The Thirty Year Itch

Monkey Murder Mayhem!

2012-01-25T00:57:00.004-05:00

Today I went to the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo's Rainforest exhibit with my family. This is nothing new; we've been members of the Zoo for four years and go regularly. Today, however, we witnessed something truly blog worthy!

Pied Tamarin monkey with babies on its back

Just before we were about to leave, I was looking at an exhibit of Pied Tamarin monkeys. I saw one with some babies on its back. I called my wife and two young children to come and see them. We saw a notice on the information card that the babies were born on January 15, 2012, making them eight days old! I took a picture with my mobile phone (one of the few times going to the zoo without my camera) and was posting it on Facebook when my wife said that another monkey grabbed one of the babies and was hurting it. I looked, and it appeared that an adult monkey was trying to kill the baby. My wife alerted zoo staff, and within minutes several zookeepers arrived, but unfortunately, it was too late, and the baby had been killed. The zookeepers got the dead baby away from the killer monkey, but didn't separate the second baby from the rest of the group. I asked one of the zookeepers a few questions. I was told the babies were on the father's back, and the one that killed the baby was the mother.


The dead infant is dangling from its grip

     Although saddened by what happened, I didn't question it much; nature, right? I know there are species that kill their young, and supposed the pied tamarin monkeys were one of them.
     After the baby died, the zookeepers disappeared. I was in the gift shop when my wife came back and said the second baby was now being killed! Again, she went to the Zoo staff and reported the attack, and the zookeepers returned, again, too late.
     After the second death, I wondered why they didn't segregate the second baby. Since I don't know much about zookeeping or pied tamarin monkeys, I thought the staff at the Zoo knew what they were doing. Or maybe the Zoo has a policy about not interfering with the natural parenting of their animals. Maybe there has never been an incident of raising a baby pied tamarin monkey without its parents, so separating it wasn't an option, since it would inevitably lead to death. Again, I'm not an expert in zoo-keeping or animal husbandry, so I didn't give it too much thought.

Pied tamarin babies (not today's victims!)

But when I heard from my wife a few hours later that the pied tamarin is on the endangered primate species list, I thought a little more. Why, after the first baby was killed, would Zoo staff do nothing to protect the second one?
I also learned, with only a few minutes of research, that these kind of monkeys are cared for mostly by the males in the group, only turned over to the mother for nursing. They live in groups of between 4 and 15, with one alpha female, who, typically, is the only female allowed to breed. Infanticide is not unheard of, often a dominant female killing the babies of other breeding females in the group or when the mother is stressed and competing with other females.

Adult pied tamarin monkey

Infanticide in tamarin monkeys occurs when mothers feel competition with other females or they don't have enough help and support from the group in the care of their young. One study indicates that 80% of infants die if there are two gestating females in the group; only 20% if there is only one reproductive female. Also, 75% of infants survive to adulthood when there are at least three males helping; only 41.7% survive if their are only one or two males to help.
In fifteen minutes of research, I learned enough about these monkeys to know that several steps should be taken to help prevent the likelihood of infanticide in this endangered primate. First, don't house more than one gestating or competing female with the mother and babies. Second, be sure that, in addition to the mother, there are three or more males available to help with caring for the young. Perhaps the zookeepers took these steps, and more, to prevent the death of the pied tamarin babies. But given the results, perhaps they didn't.

I'm Thankful for...

2011-11-24T10:15:00.001-05:00

Today is Thanksgiving, a holiday unique to North America, particularly the United States and Canada. It is most often dated to 1621, in the settlement of Plymouth, but there is dispute about that date. It was a day of thanks to celebrate the fall harvest, and a safe passage to the New World. The tradition of fall harvest celebrations was brought to the Americas from Europe.
It is often believed that the first Thanksgiving included Native Americans. But I didn't find much about Native American participation in the colonist's celebration. In fact, the only mention I found was that the Native Americans also celebrated the fall harvest.
It could be argued that the colonists came to America, took from the native population the riches of the land, used their military force and political power to subjugate the race, keep them in their place, erode their way of life, and eventually put them on reservations where many remain today, largely dependent on the government to this day.

After neutralizing Native Americans, the American colonists and later the people of the newly formed United States of America, found another race to subjugate and persecute. While Thanksgiving continued as a national tradition, colonists continued to be thankful for the bounty they had been provided. But it was rarely mentioned that it was largely at the expense of the Africans brought to America against their will to endure the horrors of the institution of slavery. As the white man celebrated, the black man was the one whose labor made possible the the economic and agricultural success of the new country. And today, 148 years after slavery was ended, the African-American population in the United States is still too often treated as second class citizens, without equal access to educational opportunity, medical care, or gainful employment.

Sadly, the lessons of the tragedies of Native Americans and African Americans in our country are not fully appreciated. Today, another group of people are being oppressed, and are fighting for freedom and economic equality. They are fighting those with wealth and power, and the rich and powerful are prevailing. You can't distinguish the victims based on the color of skin, language, or subculture. Instead, the victims are from every race, gender, color, and creed. The victims are most of us, about 99% of us.
The fight today is between the haves and the have nots, those with money and political influence and those without. The rich against the poor. The survival of the middle class is at stake. The front lines of this battle are currently found in the Occupy Movement in cities across the country and around the world. And although those on the front are few compared to those they are fighting for, we should understand what is at stake.
Over the last few decades, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown. Wages have been stagnant or decreased. Labor unions have been busted. Health care is becoming more expensive, insurance often too costly to be a consideration for too many families. Corporations have been recognized as people for purposes of free speech and monetary political influence. And, sadly, even the Democratic Party, politicians who have traditionally represented the poor, the working class, the middle class, have become beholden to those who finance them.

Ironically, some of the very people who support what the system has become have been convinced by the wealthy and powerful that it is in their best interest. Police officers, middle class citizens themselves, victims of union busting, of tax cuts that are supposed to increase government revenues but in truth are only bankrupting municipalities, are following orders to beat, gas, and arrest peaceful protesters. Factory workers earning $12 per hour with substandard benefits, many who have to accept some form or public assistance to feed their families, are convinced that labor unions are their enemies. Soldiers, earning next to nothing for their sacrifice, receiving arguably inadequate health care after being wounded, fighting wars that it is now apparent were poorly planned, fought only to line the pockets of those in the defense industry. The elderly, who have worked hard, contributed to Social Security for decades, come to rely on Medicare, and invested life savings in the stock market, only to see those institutions threatened by greed, fraud, and mismanagement.

So today, Thanksgiving 2012, I am thankful to those involved in the Occupy Movement, for risking their freedom and safety for the rest of us. I am thankful to the voters of the Great State of Ohio, who rejected State Issue 2, the draconian union busting bill known as SB5 that would hurt over 300,000 public employees and their families. I am thankful for the labor unions in our country, fighting and lobbying for over eighty years against interests that have more wealth and power that those they represent. I am thankful for the few politicians we have that seem to know the score, at least more so than the rest: Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich. I am thankful to my family, my beautiful wife and children, who have helped me put things into perspective, to make personal to me that what we do today will be theirs to deal with tomorrow. I am thankful for the few police officers, particularly the high ranking ones, who have the courage to speak out against the powers that be. Notably, Norm Stamper, the retired Chief of the Seattle Police Department for his article in The Nation. And Ray Lewis, retired Philedelphia Police Captain that was arrested in full uniform at an Occupy protest. Finally, I'm thankful to be living in the United States, because even though it was Americans that got us here, we have the freedom to get ourselves back on track, to return to the values of hard work for fair pay, more equal access to education and opportunity, and an economic system that is fair to all people.

The Real Question in November 2012

2011-10-09T09:20:00.001-04:00

I decided to check my Facebook page one last time before going to bed this morning (I worked the night shift last night). On it, I saw a post from Meet the Press, commenting that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin both declined to make a run for the 2012 GOP nomination for President. The post then asked readers if they thought the crop of candidates is set, and for thoughts about those candidates. I couldn't help but reply.
Before I share my response, I will add that I do think that candidates are set, and none of them are anywhere near Presidential quality, the closest, of course, being Mitt Romney. That said, here was my response:

Fear Mongering? Only a beginning.

The crop of GOP candidates is terrible. But the 2012 election won't be about any of them. Instead it will be a referendum on President Obama. Nearly four years of obstructionist policy, racially charged fear-mongering, and intellectual dishonesty will culminate with a vote for or against a President who was, despite his willingness to work in true bipartisan fashion, despite his clear electoral mandate, despite his overwhelming national and global support, and despite the obvious failings of his predecessor, was blackballed by a radical political minority that bastardized the very being of American government and values.

That is what the 2012 election will be about. And Democrats in Congress will pay, too, for the behavior of the GOP over the last three years. Americans are disappointed in their Congress, and instead of blaming the obstructionists, the Tea Party members and sympathizers, they will blame the Democrats for failing to take their 2008 mandate and run with it.

No racism in he Tea Party

It is a shame that the Tea Party led Republican policies have a real chance at succeeding, digging our country deeper and deeper into a hole from which we will be less likely to emerge.
As the election draws near, and the campaign heats up, remember who started and defended the programs that take care of the working class, the unemployed, the less fortunate. And remember who has attempted to dismantle it ever since. The choice is obvious, and if the truth prevails, President Obama will be re-elected with The Other 99% of the vote!

Occupy Wall Street!

2011-10-07T03:11:00.000-04:00

I'm sure it is no surprise to anyone who has read The Itch that I support the Occupy Wall Street protests. The big banks and multinational corporations have sent our country spiraling downward for too long, expanding the gap between the rich and poor, reducing the size of the middle class, and hoarding more and more of this country's wealth. It is time that those of us who don't benefit from their greed, about 99% of us, stand up and say we've had enough.
Six banks have assets that equal 60% of the United States GDP.

Since the 1980s, median income has remained stagnant, while the income of the top 1% has grown significantly.
Many millionaires are taxed at rates lower than those in the middle class.

It is time for the Progressives to start working as hard as the conservatives to support our causes. It is time to hold our elected officials as accountable as the conservatives have seemed to. It is time for the bottom 99% of income earners to start standing up for ourselves.

I don't want to discourage anyone from making lots of money. Instead, I want what is good for people to be more important than what is good for giant banks and corporations. I want our government to work for the people, all of us, not just the top 1%.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has a long way to go, and it can use all the support it can get. But it is just a beginning. I am proud that my brother went to a solidarity protest today in Cleveland to show his support.

We have to continue to fight against what is reducing the middle class and expanding the gap between rich and poor. We must realize that fixing what is broken will take hard work, sacrifice, and be very expensive. And we must be prepared for it all.
It is the only way our children will have a chance at the American dream that is becoming harder and harder to achieve, at least for 99% of us.

Ohio's Assault on Public Employees: A Summary of SB5

2011-02-28T20:57:00.000-05:00

As I write this, public employees in Ohio and Wisconsin continue their fight against those that would take away their collective bargaining and other rights. The issue has dominated the news for a few weeks now, particularly in Wisconsin, with stories about huge protests, Democratic legislators leaving the jurisdiction to prevent a vote, poll results that are overwhelmingly in favor of the rights of public employees, and even how FOX News has distorted poll results to favor those that would set worker's rights back by almost 100 years. But what I haven't heard, at least not enough of, are what exactly these bills will do. Since I am a public employee and live and work in Ohio, it is important for me to know. It should be important for everyone.

I found a great document from the office of Senator Shannon Jones of the 7th Ohio Senate District. Ms. Jones is the legislator who introduced Senate Bill 5 (SB5) that would strip collective bargaining rights of State of Ohio employees, including State university faculty and staff, and severely limit the rights of municipal public employees. The document I found is a testimony to the Senate Insurance, Commerce, and Labor Committee. In it, Ms. Jones summarizes her proposed legislation, SB5.

Below I will summarize Ms. Jones's testimony.

Ms. Jones would like the bill to increase transparency so citizens, "truly understand the services for which they are paying to receive,..." In order to increase transparency, SB5 would:

Require public employers publish online all provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreements that affect any compensation to the employee.
Require that both sides in a CBA publish their last best offers before and after fact-finding is complete.
Require mediators to consider what other employees who are not members of the bargaining unit are paid.
Requires the parties to consider the public employers ability to pay at the time of the negotiations and not on potential future increases.
Requires fact-finders include a report explaining its recommendations.

SB5 would eliminate State Employee Collective Bargaining. Current contracts will be in effect until their scheduled expiration. The bill will base future pay for State employees on merit and statutory salary schedules and eliminate step increases.
Local Government Collective bargaining will not be eliminated, but will be severely restricted. Ms. Jones says in her speech, "While the bill does not currently eliminate collective bargaining for local governments, I remain open to doing so or perhaps providing local government entities with an opt-out provision."

SB5 allows a public employer in fiscal emergency to terminate, modify, or negotiate a current CBA.
SB5 eliminates binding arbitration as an option for police and fire personnel when they are deadlocked in negotiations. Instead, the previous CBA is continued for one year, or the employer may implement any of the findings of the fact-finder while bargaining continues.

SB5 will change Ohio law to conform with the National Labor Relations Act as it pertains to private sector bargaining.

The bill allows a public employer to hire permanent replacement workers during a strike.
Only matters pertaining to wagers, hours, or terms and conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining (currently, once a subject is introduced into a contract, it becomes subject to bargaining in future contracts).
The employer may freely discuss negotiations with members of the bargaining unit, bypassing the bargaining representatives, as long as the discussions don't contain threats or promises of benefits (currently, employers must deal solely with those authorized to negotiate on behalf of the bargaining unit).

SB5 will define a bargaining timeline, extending deadlines so they are, "more realistic" and defining impasse as a failure to achieve agreement for 90 days.
SB5 will change layoff guidelines so that they prohibit basing layoffs solely on length of services of the employee. Other factors that must be considered include efficiency, appointment type, and more. For teachers, a board of education must consider the effectiveness of the teachers when determining layoffs.
SB5 prohibits and employer from paying an employees required pension contribution.
SB5 would require that healthcare plan terms and designs are not subject to collective bargaining and requires the employee to pay at least 20% of the healthcare premium.
SB5 makes changes to teachers contracts and benefits, too.

Eliminates new contracts for teachers after the bill's effective date.
Eliminates teacher's leave policies from State statute and instead leaves it to local boards of education to determine.
Abolishes the School Employee Health Care Board and allows individual boards of education to determine healthcare benefits for teachers.

So, those are the changes of Ohio's Senate Bill 5. With all the news about SB5, I have heard little about the actual changes in the law. Instead, those who support it only belittle public employees, and those who oppose it are terrified that, after years of faithfully serving the public, what they agreed to in good faith will be taken away from them.

There are a few reasons why not much is being said about the changes SB5 would bring to public employees in Ohio. One is that the bill is draconian, and if more was known about it opposition would be even greater. The second is that much of what Ms. Jones and the bill's supporters claim will be accomplished by the bill is already currently accomplished otherwise, but the bill would make changes that would obscenely favor employers.

The next post on The Itch about the assault on Ohio's public employee will explain why SB5 is not necessary to accomplish exactly what it's supporters are claiming it will, exposing it as an attack on labor, not necessary legislation.

Turning Back Time

2011-02-21T16:28:00.000-05:00

Ohio State Senators are considering Senate Bill 5 this week, introduced by 7th District Senator Shannon Jones, that would take away collective bargaining rights from state employees and seriously limit the bargaining rights of other public employees. This follows the lead of Republican politicians in several other states, including Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, that already ban collective bargaining for public employees, and Wisconsin, whose governor Scott Walker is currently trying to break the labor unions.

There are lots of people who are pondering the motives for passing legislation such as SB5. That may be important, but should not be at the forefront of the debate. Instead, what should be considered is the general decline in wages in the United States over the past forty years and the tremendous increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.

One must first decide what kind of country one wants to live in: a country controlled by special interests, run by politicians beholden to corporations, where greed is paramount and more is better, regardless of the consequences; or a country in which even the lowest paid worker has an opportunity to live a full life, to earn a living wage, support his or her family, and have a chance an upward mobility.

The politics of the former are the politics of the early Twentieth Century, turning back time, regressing to the days of unregulated and dangerous working conditions, low pay, no benefits, and unfair labor practices.

The second group wants to move forward, to embrace progress, and make America better for everyone, not just the few in power, the few at the top.

Over the next few days and weeks The Itch will have more about Ohio SB5, the changes it would bring to the law, why those changes are unnecessary, why unions are good for America, and more.

Until then, think about what kind of America do you want to live in.

BOOK REVIEW: The Cypress House

2011-01-28T03:42:00.002-05:00

The Cypress House was released this week by Little, Brown. It is author
Michael Koryta's seventh book, and his second book that takes a trip into the paranormal. The Cypress House is set in Florida in 1935. Protagonist Arlen Wagner has a special gift: if a person is about to die, Arlen can see it, first in the eyes, then the flesh. And Arlen has seen it plenty, serving in World War I and fighting in the Battle of the Belleau Wood. After the war, Arlen returned to the states and, in an effort to stay as far away from his former home in West Virginia as possible, worked for the Civilian Conservation Corp, a public relief effort during the depression.

While on the way with the CCC to the Florida Keys to work on a bridge project, Arlen saw death in the eyes of those on the train. He tried to warn the others, but only one, a young man from New Jersey named Paul Brickhill, would listen, and stayed behind with Arlen. The two found their way with Walter Sorensen, who met an untimely death when his car exploded outside the Cypress House. Arlen, Paul, and Rebecca Cady, the beautiful and mysterious proprietor of the Cypress House, were now under a veil of suspicion. The local sheriff and judge were not too pleased that Arlen and Paul were mixing with the affairs of their county, which suited Arlen just fine. But Paul would not leave, smitten with Rebecca Cady. The longer they stayed, Ms. Cady's problems became Arlen's, until he could not separate himself from her or the Cypress House until they were solved.

Mr. Koryta uses his gift of storytelling masterfully, creating for readers a good sense of Florida in 1935 and, perhaps even more difficult, letting readers inside the minds of Arlen, Paul, and Rebecca.

I'm not usually a fan of books that include paranormal activity, and only read this one because I'm such a fan of Mr. Koryta's work, which includes one other ghost story, So Cold the River. But readers with similar feelings should give The Cypress House a try. The paranormal aspect of the book is minimal, it does not focus on it. Instead, it helps to move the story, and helps to sort out the past of Arlen Wagner. And while Arlen's gift is never forgotten, the rest of the story is one that any mystery lover will enjoy. Its 415 pages move quickly and contain many moments of suspense, at least once giving me the twisting and turning of the stomach one gets climbing the first hill of a roller coaster.

The Cypress House is now quite possibly my favorite book by Michael Koryta, stealing the top spot from his fourth book, Envy the Night. Don't just add it to your to read list, put it at the top!

*** BOOK GIVEAWAY ***

Don't click away from The Itch just yet! If you love mystery books, particularly ones written by Michael Connelly, you won't be able to pass up this chance to win a copy of his book, The Lincoln Lawyer, and a promotional poster for The Lincoln Lawyer movie starring Matthew McConaughey as Mickey Haller and Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo and more.

Readers of The Itch are eligible to participate in a drawing to win a mass market copy of The Lincoln Lawyer and a poster by emailing your name, address, and phone number to TheThirtyYearItch@gmail.com. Of the entries submitted, five will be selected at random. Prizes will be sent directly from The Hatchette Book Group. All entries must be in by February 10, 2011.

Regional Services Get New Hope

2011-01-15T20:39:00.003-05:00

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald

Early last week I read an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (which I subsequently could not find online) that mentioned the new Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald appointed Ed Jerse to serve as the first Regional Collaboration Director. It will be Mr. Jerse's job to, according to the article, get municipalities to share resources.

I was intrigued. I am generally a proponent of regionalizing government services. Honestly, my first motives for merging police departments was somewhat selfish. I thought it would be more fun and provide more opportunity to work for a bigger agency and a more diverse community. But thinking more about it led me to believe that it could likely save a lot of money. One police station, one jail, one dispatch center, instead of the five that are required today, and the staff to keep them running. Instead of five or more supervisors on duty at once, we could work with three, and likely fewer total patrol officers on duty at the same time, too.

Over the years I've thought a lot about local governments sharing resources, and think the issue deserves more consideration by our leaders. That is why Mr. FitzGerald's appointment of Mr. Jerse caught my attention.

To learn more about the issue, and see what others in the Cleveland area were saying about it, I went straight to The Civic Commons, a web site--more than a web site really, a collaboration--that is meant to provide a forum for talking about issues in the Cleveland and Akron areas. I was surprised that there wasn't a conversation started yet, so I contacted the Curator of Conversation, Dan Moultrhop, and we decided to start one!

Ed Jerse

Mr. Jerse has a lot of opportunity ahead of him. Cuyahoga County has almost sixty municipalities. Some share certain services, but most have their own service, police, fire, and refuse departments, and their own school districts. Other services have been shared somewhat, like sewer districts, and water. But there is room for improvement.

Saving tax-payer money should be at the top of the list of reasons to consider regionalizing services. Our economy is recovering, but slowly, and there is reason to believe that this recovery might take years, or never recover as well as it once was. The State of Ohio is still battling a $8 budget deficit, and our newly elected Governor wants to reduce taxes further by eliminating the estate tax, costing another several million dollars in revenues for local governments. Doing more with less is, or should quickly become, a new reality for local governments, and merging services could provide a way to do that.

Next on the list of those working on regional issues should be economic development. Local governments should consider working together to recruit and retain business and industry and when planning the growth and zoning of the County.

Sharing services regionally could also be a way to share the cost of updating and improving our aging infrastructure.

Regionalizing won't be easy. The biggest obstacle will likely be the governments and residents of many of the communities themselves. They will likely see efforts to merge and share services as a threat to their autonomy. Some well-off communities may resent that their tax dollars are working to improve other communities.

But these concerns are, or should be, secondary to the overall well being of the entire county. The goal is to make the entire region more desirable for everyone. Small and wealthy suburbs can only hold out for so long if the rest of the community is failing.

I hope the best for Mr. FitzGerald and his new government. He'll have an uphill battle, for sure. But he also has a new optimism from many in the community, an advantage few politicians have. I look forward to watching, and commenting, on his progress!

No Point in a Pointless Policy--Keith Olbermann v. MSNBC

2010-11-08T22:44:00.000-05:00

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC host and commentator

   As all Progressive's know, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann, host of the network's most popular show, Countdown, last week after learning that he had donated money to three Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. It seems that the policy at MSNBC does not prohibit employees from donating to political campaigns, but instead requires that they notify the network in writing and get permission for each donation prior to making it.
   Mr. Olbmermann was quickly reinstated and will return as host of Countdown Tuesday, November 9th, but not before the twenty-four hour news cycle got hold of the story. As soon as the suspension was announced Mr. Olbermann's fans were outraged. I received at least three emails from different senders asking me to sign a petition demanding his reinstatement. Then I got updates about the status of the petitions and how likely their demands were to be met. I heard the story over and over again on various news networks and newspapers, including the BBC!
   The story was covered ad naseum and from every possible angle: Mr. Olbermann was a victim of the right, since conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough had made political contributions, too, and was not suspended; that this was not about a political contribution at all, instead it was putting Mr. Olbermann in his place, that he was getting too big for his britches; that everyone knows Mr. Olbermann is a Progressive, so why should he attempt to maintain a journalistic non-bias anyway; and even that the notion that journalists can be non-bias is outrageous and should not longer even be attempted. Of course FOX News gets that prize for bashing Mr. Olbermann in the self-righteous and name calling way that they know best.

   For the purposes of the remainder of this post, let's suspend disbelief for a moment and presume that those at MSNBC are journalists that are expected to maintain a neutral position in their reporting. I don't mean that derogatorily; I like MSNBC. It's just that I realize that they are a liberal news network. I'm not putting them at the same depth as FOX News; FOX News isn't a news network at all. But I digress...let's just assume that MSNBC is a putting forth a journalistic effort to report the news and politics.
   Given that, and despite the intense coverage of the issue, it seems that one aspect of the story was not adequately reported, that of MSNBC's policy on the matter. I could understand if a news network forbid political contributions and activity, like NPR does, to maintain the integrity of the organization. I think that is a noble attempt, and wouldn't question a policy of that nature. I could also understand if a news network allowed donations entirely at the discretion of the journalist, as long as any bias that exists does not interfere with the work of reporting fairly and accurately.
   But MSNBC's policy seemed not to do either of those things. Instead, it allowed their journalists to contribute to a campaign after seeking written permission to do so. Pardon me, but WTF? Written permission? Really? Are the employees there first graders in need of a permission slip to support the candidates of their choice? Would the network dare to refuse permission for a contribution to one candidate and not another? I doubt it, and if so, that would show more of a bias than any potential donation by an employee. And if the network would never deny an employee the opportunity to participate in the political process by making contributions as they see fit, then why require employees to seek permission in the first place?
   The only reason that MSNBC could have for such a restriction is to attempt to intimidate and control the participation of their employees in the political process. If the goal was merely to maintian journalistic integrity, then all donations could be banned. If the goal is to allow employees the freedom to contribute as they choose, there would be no reason to require permission. But the MSNBC policy does neither. Instead, it forces an employee to see The Man to get permission before making contributions as they see fit.

This position is not surprising from corporate America. It is just another example of a person or group of people with some power attempting to control the lives of those with less power. It is a fine example on a small scale of a large part of what is wrong with American politics at all levels: the haves fighting for the power to control the lives of the havenots, usually with the goal of preserving or enhancing their own status, position, or wealth.

I hope Mr. Olbermann's experience gets the attention of enough of the right people to force MSNBC and other organizations with similar senseless policies to force changes. If a law or policy serves no useful, reasonable, or legitimate purpose other than to control behavior that the organization or government has no business controlling, it should be questioned and ultimately repealed.

Election 2010 Analysis: A Silver Lining

2010-11-08T01:00:00.000-05:00

Last Tuesday the mid-term elections changed the balance of power in Washington D.C., giving Republicans control of the House of Representatives and reducing the Democrat's control of the Senate. Since the night of the election, we have been hearing that the American people have spoken and they said they were not happy with the direction the country was headed; that they strongly reject President Barack Obama's agenda; that they are tired of the spending. Some of that is true, some is exaggerated. Some of those proclaiming it are good people with ideas different than my own, but more are self-righteous, and many are hypocrites. Despite the results, I don't think the message being touted by the victors is accurate.

The Democrats won the Presidency and an overwhelming Congressional majority in 2008. They had set out a clear agenda, and accomplished much of it as they said they would. Some of those accomplishments include an economic stimulus bill, health care reform, an overhaul of banking regulations, reducing troops in Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan, creating a consumer protection agency, and more. None of these legislative priorities were a surprise. Mr. Obama and his party campaigned on them. They are center right policies, many of which were supported by Republicans over the last twenty years.

In the months preceding the 2008 election the United States and world economies took a significant turn for the worse. Years of unregulated and fraudulent banking, inflated housing values, poorly made mortgages, and greedy business practices collapsed. Without a government bailout of the banking, insurance, and auto industries the recession we are still experiencing surely would have been the Second Great Depression. At the time of the elections and for the first several months, the George W. Bush administration and Republicans appropriately were blamed for much of what is becoming to be known as the Great Recession. It, in part, helped to sweep Mr. Obama and the Democrats into power.

It was my belief in 2008, and still is, that Mr. Obama was elected for two main reasons. First, he was able to mobilize the Progressive base of his party; the young, socially responsible, hopeful, Americans. Second, it's the economy, stupid! Voters will nearly always vote out the party in power during economic crises, and they did in 2008 (and again in 2010).

So, if the 2008 elections demonstrated that Americans were more accepting of a Progressive agenda and tired of the mess that resulted from eight years of Republican rule, what happened in 2010, only two short years later?

First, it is worth mentioning, that the midterms following the election of a new President historically result in the President's party losing seats.

I believe that Mr. Obama moved too far to the right. He too quickly, and for no gain, caved to Republican demands for tax cuts in the stimulus (nearly 40% of the $800 billion in the stimulus bill was in the form of tax cuts), causing too few dollars to be spent on infrastructure and programs that would put money into the hands of those who needed it, those who would spend it, and on programs that would improve America. He too quickly caved on the public option in his health care legislation. He quickly watered down efforts at reforming the financial sector, and although the bill passed, it doesn't do enough. He has not done enough for gay rights, missing opportunities to end the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military. He has not successfully ensured that the Bush tax cuts, set to expire at the end of 2010, continue for the middle class but expire for the wealthy. He has decided not to pursue prosecution against military and political leaders who may have broken laws while pursuing the War on Terror in the post-911 era. He has not successfully closed the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, and has continued pursuing war crimes tribunals instead of criminal trials against some prisoners there.

One might think I am extremely disappointed in Mr. Obama's presidency. I'm not, but not because I agree with many of the decisions in the previous paragraph. I'm not disappointed because I always knew that Mr. Obama was not a Progressive candidate. His positions have always been center right. But he counted on the Progressives to help him get elected and then did not pay them enough attention during the first two years of his presidency, particularly on issues that he and the Progressives agree on, like DADT and the Guantanamo Bay.

Although Mr. Obama's center right policies upset his base, even that was not the biggest reason for the huge Democratic loss last week. Instead, the most damage was done by allowing the GOP to set the political tone of the country. The GOP dominated the conversation, leaving an extremely popular young president and a Democratically controlled congress on the defensive from the beginning. While Mr. Obama and the Democrats were attempting to work with Republicans, the Republicans were out labeling the administration as socialists. While Mr. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were working hard to get their own party on board with watered down stimulus and health care legislation, the GOP was hypocritically and ironically labeling their efforts as out of control spending. While Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi were making history putting together a health care bill, the Tea Party was protesting with pictures of Mr. Obama in Nazi garb. And although the preceding eight years of GOP rule threatened more American Civil Rights than any administration in the last forty years, Republicans were crowing about rights being taken away by the Obama administration, even though I've yet to hear anyone articulate what rights were being threatened.

Throughout all of this, little was done to counter the GOP talking points. Perhaps it was dismissed as ludicrous, nonsense, propaganda, lies; it was. But somehow, between January 2009 and November 2010, enough voters decided it was serious enough to abandon support for the president they elected to change the course of America, holding it against him that he did, for the most part, exactly what he said he would do. And they did it without hearing any new ideas from the GOP of George W. Bush.

The loss of the Democratically controlled House of Representatives might be a critique of the first two years of the Obama administration; a shot over the bow, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that Americans are give the GOP the green light to forge ahead with their plans to return to Bush era policies. In fact, there is some evidence that Americans are more ready for a Progressive agenda than ever.

Two thirds of the Tea Party candidates lost. Half of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats lost, while all but three members of the Progressive Congressional Caucus won. And in at least two Senate races where the more conservative Democrat beat a Progressive challenger in the primaries, the GOP won the seat (Blanche Lincoln lost in Louisiana and Lee Fisher lost in Ohio).

Where a Tea Party candidate was a choice, the Democrat won. Certainly not an endorsement of the conservative policies of the Tea Party.

In races where a moderate Blue Dog Democrat was running against a moderate Republican, the results were fifty-fifty, showing that Americans don't really have a strong party preference between moderate candidates.

But the Progressives running for reelection lost only 3.9% of their seats.

Progressives did well, very well, in the midterms. Might it be that if the Progressive challengers to Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Fisher won their primaries, there would be two more Democratic Senators? If Progressives had a more candidates running for the House, would so many seats have gone red?

The lessons to be learned for the Obama administration and the Democrats seems clear: push a Progressive agenda. Defend your legislative accomplishments. Support Progressive candidates. Find your voice in the national conversation. It is the only way for success in 2012.

A Conversation With Consequence

2010-11-03T15:14:00.000-04:00

The Civic Commons Logo

I have been a fan of a local talk radio show, The Sound of Ideas, on WCPN 90.3 for a few years. A few months ago I noticed the host of the show, Dan Moulthrop, was missing. Since I liked his work on the radio, I searched the Internet to see where he went, hoping it was to bigger and better things. I found him at The Civic Commons, which is described on their website as, "a community devoted to building informed conversations and productive connections across Northeast Ohio, a place where talk can become action. We’re advocates of news, information and conversation that is credible, diverse, civil and transparent because we believe those characteristics are crucial ingredients when it comes to bringing people together to move forward on any issue."

The group intrigued me, so I signed up for their email list, liked them on Facebook, and followed them on Twitter. I like the idea of a civil dialogue to promote awareness and change in an area; the idea of citizen journalism; transparency. Based on my knowledge of Mr. Moulthrop and his conduct on The Sound of Ideas, trust that this organization will give more than lip-service to those principles.

Yesterday I got an email from The Civic Commons informing me that the following day, November 3, 2010, was The National Day of Conversation, and the first ten people to reply would be welcomed by a free lunch and conversation about what we are hoping for from our newly elected officials. Although I was a little concerned that I would be out of my league, I quickly replied and was invited to join the group.

We met for lunch at noon at A.J. Rocco's in downtown Cleveland. I was pleasantly surprised that the group was a good mix of people. There were some real estate people, architects, businessmen, young professionals, a retiree, and another blogger. Mr. Moulthrop started the event by explaining the National Day of Conversation, an day that I inferred was newly dedicated by The Civic Commons! We talked mostly about improving Cleveland and its image, the new county council, transparency in politics, and some changes we would like to see in community awareness and participation.

The conversation itself was not ground-breaking. But what was important was that there were fifteen or so people that before today were mostly strangers having a pleasant, casual, civil conversation about improving our communities. Several in the group, including me, will likely continue being involved with this new venture.

At the end, Mr. Moulthrop used the phrase conversation with consequence. Another person said actionable conversation. Both are good ways to explain what has to happen in our communities and governments. If government won't take it upon themselves, and voters won't hold them accountable through votes alone, and journalism continues to become as polarized as the political process, then we should do so through citizen journalism, and through groups like The Civic Commons.

For the last few years, The Itch has been a means for me to organize my thoughts and opinions. Although I welcome readership and involvement and hope it will someday include more opinions of others in the form of comments, guest posts, and regular contributors, that has always been secondary to my own experience of writing and sharing. Given that, The Itch has been somewhat aimless, or at least broad, in its scope. Perhaps getting involved in a group like The Civic Commons will provide some focus, exposure, and I hope contributors!

Thanks to The Civic Commons and everyone who attended today's National Day of Conversation. It was refreshing, energizing, and so far continues to intrigue me. I hope this is only the first of many such events.

Back to Basics

2010-10-30T02:12:00.000-04:00

A few nights ago I was involved in what must be my 2746523 political debate on Facebook. You know the kind, when one person makes a political statement, proclamation, or endorses a candidate, and then another person says that candidate sucks, and then everything but the relevant information about that particular political contest is argued. In the end it usually boils down to Democrat v. Republican; Blue v. Red; Sane World v. FOX News. The other night was no different, although it was more respectable than many Facebook debates I've been involved in. Nonetheless, most of the facts of the argument were diluted, replaced by some with talking points and catch phrases, and nothing was conclusively decided, no opinions changed.

It bothered me. Not because I don't enjoy those things; I do. And not because I thought I lost, although it wasn't my best performance. But because like so many other times it just digressed to talking points with little constructive discussion.

Politics has degraded to an us versus them mentality. No middle ground. No compromise. No room to agree to disagree. This is often compounded by a disregard for truth, facts, and understanding of complex political issues. I know there was never the good old days when it came to politics, but it seems that sometime around 2002 ultra-partisan politics was born, and winning became more important than governing.

Like most complex problems, there is not an easy solution. But perhaps getting back to the basics would be a good place to start. The basics in politics are not easy to define, and are certainly up for debate. But here are some suggestions:

Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Read the entire documents, they are not that long and will explain a lot.

Learn about the political spectrum, it will explain where left and right comes from, and that the American left, with the exception of some Progressives, is really right of center.

Learn about other democratic governments, particularly those with multiple party and parliamentary systems.

Consider the basic differences in approaches to governing. Despite there being many different issues that politicians must tackle, a good politician will have a core approach or a set of principles he or she attempts to apply to governing.

Take a personal political inventory or test. I linked to one earlier this year, the Political Compass. It is a great tool to see where on the political spectrum you are. Most people I know that answered the questions, which are more complex than just the political talking points, were surprised to learn where they landed.

Familiarize yourself with all sides of a political debate. Read the positions of both parties and consider the different approaches. There is almost never a clear cut answer to political problems; solutions will inevitably favor one group of people more than others. Success in politics almost always comes from compromise. If you don't know and understand all sides of an issue it will be difficult to work out a compromise. A good book to explain some of today's political topics is What you Should Know about Politics...but Don't: A Non-Partisan Guide to the Issues, by Jessamyn Conrad.

Remember that there is more than one side to every issue. There are more than two sides, and sometimes more than three. Often there are as many sides as there are people in the room, and many of them are valid ways of solving problems. We sometimes get bogged down on having to choose between two sides--a peril of our two party system--when we should be focusing on the best approach to solving our country's problems.

Being involved in politics can be fun, informative, engaging, and a great way to serve your country. But it can also be frustrating, polarizing, and difficult to understand. No politician has the answer to every question, or a solution that will make everyone happy. But if more Americans engaged themselves in the process in a meaningful way, we could make a great start. In the meantime, work hard to be informed about the issues of our day, demand more from our politicians, and become involved in the political process.

Does Bill Gates Own Shares in Apple?

2010-10-24T22:35:00.000-04:00

I have spent the better part of the last few days installing Windows 7 on two computers. I have to say that I like the upgrade. My computer runs a lot faster, there have been no freezes, and no instances of programs not responding. Microsoft did a good job with Windows 7.

But...it really angers me that I had to pay $150.00 for the new software to upgrade in the first place. My wife and I each got laptops from Dell a few years ago that came installed with Windows Vista. We heard it wasn't the best operating system, but if Dell would sell a computer with Windows XP on it they sure made it difficult. (A few months after we got our computers I saw on their site where the choice between XP and Vista was offered, but there was no choice when we made our purchase.)

Vista is crap. Everyone knew Vista was crap, including Microsoft. But they still put it out. And still charged the poor suckers stuck with it for the upgrade. Microsoft should have given any Vista owner a free upgrade, or at least 50% off!

The poor performance of Vista and the expensive upgrade to Windows 7 makes me wonder of Bill Gates owns shares in Apple.

Do Politics Influence Your Shopping Decisions?

2010-10-23T15:21:00.000-04:00

   I have frequented a local coffee shop for over ten years. There are several reasons I liked the place, including the atmosphere, that it was locally owned and operated, that the owner roasted his own beans, good coffee, and most of all the staff was always pleasant. I knew the owner was a Republican, but it didn't bother me because it was not a part of the coffee shop at all. When he lost the lease on the building he moved to a much smaller building with less character a few doors down. I remained a regular customer despite the loss of the wonderful atmosphere. The staff was still great, the coffee good, and it was still locally owned.
   A few months ago, as a result of declining business, the owner sold the shop. The new owners started strong, cleaning the place up, bringing some music and art in, and promised that all the good things would stay the same and they would revitalize the place. However, it wasn't meant to be. After the initial clean-up and some art on the walls, there was no music or special events. They ran off or fired the employees, and they and their new staff are not nearly as pleasant and personable as the others.
   Despite the changes, I still went to my favorite shop for a while. It still had good coffee and was still locally owned.
   But a few weeks ago I saw the first of what would become four political signs in front of the shop. And they were for Republicans. Anti-labor Republicans (are there any other kind?). And that changed things for me. I haven't been there since. I knew the previous owner was conservative, and that the new owners were, too. But seeing the signs in front of the shop was too much for me to take.
   Business owners, like everyone else, have the right to express their political opinions and support. But I have to think, especially for a coffee shop, it is a bad business decision. Why would any business owner take the chance of alienating their customers? Even if many customers agree with them, why would you take the chance at leaving out even a few?

   This event led me to wonder if anyone else makes decisions where to spend their money based on the political decisions or beliefs of the business? Many union employees and supporters decide not to shop at non-union stores when possible, especially when it comes to buying a car. But does anyone else? I don't shop at Walmart much because of their history of treating employees poorly. I avoid Marc's because they are non-union. But I don't feel so strongly about it that I buy only union made cars, and justify it by thinking that when I spend such a large amount of money I want the best quality and resale value I can get, which has typically been with Japanese non-union built cars. There is a restaurant and bar very near home that supports progressive Democratic candidates, and I am more likely to go there as a result.

   There are some resources to help decide where to shop if politics matter to you. I bought one several years ago that list the amount that corporations donate at to which political party. It is called The Blue Pages: A Directory of Companies Rated by Their Politics and Practices. Looking through it, I learned that many companies donate largely to both political parties, but some are more partisan than others. Another interesting book is The Better World Shopping Guide: Every Dollar Makes a Difference.
   Target recently suffered the wrath of a poor political donation when hundreds of thousands of people protested and boycotted after a the company donated $150,000 to a candidate that was not in support of gay rights, specifically gay marriage. Even after the company apologized the protests continued. But a Yahoo.com poll suggested that 53% of readers don't let politics influence where they shop, instead go where their dollar will be best spent.

   I found some information about companies that do support Democratic candidates and offer more to their employees than competitors. One of note is Costco. One article says they have one of the lowest gaps between CEO and employee wages and offer great benefits to employees. An ABC news article implies that Costco has learned that supporting their workers leads to profitability. This article lists several companies that are large GOP contributers. This site uses visual aids to show corporate political support. Finally, this article on Slate.com indicates that a progressive leaning mutual fund, The Blue Fund, will outperform its conservative counterpart, the Free Enterprise Action Fund. (The Blue Fund has since been liquidated and the Free Enterprise Fund has been merged with the Congressional Effect Fund.)

   I have digressed slightly from the initial point of the post, which was to ponder about allowing the politics of a business to influence the likelihood of shopping there, why, and should more of us do so. Maybe it is time to put our money where our mouths and votes are!

Learning from the Past

2010-10-07T10:28:00.000-04:00

Eastern Michigan University Logo

The following article is reprinted with permission from Eastern, the official magazine of Eastern Michigan University. I choose it for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a well written piece about the Aryan Nation and their attempts to recruit farmers in the early 1980's, with a brief mention of a similar rhetoric in today's politics and the importance keeping the fight against hate crimes in the spot light. Eastern Michigan University is also my alma mater. I had a wonderful experience at Eastern and recommend it to anyone considering a higher education. Re-posting this article is a great way to highlight some of the great faculty and staff that Eastern has to offer.

Watching the Movements of Hate

by Jeff Mortimer

Jack Kay

When Jack Kay, EMU’s provost and executive vice president, was just starting out in academe in the early 1980s, he made a risky move that has echoed throughout his career.

An assistant professor of speech communication at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, he was researching the farm crisis of the time (in many ways, a precursor of the subprime mortgage crisis that torpedoed the economy a quarter of a century later) when he learned that the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist group, was trying to enlist members from the farm community.

This wasn’t unusual. Such organizations, Kay says, are always on the lookout for people who might be sufficiently disaffected to join their ranks.

“I decided that I wanted to find out more about how this group operated,” he says, so he spent several days a week over a three-week period at its compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho, where the Aryan World Congress was being held.

While members of the media who had been invited by the group to attend the event focused their attention on its more spectacular aspects, even renting planes to cover the cross-lighting ceremony, Kay kept a low profile.

“I was more interested in their everyday operations,” he says. “I wasn’t necessarily in disguise, but I didn’t volunteer who I was. They just thought I was someone who was interested in joining their movement. I didn’t embed myself, but I worked pretty closely with law enforcement before going in and saw some of the folks I had communicated with in law enforcement undercover in the compound.”

He got an eyeful, and an earful.

“In addition to the picnics and the small talk and those sorts of things, they did a lot of ‘othering,’ where they tried to distinguish themselves from the other, to be frightened of the other,” he recalls. “I heard, over and over again, about how the Jews have controlled the Constitution. And I discovered the book that the members all read, The Turner Diaries, a novel of what happens when the white revolution occurs and how bands of white warriors exterminate the Jews and send the blacks back to Africa.”

But the worst, he says, was the “Bible training” provided to youngsters in the early elementary age group:

“The minister would hold up a caricature drawing of what was supposed to be a rabbi, a person with a yarmulke, crooked nose, and a long beard with what looked like lice crawling through it, and say, ‘Children, what is this?’ and a six-year-old boy would raise his hand and say, ‘It’s a Jew rabbi.’ The minister would say, ‘What do Jew rabbis do?’ and a little girl would say, ‘Around our holidays, they will kidnap Christian babies and cut their throats and drink their blood.’

“It made you want to crawl to get out of there.”

He did, of course, eventually get out of the compound, but he never got his experiences in the compound out of his mind. Not long after his stint with the Aryan Nations, he was called upon to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska state legislature. Then he presented testimony to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Even as his record of accomplishments grew – as a leading scholar of rhetoric and communication, and as an administrator at Wayne State University and the University of Michigan-Flint before coming to EMU in June 2009 – he continued to study and speak out about the methods, motives and dangers of groups promoting racial and ethnic hatred.

And he became a “go-to guy” on the subject for the media. From the time he started keeping count in 1990 until last spring, he appeared on television news programs more than a hundred times and did more than 60 interviews for newspaper and magazine articles.

Then his already busy life got even busier late in March, when nine members of the Hutaree, a self-described Christian militia movement, were arrested in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana on various federal charges stemming from an alleged plot to kill police officers.

National Public Radio wanted to know Kay’s views. So did WDET in Detroit. So did annarbor.com. And so on. What he had to say wasn’t sensational or alarmist. In keeping with his demeanor and the rubrics of scholarly precision, he tried to be clear about what was and wasn’t happening.

First and foremost, he differentiated between most militia groups and those that claim a divine imprimatur.

“I really do get frustrated when there’s a broad brush stroke applied to these groups,” he says. “There’s a great deal of distinction between religiously fervent groups like the Hutaree or Aryan Nations and the southeast Michigan militia, people who have come together to do target practice, learn survival skills, learn how to live off the land. They’re not all that happy with the government but they’re not out to overthrow the government. The groups that go undercover, that advocate violence, that advocate sedition, those are the groups I’m talking about when I talk about dangers.”

The possibility that one of these organizations might actually achieve its far-fetched dreams is not among those dangers. Kay estimates that they have a combined membership of about 100,000, hardly enough to pull off a revolution. But that doesn’t make them harmless.

“They desperately want attention,” he says. “They want to show that their movement is real and has power. You do that by using the tactics of terrorism to instill fear, and they have the potential to engage in some actions that would be pretty terrifying. That’s why we saw things like Oklahoma City.”

That’s also why, in Kay’s view, hate groups need to stay near the top of law enforcement’s to-do list. “It’s important for them to take these people seriously,” he says. “I understand that there is clearly a First Amendment issue here. Certainly these groups have the right to speak, to have extreme views that are terrible views, and we can’t and should not attempt to prosecute them for those views. It’s when those views turn into an action, that’s when we need to go after them.”

A more subtle concern is the seepage of their rhetorical style into mainstream political discourse, a kind of collateral cultural damage.

“The real fervent groups use Hitler’s technique of dehumanization,” Kay says. “It becomes much easier to commit genocide if you reduce people to subhumans. In the debate on immigration, you’re hearing some of the same language that some of these neo-Nazi groups are using.”

In the long run, an ounce of educational prevention will probably be worth more than a pound of law enforcement cure.

“Really, this is an educational challenge,” he says. “How do you help young people see this is not a choice to make, or that people who have made this choice have made the wrong choice? Unfortunately, we aren’t that good at teaching history, and these folks have become far more rhetorically sophisticated. Why can’t those of us who want to point out how wrong they are use words and symbols as well as they do?”

While experience has shown him that a pedagogical pairing of the arts and history can work − “Seeing a play of the diary of Anne Frank can be far more powerful than reading a paragraph in a history book,” he says – he’s well aware that the evidence is still largely anecdotal.

“I have a strong belief that the arts are an incredibly effective way of creating discussion of these situations we should be talking about, but I can’t point to many research studies that show whether they’re effective,” he says. “How do we promote behaviors of civility, behaviors of understanding, behaviors of accepting differences? Quite frankly, I don’t think we’ve done enough study of what is effective and what isn’t.”

Maybe it’s time to revisit those farmers the Aryan Nations tried to recruit back in the ’80s.

Their efforts, Kay recalls, were “very unsuccessful. Farmers don’t scapegoat.”

Posted with permission from Eastern magazine, Fall 2010 edition. Links and images added by The Itch.

BOOK REVIEW: The Reversal by Michael Connelly

2010-10-03T22:47:00.001-04:00

Michael Connelly's The Reversal is the 16th mystery novel featuring LAPD Detective Hieronymus "Harry" Bosch and the third featuring defense attorney Michael "Mickey" Haller. The two came together once before in Connelly's 2008 book, The Brass Verdict.

In this case, defense attorney Mickey Haller is approached by District Attorney Gabriel Williams and asked to be a special prosecutor in the very important and sensational case of a murdered twelve year old girl. The girl, Melissa Landy, was kidnapped and murdered in 1986. The killer, Jason Jessup, was convicted and spent twenty-four years in prison before DNA evidence won him a reversal, and a new trial. Haller agreed to take the case, if he could hand-pick his second chair, his investigator, and be autonomous and entirely independent from the District Attorney's office. Haller picked his first ex-wife, Maggie McPherson, as his second, and Detective Bosch as his investigator.

I have read many, but not all, or Mr. Connelly's books, and enjoyed every one. This one started off a little rocky. For those who have read the previous Bosch books, they know the character well. But in this book, there did not seem to be much of a relationship or character development, good or bad, among Bosch, McPherson, or Haller. There were implications for some potential conflicts, but nothing materialized.

Author Michael Connelly

Mr. Connelly could have done more to explain the history of the characters for people who are either unfamiliar with them or read so much that it's difficult to recall all of the details of previous books. Oddly, I have often complained when authors spent too much time doing that, but since I've become a more avid reader, I've found it is helpful to refresh my memory.

The Reversal switches between first and third person, using first person on chapters from Haller's point of view and third person in chapters following Bosch. It was sometimes difficult to follow among the constant switching.

That said, The Reversal didn't need much character development, didn't need to tie the background of the characters together much, and didn't need to refresh the reader's memory about what happened in previous novels. The plot had enough to keep any reader occupied, anxious, and waiting to find out where the story was going and when the crisis was going to unfold. At times, it seemed to be setting up for a disaster for Bosch and Haller, only to find things going well, too well, for our heroes. The story had several small build-ups, each one anticlimactically averting crisis at the last minute. But when disaster did unfold, it was without warning and not at all what I was expecting.

The Reversal was everything I expect from a good mystery: it held my interest, was entertaining, surprising, and felt much shorter than its 389 pages.

4 of 5 Stars!

The Reversal is scheduled for release on October 5, 2010. It is published by Little, Brown and Company, a division of the Hachette Book Group.

HIGHLIGHT CLEVELAND 2 for 1: St. Stanislaus Polish Festival and Congressman Dennis Kucinich

2010-10-02T23:36:00.000-04:00

St. Stanislaus Church

This weekend is the Polish Festival at St. Stanislaus Church on East 65th Street in Cleveland. The church is an historical cultural spot in Cleveland and has traditionally served the Polish population in and around the neighborhood. It has some meaning to me, too, because it was the church my Grandfather was baptized in and attended as a young man. (Interestingly, I learned that he also attended school there for a couple years, but his Polish language skills were so poor they put him back several grades. Eventually, he withdrew and attended public schools.)

Inside St. Stanislaus

The Festival included a band, The Nu Tones, Friday and Saturday nights, dancing, several games of chance, Polish baked goods, and some trinkets and other St. Stan's and other religious items for sale. And food. Lots of it, and it was all delicious. They had beef rolls, chicken, pork, sauerkraut and kielbasa, cabbage and noodles, cabbage rolls, cucumber salad, potato pancakes, and cheese, sauerkraut, or potato pierogies.

The Festival was very crowded. It was not a great environment for my two year old son because there was not a lot for him to do there and he was not patient enough for the long lines. Despite his impatience, it was worth attending. If you like good Polish food and would like to support an organization that is working to keep the neighborhood and its traditions alive, then consider attending the St. Stanislaus Polish Festival this year and in the years to come.

While we were at the Festival, we had an opportunity to meet Congressman Dennis Kucinich. He was there with his beautiful wife meeting and greeting people, shaking hands and saying hello. He was kind enough to pose for a picture with my son and me Ken.

Ben, Me, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich

For the last several years, but especially after 2008, I have been a fan of Mr. Kucinich. At first I liked him only because I respected how he did his job as a congressman. He always stood up and spoke up for his beliefs and brought a lot of needed attention to them. During the Presidential election of 2008 I started to pay much closer attention to his politics, and discovered his positions were very close to my own. Since then he has had my support, and probably always will.

About six months ago I wrote a post that included a link to an inventory of political positions that would take the answers provided and place the person taking the inventory on a political spectrum. In addition to left and right, this spectrum included a vertical axis to more accurately place political ideologies. The web site also showed where today's leaders and candidates placed on the graph. Not surprisingly, I was very near Mr. Kucinich.

I think we can all count on Mr. Kucinich to really stick up for the middle/working class. Many politicians say as much, but then cast their votes in favor of business or corporate interests, and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. This is evidenced by his desire for single-payer healthcare and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other things.

Meeting Mr. Kucinich today was an unexpected and very pleasant surprise. In a way it changed my experience at the Polish Festival on a personal level. I went to see St. Stanislaus, my grandfather's childhood church and school, to learn or experience a little of the history of my family. I thought it was very likely that members of the Tylicki family were there, even if I didn't know them or even recognize them. While there, I met Mr. Kucinich, whose hard work for the people of Cleveland and the United States will make the world a better place for my son to grow up in.

For many, the Polish Festival was just an opportunity to have a good meal, attend a fundraiser for a cause that is important to them, and socialize with family and friends. For me, it was a moment when appreciation for the past and optimism for the future met.

www.thethirtyyearitch.com

Meeting With President Carter Thwarted

2010-09-28T22:29:00.000-04:00

I heard an interview on my local NPR station, WCPN 90.3 Ideastream, with former President Jimmy Carter last week. Mr. Carter called in to the Sound of Ideas to promote his most recent book, White House Diary, and his upcoming book signing appearance at Joseph Beth Booksellers at Legacy Village. The next day I made the trip to Legacy Village to buy the book and get the required line-voucher that guaranteed my opportunity to meet the former President. Days later, my friend Sarah made the same trip, and we eagerly awaited our exciting meeting, sure that he would sense our enthusiasm for politics and our great respect for him, which would lead him to befriend us both, ask for our help and advice for achieving world peace, and catapult The Itch right up there with The Huffington Post and the Daily Kos! (I know, a little grandiose for a book signing that prohibited dedicated autographs, posed photographs, or even bringing a camera in, but the man was a President, surely he has a sixth sense for talent when he sees it!). But, sadly, it wasn't meant to be.

The unsigned books.

Sarah and I got there at about 11:30 am for the appearance that was advertised at 1:00 pm but we were told when we bought the books would likely start at about noon. Since it was raining all day, we were grateful that the line was entirely contained within the store, and we were not far from the front. So, we waited. And waited. No Mr. Carter.

Shortly after one I checked my email and saw a Politico breaking news notice. The time stamp was 12:50 pm. I read it and learned that Mr. Carter was indeed in Cleveland, but instead of coming to Joseph Beth Booksellers, was at MetroHealth Medical Center being treated for an unknown illness. The attached article indicated he was met by medics as his flight landed at the airport and taken right away to the hospital. About ten minutes after my discovery, the staff at Joseph Beth announced that there was a delay, but the event was not yet canceled. About half hour after that, it was canceled. As a consolation, we were all given 10% off coupons on our total purchase at the bookstore, excluding Vera Bradley products, naturally.

Sarah and I left the store, broken-hearted and with shattered dreams, and had to settle on lunch at Stir Crazy, a walk through the Apple store, and the word of the staff at the bookstore that the event would be rescheduled.

My friend and Itch fan, Sarah, standing
where we would have met Mr. Carter.

The day was not a total bust.We enjoyed meeting and talking to several people in line near us, most interestingly a former Secret Service Agent who was on Mr. Carter's protection detail during his presidency. And I got to have a nice lunch.

I hope Mr. Carter's illness is short-lived and he fully recovers soon. He is a great man and has done his best, more than his fair share, to make our country and the world a better place. Although I was disappointed that I didn't get the opportunity to meet him today, I won't be disappointed if he is unable to reschedule the event, as long as it means he is protecting his health and well being so he can continue his work in a meaningful way.

Get well soon, Mr. President!

Another Case for Strong Labor Unions

2010-09-25T15:49:00.000-04:00

I have been an advocate for Unions for over ten years. However, that was not always the case. As many may know, I am a recovering conservative. I fell for the story being pushed by conservatives that Unions were to blame for many of our economic and industrial troubles. I thought Unions were unnecessary, until I worked for an employer that abused their management rights, treated employees unfairly, played favorites, and otherwise demonstrated the need for strong labor unions. Since then, I've learned more and more about the value of strong organized labor, and support it now more than ever.
In the following article from Police Beat Magazine, The Official Publication of the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which I should add I'm a member of, another great example of the need for a strong Union is demonstrated.

Reprinted with permission from the Police Beat Magazine, The Official Publication of The Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, Volume 32, Number 3, Fall 2010. It is written by Justin Burnard, ESQ., OPBA Special Counselor.

Splitting Hairs

Occasionally, we get involved in conversations with Union members that wish to dispute whether their Union membership is really worth the price of the monthly dues. Complaints range from, "I never get in trouble," to, "the dues are way too high." For those having similar thoughts, I offer the following:

We have the pleasure of representing a Police Department in northwest Ohio. Prior to the facts in the story, the only arbitrated issue stemming from the Department was whether or not the collective bargaining agreement's tuition reimbursement article covered undergraduate degrees only, or included graduate school courses as well. In short, it was a model Department. While we certainly never completely agreed with each of the Chiefs that headed the Department over the years, we were always able to discuss the issues without fear of retribution or lack of honesty.

Between three and four years ago the chief of the Department moved on and a new Chief was hired. The elected officials in the community claimed to have performed a background check on the newly-hired Chief. We later discovered, that was not the case. In addition to the new Chief, a new Administrator and new legal counsel were hired by the elected officials. Shortly after the hiring of the Chief, Administrator and legal counsel, the OPBA members at the Department noticed a shift in attitude.

Every action the members took was watched and criticized. Members began getting disciplined at a very high rate. It was noted that members holding positions as Union Directors or Representatives were disciplined at a much higher rate than the less visible or vocal staff. Contract negotiations with the new legal counsel began the fall after the Chief and Administrator were hired. In the initial negotiation meeting the Union came to the table with four (4) issues to discuss with management. The political entity's newly-hired attorneys presented fifty-seven (57) issues and had basically re-written the contract. Contract negotiations lasted well over a year and resulted in the Union having to go through fact-finding and conciliation just to retain what it had in the contract.

While the contract negotiations continued, the Chief continued disciplining employees at an increased rate. The more involvement a member had with the Union, the more likely it was the Chief would discipline that member. The Union went to arbitration on disciplinary and contract interpretation cases eight (8) times in just over a year. Additionally, multiple unfair labor practice charges were filed against the Department.

While all this unrest was going on, an employee with a spotless record and over two (2) decades of police service volunteered as a bargaining unit representative. The employee had recently scored very well on a promotion exam and lost out to promotion after the Chief added a Chief's interview to the promotional process. The Employee questioned the scoring of the Chief's interview by filing a grievance. After filing the grievance, the Employee's rand on the promotional list was changed from second (2nd) to third (3rd) after the Chief "checked the scores."

After being elected bargaining unit representative, the Chief offered congratulation in roll call and promptly instructed a sergeant to discipline the Employee for a perceived violation of policy. The violation was upheld by the Chief and eventually by the elected officials in the political subdivision.

the Employee had allegedly purposely failed to follow a direct order. He had been insubordinate in doing so. The employee was chastised during his hearing for failing to follow the order and it was implied that the Employee was a danger to the Department and the public because he could not be trusted to carry out orders. The Employee received a three (3) day suspension for his actions.

What did the Employee do, you ask? He allegedly failed to trim his mustache. Yes, he mustache. In early September the Employee was informed that the Chief wanted his mustache trimmed. The Employee called his Union attorney and was informed to comply with the order and grieve it later if necessary. The Employee trimmed it and reviewed the policy on mustaches the Chief had written and passed out to the membership. The Employee grieved the issue since facial hair was covered in the contract and the policy left the length of the facial hair up to the the Chief making it vague. Throughout the process, the Employee asked his sergeants what length his mustache needed to be to avoid discipline. The sergeants claimed they did not know.

At the hearing in front of the Board of elected officials, the Chief introduced a policy he wrote stating that mustaches could not be worn past the crease of the upper lip. The Chief had not disseminated the policy to anyone in the Department prior to introducing it to the Board in the hearing. Despite the Union arguing that it was impossible for the employees to follow policies they did not know existed, the Board found in favor of the Chief and the Employee was suspended for three (3) days.

The decision was covered by the local media and even picked up by the Associated Press and distributed internationally. The Union counsel even received calls from the American Mustache Institute (AMI) offering support for the Employee.

Happily, an arbitrator put and end to the madness and found in favor of the Employee and rescinded the three (3) day suspension. The Employee's disciplinary record was cleared of any wrong-doing. While there was a happy ending to this somewhat humorous story, one fact cannot get lost. Some employers will stop at nothing to break your Union. The employer in the story spent over $565,000 in just over two (2) years fighting grievances, unfair labor practice charges, and bogging down contract negotiations. The Employer did not care what the contract language said and had no intention of following it. It did not care about the rights of member employees. So, the next time you or a fellow OPBA member questions what membership offers, remember that you have a Union that allows your attorneys to protect your rights, no matter how humorous the circumstances.

The Tea Party Con, Part 2

2010-09-21T21:44:00.000-04:00

Part 1 of The Tea Party Con was about how Tea Party members and other conservatives have been whining about President Barack Obama's socialist policies and how they are threatening their rights. Then, citing video documentaries and numerous newspaper articles, demonstrated that the Tea Party members could not identify a single issue supported by any evidence that their rights are being taken away and, on the contrary, some of the policies they support are more threatening to American rights than anything proposed or accomplished by the Obama Administration.

I'm at a loss when I hear people talk about being afraid of their government in America, or arguing that the Progressive movement, Democrats, or Mr. Obama are advocating socialism or are in favor of taking away rights. Maybe I should try and look at it from a different perspective, from their side. Perhaps if I examined what they favor, I could understand, and see how much better life would be in America if their agenda were moved forward.

The issue of tax cuts has been in the news lately. Tax cuts that were passed by the George W. Bush administration and set to expire at the end of 2010. (Even though the cuts were passed by a Republican congress with the intent of expiring, reverting to the old tax rates is being blamed on Mr. Obama as the largest tax increase in history. In fairness, if the bill that cut taxes was passed during a Republican administration and a Republican controlled congress, and the same bill will result in the tax increase in 2011, shouldn't they be called the Bush Tax Increases?) It is terrible that taxes will increase for all those hard working, blue collar, middle classed Tea Party members...except they won't. Mr. Obama is proposing that the increases be on those who earn over $200,000 per year, and couples that earn over $250,000 per year. Last I looked, no one in the Tea Party that I know earned that kind of money. Except maybe Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, the Koch brothers, Sam Russo...

Many in the Tea Party are such patriots that they really want to win this War on Terror; they want to win so bad that they support bills like the Patriot Act, and policies that allow for extraordinary rendition and torture of prisoners. Winning the fight against terrorism is an admirable desire, one that all Americans, even socialist, communist, progressive Americans. But the conservatives, the Tea Party, would win it by sacrificing what makes us Americans, and by using methods that have been proven to be ineffective, and that violate provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protect us against unwarranted searches and seizures and allow for due process of law.

I have seen lots of people at the Tea Party rallies arguing against immigration policy, trumping up the issue and trying to make it about crimes and a burden on government services. Most of their claims are simply untrue. Many illegal immigrants come here for better lives, work hard, pay taxes, and are responsible members of our communities. But lets say they are successful with their efforts to curb immigration by building fences and walls and increasing border patrols. Would that really help prevent illegal immigration? Maybe it would reduce illegal border crossings, but little else. Thousands of people cross our borders every day, legally, and some stay past their visas. None of the proposals of the Tea Party would help combat that. What would? Enforcing laws that are supposed to prevent the hiring of illegals.

The Tea Party has been among the most vocal opponents of the healthcare reform effort of early 2010, even though the bill passed greatly reflects legislation passed by conservative Mitt Romney while he was governor of Massachusetts, or the proposal of Senator Bob Dole during the 1990s. Repealing healthcare would not further the goals of the Tea Party movement by restoring rights of middle America. Instead it would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of revoking insurance coverage, implement lifetime limits on benefits, allow for denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions, and not insure people who are bad risks. It would create a condition where up to thirty million Americans would continue to be uninsured.

Another plan of the conservatives is to privatize social security, putting the hard-earned money of blue collar, working class Americans into the risky stock market, ignoring the risk of tremendous loss if there was a downturn or another collapse of the stock market.

If the Tea Party movement were able to successfully accomplish their agenda, the lives of those who vocally support and rally for that cause would likely be very negatively effected. Who would benefit if a Tea Party agenda were successful?

A continuation of the tax cuts: The rich, those earning over $200,000 per year, and wealthy corporations.

Continuing the War on Terror: the military industrial complex that is making billions off the war, and the rich who are poised take advantage of business opportunities (oil) in the areas of US influence as a result of continued war.

Punishing poor, illegal aliens instead of the companies that illegally hire them? Again, the corporations that profit as a result of their low wages, and the military industrial complex that would profit from the building of fences, drones to patrol the border, and equipping an increased border patrol.

Repealing healthcare reform? The insurance industry, who will save billions by denying insurance, canceling policies when the insured gets sick, setting arbitrary lifetime maximum benefits, and more.

Privatizing social security? The rich, Wall Street investment bankers, who will have more of other people's money to play with while they take their cut of the earnings and still charge exorbitant fees for their services.

The agenda of the Tea Party is the agenda of the mainstream Republican Party, masterfully disguised as a grassroots movement by common, middle, working class America. But the agenda is opposite of anything that would be helpful to the very people that are on the front lines of the movement.

The Tea Party Con, Part 1

2010-09-19T18:54:00.000-04:00

I saw a bumper sticker on a car earlier this week that read, "I love my country, but fear Government." It made me wonder what exactly does the person who displayed that sticker mean? What exactly does she fear from her government? That sentiment is similar to those being expressed by so many people today associated with the Tea Party movement, who are rallying around the We the People phrase in the preamble to our US Constitution. So much so that Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll at New Left Media have made a great name for themselves interviewing people at Tea Party rallies and similar venues, asking them what exactly they mean with they claim their rights are being taken away, or that President Barack Obama is socialist or communist. As you might expect, none of them could provide an answer or an example of their rights being taken away. Maybe next, Mr. Whiteside should ask if they know the definition of socialism, communism, or if they even know any of the forty-nine words that come after We the People in the preamble, specifically the phrase promote the general welfare.

So this bumper sticker I saw, along with those Tea Party members wearing their We the People shirts, is disturbing. They are being led like sheep by the likes of FOX News, GOP consultant and fundraiser Sal Russo, and money from corporate donors of organizations like FreedomWorks, led by Dick Armey; Ensuring Liberty, led by Michelle Bachmann; and Americans for Prosperity, founded and funded by oil billionaire David Koch; all run and largely funded by GOP power brokers and corporate money.

So what exactly are people afraid of from their government? And what rights exactly do They the People think are being threatened or taken away from them?

Do they fear their right to freedom of speech will be taken away? No one is impeding that right as they criticize their government and its leaders. And they're clearly not afraid of being punished by their government or anyone else as they exercise those rights.

Do they fear that their right to bear arms is being taken away? Recent US Supreme Court decisions, notably McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, have supported gun rights in an historic way, ensuring the rights of gun ownership for self-defense purposes.

It must be our right to a quality education they are afraid of being taken away. Oh wait, it can't be that, because candidates in the Tea Party movement favor abolishing the Department of Education and cutting funding for many educational programs at all levels.

The Tea Party movement must be afraid that Mr. Obama and the progressives will take away their Freedom of Religion....except that they want to limit that freedom and not allow the building of Mosques and Islamic religious centers in America.

Oh, maybe they are afraid progressives will take away a woman's right to choose when and how to have children. I don't think that's it, since the conservative movement proposes making abortion illegal, often even in cases of rape and incest.

How about the right of natural born citizenship, which is guaranteed in Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, the same Constitution they claim to cherish and want honor? That's not it either, since several conservatives and Tea Party affiliates have been advocating a Contitutional Amendment to change how citizenship is granted to those born in America.

Maybe they way to take away the right to quality health care that is being advocated by the Progressive movement? Not so much...the Tea Party movement wants to repeal the historic health care legislation that passed earlier this year, and allow thirty million people to remain uninsured and allow insurance companies to cancel or not insure those who want it.

Maybe the Tea Party is afraid progressives will take away the rights to counsel and due process that is guaranteed by our Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. I could see the progressives getting a little carried away and denying a few criminals access to their lawyers or detaining them for years without a hearing or trial. Oh, wait, that was George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who did that at Guantanamo Bay, and what so many in the Tea Party are in favor of continuing.

Perhaps the Tea Party is afraid the Democrats will take away the protections against cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eight Amendment. I don't think so, since the Tea Party and conservatives are opposed to laws that would prevent the torture of prisoners, and in fact supported torture, despite it being proven ineffective, in the name of protecting Americans.

The labor unions! The Tea Party must be terrified that those labor unions will ruin life for middle class, grassroots, working class Americans by fighting for safe working conditions, fairness in the workplace, a livable wage, a retirement program, and quality health care for its members. That can't be their complaint, since the Tea Party consists mostly of the very Americans labor unions work to protect.

The Tea Party and other conservatives who are rambling about their rights be taken away and being fearful of their government have not and can not make a reasonable argument or give any examples to support their positions.
In Part 2 of The Tea Party Con, the agenda of the Tea Party and today's GOP will be reviewed, and we'll see how that agenda is clearly designed to help only the rich.

The Danger of a Disgruntled Electorate

2010-09-16T15:00:00.000-04:00

In November 2008, the voters of America sent what I thought was a clear message to the politicians in Washington, DC: We want change. The message was sent via not only the election of Barack Obama, but the overwhelming majorities his party won in the House and Senate. Since then, Mr. Obama has set out to bring the hope and change he promised, and by many measures has been quietly successful, albeit not without upsetting those to his left and right on the political spectrum.

Despite some successes, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are taking a beating in the news, the polls, and water cooler conversations. There are reasons for their unpopularity, some legitimate and many contrived, but it is largely the result of disgruntled Americans, angry about a continually suffering economy, high unemployment, fear, corruption, polarization, war. But for the purpose of this post, and the upcoming midterm election, the reasons matter less than their effect on how people vote.

Because of the disgruntlement, pundits were presenting the 2010 elections as very anti-incumbent, and reminding everyone that the President's party historically loses several seats in Congress during the mid-term election of his first term. Republicans seem to be counting on this, campaigning only against Democratic policy and not offering anything of substance, trying to forget the results of their most recent reign. But the Republicans are not without their own peculiar challenge this election. The unity that they maintained during the Presidency of George W. Bush, a unity that the Democrats can't seem to find despite their congressional majority and large political capital they had after the 2008 election, seems to be evaporating. The Tea Party, at first a seemingly harmless group of extremely conservative anti-government candidates plagued with bigotry and desperately clinging to their religion and guns, pitted itself against not only the Democratic policies and politicians but also against the more mainstream Republicans. They gained some legitimacy when they embraced former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and are now becoming a significant part of the GOP with the victory of several of their candidates in the Republican primaries across the country.

Democrats are thus far thrilled with the election of Tea Party Republicans in the GOP primaries, thinking that the far right positions of those candidates will make all but certain the election of Democrats in those contests. Normally, I would agree. But this does not seem like a normal election year to me, and the effects of that could be devastating to American politics.

The question that must be asked is this: Are Americans so disgruntled that they will vote for Tea Party candidates despite their inexperience, despite their skewed views of the role of government, despite their lean towards alarmist positions, anti-gay, and arguably racist attitudes, just to cast a vote against the political establishment? In other words, will the anti-incumbent attitude catapult the Tea Party into office? If the answer is yes, then the problems we are facing now will only become worse.

I am not arguing that in many ways the Democrats haven't squandered many opportunities to improve the reputation of politicians, they have; or that they have done a perfect job of governing, they have not; or that there are not some serious issues that they have not adequately addressed, there are.

What I am arguing is that the Tea Party candidates should not be elected to office for myriad reasons, and the Democrats, especially Progressives, need to take their threat more seriously, work harder than ever, and re-win the overwhelming support of the American electorate that they enjoyed only two years ago. Show us the Hope and Change, don't just talk about it.

Burqas, Pornography, and the Right to Choose

2010-09-04T16:07:00.002-04:00

   The most recent issue of The Humanist magazine has a picture of a woman wearing a niqab and little else in a sexy pose on the cover. Within the pages of the magazine were several articles from both sides of the issues of the rights of women to wear a niqab or burqa and work in the pornography industry. Although very different topics, they involve the same essential question: can women engage in conduct or activities that others believe is harmful to the women who participate in that conduct or activity.
   There are several countries in Europe, France most prominently, that have pending or passed legislation that will ban women from wearing burqas in public. There are two main arguments for this legislation. The first is that of security, that concealed identity is a public safety risk. The second is that the wearing of the burqa subjects women to a loss of identity, and therefore a loss of political power, and women are forced to wear the garment by men, subjugating them to second class citizenship. Proponents argue that women don't have a real choice about wearing the burqa, and therefore the law is necessary to help them break free from their oppressed lives. The penalties of the laws do generally reflect that position; fines for women cited for wearing the burqa are low, a couple hundred dollars, but fines for anyone forcing or requiring women to wear them are high, in the thousands of dollars.
   Opponents of the law argue primarily that the laws violate their religious freedoms, arguing that the wearing of the burqa is a requirement of their Islamic faith; the Koran requires women be dressed modestly, and that includes the covering up of their bodies, including their faces. Opponents also cite an intolerance and or hatred against Muslims, and argue that the law unfairly targets them and their lifestyle.
     Pornography is another controversial topic. In fairness, it must be mentioned that not all pornography is made by consenting adult actors. The illegal sex trade and human trafficking is a growing industry worldwide, and includes forced prostitution, sexual slavery, sex tourism, kidnapping, and the rape of young children, both girls and boys. Those behaviors should never be legal, and those engaging in them should be punished as the law allows. For this purpose, however, I am referring to legal pornography and adult entertainment.
Pornography in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry. Despite that, there is significant opposition to it. Opponents argue that the adult entertainment industry objectifies women, regardless of the reasons women offer for getting into the it and the voluntariness of those decisions. According to this view, women who freely and knowingly decide to go into the adult entertainment industry for all the right reasons are harming other women by doing so, because it furthers the belief by men that women are sex objects and nothing more, that the behavior of men in the adult industry is acceptable, and that all women want to be treated as they are depicted in pornography.

   I agree in part with all the arguments just summarized. But agreeing with some of both sides of an argument and perching myself on a fence is not something I often do. So I had to sort it out and pick what side of the fence to land on.
   Women who wear the burqa are likely forced to by a religion or culture that systematically subjugates women. They lose their identity and with it their political power. They likely don't have the real ability to choose to wear the burqa or not, and that is disturbing.
Women who work in the adult industry may do so for the wrong reasons. They may be objectified by the people they are working to entertain and the people they are working for. Some women may be forced into the industry either by force, threats, coercion, or maybe just by the fact that they have no other way to earn a living to support themselves and their families.
   But there are other considerations before laws are passed to ban the burqa or pornography. First, would passing those laws really work to solve the problem? Would women remove their burqas in public, or just no longer go out? If the law had the desired effect, and thousands of Muslim women were out uncovered, does that mean those women are suddenly liberated? There are lots of ways to repress women, the burqa is just one of them. Many women, Muslim, Christian, and agnostic alike, are treated poorly by the men in their lives without having to cover up.
   If laws were passed that outlawed the adult entertainment industry, would women suddenly be free from objectification by men? Would the demand for the adult entertainment products disappear? Or would the illegal sex industry fill the void, without regulations and organization that are currently in place?

In addition to doubting the effectiveness of banning burqas or criminalizing pornography, I don't believe the motivation for those changes are altruistic. Do people really want to protect Muslim women from oppression? Will security really be stronger because of the burqa ban? Or are these convenient excuses for religious intolerance? Will banning pornography really improve the lives of women? Or will it satisfy those that have religious objections to pornography, scoring points with the self-rightous?

   Is it possible to freely and rationally choose to engage in the behaviors these laws would prohibit? Do women really need to be protected from their own decisions? In a free society, this is really the most important question. If one percent of women who wear burqas or work as an adult entertainer are doing so freely and voluntarily after careful consideration, should they be told they can't to protect the other ninety-nine percent? What if the number is five percent? Or twenty-five percent? At what point is their freedom to make an informed decision important enough to protect?

   To say that women can't make informed decisions about their lives and need protection of laws (written mostly by men) is sexist.

   The United States, like all free societies, has a history of protecting the rights of everyone, including people whose views and lifestyles are not popular. That is what freedom is. It is supposed to be what our soldiers fight to protect. Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that wearing a burqa or working in the adult entertainment industry must remain a legal choice.

   That is not to say that nothing should be done to help the women who need it. We should work to ensure that all women have access to quality education and lots of options for their lives so they can live free from abuse and violence. Women should have counseling, support, and legal and physical protection when they choose to leave any abusive or repressive situation.

   I know these topics are controversial. The objectification of women is a very real problem in the United States the world. But we all have the right to make decisions in our lives, and sometimes we make harmful ones, or ones that do not meet the approval of others.
That is Freedom.

Say No to Spanking!

2010-08-30T15:58:00.000-04:00

I have noticed lately on my Facebook page that many of my friends were liking a page called, "I would rather go to jail for spanking my kids than for them to go to jail because I didn't!" Many of the likers are intelligent, articulate, and seemingly well informed people, so therefore I was shocked at how many of them would not only believe this, but publicly support it on Facebook!

Will people support anything they see on Facebook if they see their friends are? When I posted my disapproval for the fans of spanking, I was surprised that at least two of my friends commented on the stupid and thoughtless things people are liking, not necessarily about the spanking issue specifically. One went as far as making up ridiculous categories of things to like. It is true that there are lots of terrible groups and pages that are getting support from Facebook users. But I am digressing from the real reason for this post: spanking and the negative effects it can have on children.

There are several studies that have been done about spanking. When I did a Google search on the topic, I was not able to find one headline that indicated support for the practice, though many of the articles did present arguments from those that do. In fairness, there are some people, intelligent academic types, that are not opposed to corporal punishment. But they are in the minority, and the best the seem to be able to come up with is that spanking, under ideal situations between certain ages and without the administer of the corporal punishment doing so out of anger or rage, might not be any more harmful than other forms of punishment.
On the other hand, there are myriad studies that indicate corporal punishment is damaging to children. Spanked children are more likely to engage in violent behavior, more likely to practice unsafe sex, more likely to be involved in relationships that include violence, are more likely to suffer suicidal thoughts in adulthood, are more likely to suffer self-esteem issues, and may have negative effects on IQ. I will support some of these claims in the paragraphs that follow, but all of the information is available on the web and in scientific and medical journals.

Murray Straus

   In the February 28, 2008 issue of Newsweek Magazine, a study performed by Murray Straus, the co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, cited that children who were spanked had increases risks for engaging in violent and/or unsafe sex as adults and are more likely to coerce parters into dangerous or violent sex. For example, one statistic shared in the magazine was about the likelihood that one partner insist on unprotected sex: twenty-five percent of adults that were higher on the corporal punishment scale insisted on unprotected sex, compared to 12.5% of the adults on the lower end of the scale.
   Elizabeth Gershoff with the University of Michigan's School of Social Work said, "The more children are spanked, the more aggressive they are the more likely the are to engage in delinquent or at-risk behaviors." She continued to say, "Kids may learn that sometimes there's pain and fear involved in loving relationships."
   On CNN Health's website on September 16, 2009, it was reported that hitting children, even lightly, can be harmful. Lisa Berlin of the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University, conducted a study of more than 2500 children. Among her findings were that children spanked when they were one year old were more aggressive at two years old, and had lower test performance at three years old. Her study also cited that spanking is most commonly used, "among parents who were spanked themselves, who live in the South, and/or who identify themselves as conservative Christians." The report also indicated that children that were verbally punished did not have the same effects as the children who were spanked.
   In the May 3, 2010 issue of Time Magazine, a Tulane University study that was published in Pediatrics was cited as the, "strongest evidence yet that children's short-term response to spanking may make them act out more in the long run." This study, too, involved 2500 children and showed that those spanked more than twice in the month prior to the study at age 3 were 50% more likely to be aggressive at age 5 than children who were spanked less than twice in the month before the study. This is true even after other factors were taken into account, including natural aggression in children. "As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums, and lash out physically against other people or animals."
   In the September 23, 2001 issue of Women's News, the same Murray Straus mentioned above is cited several times. In summary, it seems as though corporal punishment doesn't work better than other methods and it has harmful effects like juvenile delinquency, domestic abuse, and depression. Dr. Straus was quoted saying, "When you put those things together, you can see that corporal punishment should be avoided." While this is the oldest article I've cited, it is perhaps the most succinctly worded and best advice on the subject. Additionally, the article said that spanking has much more severe effects on girls' self esteem and her ability to have healthy relationships as an adult.

   In most or all states, including Ohio, corporal punishment is legal. In many states, including Ohio, corporal punishment of children by school officials is still legal, too. So, despite my objections and the overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems spanking is still a decision each parent or school official will have to make individually. However, it seems apparent to me that most incidents of spanking are not really with the best interests of the child. Instead, it seems that the administer of the spanking is acting in anger and rage, feeling as if no other options exist, and children pay for it. And the parent will rationalize their behavior by saying that they hit their children for altruistic purposes.

Classical Conditioning

A child, especially a toddler, usually can not understand certain behavior expectations. Although spanking might change their behavior, it is not because they have learned right from wrong because of a spanking, but they have been conditioned to to repeat behavior because they associate it with the pain that follows. That is more like how dogs are trained, not a human being. And that association could make future behavior changes more difficult, because achieving the same pain reaction as children get older, bigger, and stronger will require that corporal punishment be more violent. In addition, the child will be conditioned only to behave properly around the person who administers the corporal punishment, and will have no incentive to behave around others.

For any parent, or for anyone considering parenthood, there are many resources available to help you raise healthy and happy children in a non-violent environment. Take advantage of them.

Lou Barlow and the Missingmen

2010-08-29T00:37:00.000-04:00

   My brother, Rob, is a fan of music; all music, really, but he seems to really enjoy what I know as Indie Rock, and what I personally think of as alternative rock that is not popular enough to be on top forty radio but has a strong, loyal following, tours small, local venues, and puts out good but lesser known or unknown music outside the Indie Rock loyalists. I also sometimes think of it as a type of musical philosophy or approach, i.e. if any of the Indie Rock bands become popular enough to make it big, be played on top forty stations, and get big record and tour deals, a true Indie Rock fan would be obligated to disown them and label them sell-outs.
   Anyway, Rob has been a fan of Indie Rock for years and spends a lot of time going to small venues that feature this type of band and lots of talented local bands. He has talked me into going to see two of them. One was in Toledo in 1998; we saw the World Inferno Friendship Society. Good times.

Lou Barlow at the Grog Shop, August 27, 2010

   The second time was last night. I went to the Grog Shop in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and saw Lou Barlow and the Missingmen. My brother had suggested several times in the past that I see Lou Barlow. He told me about Lou's successful career as a solo artist and as a member of the band Dinosaur Jr.
   The Grog Shop is in a popular and trendy Cleveland area hot-spot called Coventry. It reminds me on a much smaller scale of Ann Arbor. It is near Case Western Reserve University, and therefore attracts a lot of college students. The Grog Shop is a small venue that consists of an open room with a bar on one end and a small stage on the other. When I got there, one of the opening bands was playing. Lou was out getting ready, walking among the crowd, and talking with friends and fans. He took the stage and did a set of solo acoustic songs, was joined by the band for another set, and finished up with another solo acoustic set. He performed for about two hours, and interacted a lot with his fans.
   I don't know enough about music to write a critical post about any band. I could count the number of live music concerts I've attended on my hands. I will say that I enjoyed the show enough to buy one of Lou's CDs and a t-shirt, stayed for the entire event, and even hung out a while afterwards. Lou is a very talented musician and I hope he has a happy, successful career for as long as he wants it.

   Although I can't write a critical post about Lou's music, I can write about what stood out to me about the event. First, and somewhat trivially, I noticed Lou wasn't wearing socks during the show. I was so struck by that that I was going to ask him about it after the show. I was imagining all sorts of interesting reasons for not wearing shoes during a performance, like being able to better feel the vibrations of the music, or maybe something superstitious. That mystery was solved about two-thirds of the way through the show, when Lou announced it was merely because, with shoes on, his feet are too wide to comfortably operate the pedals on his equipment.
   The second thing that stood out was the crowd itself. It was not as crowded as I thought and hoped it would be; there were maybe about seventy-five to one hundred people there. But the crowd was intensely engaged with the music, and seemed very familiar with Lou and his work. One girl seemed so moved that by the end of the show she had cried a little. While Lou and the Missingmen were playing, very few people left the stage area, not even to refill their drinks, even though they could have heard the music just as well at the bar that was only fifty feet away. I can't say what Lou's career goals are, and I don't know why anyone likes the music they like. But I can say that the people that came out to see Lou Barlow play last night are fans in the truest sense, the real deal, and for the true love of Lou's work.

   Although I've enjoyed both bands I've seen at small local venues, I don't know that it will become a regular thing for me, but when Lou Barlow comes back to Cleveland, I'll be there. I wish Lou all the best for the rest of his tour, his music, and his life.