This president was going to be so much different. He was going to change Washington. No more business as usual. No more cozying with lobbyists. Superior transparency and political accountability would be the new norm. He was going to fix the economy, end our wars, give us universal health care and stick it to the rich.
“Yes, we can!” he proclaimed without deference to the stark reality that surrounded him.
I was there on that cold, January day when the nation was about to be forever transformed into something so much better. I did not vote for him, but I was genuinely excited to be part of that historic moment when our 44th president was sworn into office.
The crowd on the Capitol Mall was like nothing I had ever experienced. There was an electric excitement in the air. I am a big guy, but I could not secure my footing. When that massive crowd lurched, I lurched…I was literally moved by those throngs of joyous and expectant celebrants.
It was hard not to believe that we were witnessing something much bigger than a new president taking office. Like Chris Matthews,I also experienced a tingling sensation running down my leg… (in retrospect, that may have been the result of really cold temperatures and a lack of restrooms).
But did Obama really overpromise and under-deliver, or am I just a frustrated cynic?
To answer those questions, I offer some analysis and opinion from a broad spectrum of news and media outlets, including: The Huffington Post, Politico, ABC News and Fox.
Let’s now examine the reality of our president’s 2008 campaign promises:
Healthcare: To his credit, Obama tackled one of our nation’s most complex and dysfunctional systems. The result? The government got in bed with huge corporations by using its force of law to require everyone to purchase health care insurance. In exchange, the corporations agreed to change practices including rescission of policy coverage and extending the term of dependent care. If you’re excited about this, you have very low expectations.
Ending the wars and closing Guantanamo Bay: Instead of troops in Iraq, we now have private contractors quietly cleaning things up in the name of democracy and capitalism. Foreign civilians are still being killed by drone strikes and US foreign policy has changed little, especially when considering that we were happy to celebrate and credit this president for crossing into a sovereign nation without permission and executing a criminal without trial. Yay, us! Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business.
Increase Transparency in government: Not so much, at least according to Politico:
“Open-government advocates say some administration practices are actually undercutting Obama’s goal. Among their complaints:
• Administration lawyers are aggressively fighting FOIA requests at the agency level and in court — sometimes on Obama’s direct orders. They’ve also wielded anti-transparency arguments even bolder than those asserted by the Bush administration.
• The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories. “There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States,” ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told White House press secretary Jay Carney at a recent briefing for reporters”
Swamped by outside Republican groups in fundraising so far, Obama belatedly decided to give his blessing to so-called super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. Both Obama’s campaign and the White House maintain that the president does not support today’s rules but realized belatedly he must play by them to give himself a competitive chance at a second term.
“He’s not saying that the system is healthy or good,” said Obama spokesman Jay Carney, who was pressed repeatedly about whether Obama’s move was hypocrisy. “He is making the decision, his campaign is making the decision, that the rules are what they are. And they cannot play by a different set of rules than Republicans are playing.”
That’s not consistent with what Obama has said about the groups, though. And now, by putting strategy above all else, Obama opened himself to criticism that he had compromised on principle and succumbed to the rules of the same Washington game he pledged to change.”
Jobs and the Economy: Epic fail and the starkest example of overpromise and under-delivering.
Business Insider: ” . . . the Obama administration drastically underestimated how bad the economy was and drastically overestimated its ability to do something about it.
As a result of this, President Obama over-promised and under-delivered on the single most important challenge of his Presidency: Jobs.”
Huffington Post: “. . . A slew of weak data has led economists in recent weeks to ratchet back their expectations for U.S. economic growth. A Reuters poll published on Wednesday found economists expect the nation’s Gross Domestic Product to expand at only a 2 percent annual rate in the second quarter.
Projections for hiring also have been cut. According to the poll, the economy is likely to add an average of 147,000 jobs a month between now and October, too few to make much of a dent in the nation’s 8.2 percent jobless rate.
As the economic recovery threatens to stall for the third summer in a row, voters are registering deep doubts about Obama’s leadership, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. More now believe Romney would be stronger than Obama in dealing with the economy and creating jobs. . .”
How is the world better today than it was four years ago? How much has Washington changed? Are you better off than you were in 2008?
Can Mitt Romney do any better? Probably not.
Thus, I am a cynic. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Predictably, in the days following a massacre in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater, there has once again been a rallying cry for tighter gun control laws.
Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction fails to address the much larger issue: No sane person would willingly open fire on an unarmed group of civilians. It’s not about guns. It’s about our appetite for violence and our reluctance to address mental health issues.
But that is a more complex issue, and it is much harder to contemplate a solution for a problem that extends well beyond our nation’s borders, including a July 2011 massacre in Oslo, Norway or last month’s shooting spree in Toronto, Canada, where gun control laws are about as tight as they can be.
Not far from Aurora, lies the smaller town of Littleton, Colo., where two students opened fire on their classmates and teachers at the Columbine High School in 1999.
In response, the U.S. Secret Service, in conjunction with the National Education Association, undertook a study of school violence and published their report three years later, in 2002
The Secret Service Report concluded that schools were taking false hope in physical security, when they should be paying more attention to the pre-attack behaviors of students.
But behavior is a tricky subject matter, and not nearly as sexy or convenient for sound bites as AK-47s or Glocks.
No matter, we still happily and blindly toss around words such as “sicko,” “whack-job” and “nut case” to describe the people who commit these horrific, unimaginable criminal acts.
As someone who struggles daily with a mental illness, I am reminded again why I penned an op-ed that was published in the Portland Press Herald only a few days after the Jan. 2011 shootings in Tucson.
If you haven’t read it, take a gander…and let’s finally have that conversation.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY | OUTLAW JOURNALIST 