The Voice and The Vision

Let's have a candid talk about all of our 'Big Brothers'

2013-07-11T02:04:00.001-04:00

Righteous indignation is an interesting thing. Almost every liberal, progressive, Democrat politician, journalist, citizen, whatever, is expressing outrage over the reports that the Federal government collects telephone usage data without the specific prior knowledge or permission of the American people. That the government is possibly peering into our every email or website visit.

We become righteously indignant when we feel we have the moral high ground on an issue. Once we reach the moral high ground we will not cede it lightly. We may look down from our perch atop the mountain at the feckless peons below but the one thing we won’t do is look into any mirrors.

NSA Seal/Courtesy Donkey Hotey

Believe me there has been a lot of shock and anger expressed by progressives toward the Obama Administration over the National Security Administration (NSA) data mining program “revealed” by fugitive Edward Snowden.

How dare the Government steal our information? We’ve got to do something about this! Thank goodness that whistleblower fellow told us what was going on so we can start have an open discussion about Privacy and our rights!

While we’re having that national conversation can we have another one about all of the data progressives are obviously sharing with each other about me? I am on so many progressive email lists I want to scream, “Stop sending me emails! I don’t have any money!”

I didn’t sign up for this. I’m not even a Democrat; I’m Independent-ish.

So from my viewpoint, righteous indignation isn’t the place progressives should be. They should be checking out that mirror. From my perspective I’m more afraid of them because they know how to find me and they’re after my wallet.

The day I’m writing this I received two emails from Progressives United asking for money donations. Former Senator Russ Feingold, its founder, is from Wisconsin. I’m not and as far as I know, I’ve not ever given Feingold or his organization any indication I had any interest in them. Yet here they are begging me for money.

Now the fact that these unsolicited emails from Feingold’s organization keep showing up in my inbox is interesting in that Feingold was one of the early progressive critics of the NSA program obtaining unauthorized information from Americans. Earlier this month, the former senator who was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act, called the NSA “revelations” “deeply troubling”, according to news reports.

I got plenty of emails from the Ed Markey for Massachusetts Senate campaign although I no longer live in Massachusetts and have never expressed any kind of interest in his campaign.

Al Franken and I have become close acquaintances although I don’t live in Minnesota or wherever it is he represents and I’ve never given him any money no matter how hard he’s begged. I don’t know how I got on his email list but I’ve resisted unsubscribing because last November Franni Franken sent a great recipe for Aunt Carla’s Pumpkin Cornbread that was a huge hit with my housemate and I don’t want to risk missing another gourmet delight.

I’ve received donation requests from Tom Harkin. I’ve heard of him but I couldn’t tell you a thing about him. So, when I see at the bottom of the email:

We've contacted you because you signed up at TomHarkin.com or provided us with your email address which is listed as jmindell@sbcglobal.ne t. Click here to unsubscribe.

Paid for by To Organize a Majority PAC and authorized by Citizens for Harkin

I’m pretty sure someone’s lying.

Then there was the Sierra Club, which I’ve never shown any interest in. I'm really not much into hugging trees. At least they had the decency not to claim that I was receiving the emails because I had requested them.

Another progressive organization I am very certain I didn’t invite into my email inbox is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). While I was brought up in an uber-liberal tradition which held that the ACLU was the ultimate defender of freedom, I have never forgiven them for defending the American Nazis' right to march through the heavily Jewish Skokie , Ill. So, once again I know they didn’t get any information from me.

Now, I love Sherrod Brown, and I actually think he’s kind of cute, but I didn’t sign up for the Friends of Sherrod Brown email list, at least I don’t remember doing so. There wouldn’t have been any reason for me to do so because I don’t have any money!

Perhaps the Federal government collecting information about Americans – which by the way I contend they’ve always done to the best of their ability – is a part of the “national conversation” we need to be having right now. I think we needed to have it before we passed the Patriot Act in the first place. But given that the American public acquiesced to being stripped of both their common sense and their civil rights in exchange for an elusive fight on terrorism this NSA policy is not a surprise to me nor should it be to anyone else. Neither does it scare me.

-Photo/Scott Beale, Laughing Squid

To me as it is currently purported to operate it seems little more than a giant telephone book which the Government can access under certain strict legal guidelines. Can that program be abused? Of course. Did Edward Snowden provide us any evidence that it has been? Not that I’ve seen. Do we need to know more about what keeps it from being abused? Perhaps. I screamed about every aspect of the Patriot Act from before its inception but I lived in Texas so no one heard me. But I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying, we let this happen with our silence. We let this happen with our fear. We cannot claim now, Rachel Maddow, that we didn’t know what the government was doing.

That said, let’s have this conversation, belated though it may be.

Sen. Alan Grayson, has been quoted as saying the NSA data mining program:

"It is completely wrong and utterly unconstitutional. It's the Big Brother state come to life. The government has no right to get our email records."

Well, Sen. Grayson that is how I feel about you and your friends. It is wrong for political organizations to get a hold of whatever records you have gotten that gives you the right to keep emailing me asking for money. While we’re having conversations, looking at privacy laws and thinking about changing laws can we take a look at this invasion of privacy, please?

Marine Entitled to Tea Party Anti-Obama Opinion and to Consequences for Spreading It

2012-04-14T19:08:00.000-04:00

RXZ75R3ENVK8

Independent thinking isn’t encouraged in the military. Marines don’t all have those same haircuts because they want them. They don’t run through those obstacle courses, dress alike or even go to live in Iraq or Afghanistan for years just because they want to do so. You don’t question your superiors in the military because you can’t. Lives depend on unquestioned authority. Once you take the oath, you don’t get to pick and choose what you will and won’t do.

As a Marine, I’m sure that if U.S. Marine Sgt. Gary Stein gave an enlisted man or woman an order he would not expect him or her to ask why? He would expect immediate compliance. He should expect no less of himself.

Gary Stein chose the Tea Party over the Marines, his President and his Country and so he has no right to whine when his Country demands he turn in his uniform.

A Marine Corps administrative board has recommended that U.S. Marine Sgt. Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge because it says he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Department of Defense policy on political speech when he posted anti-Obama comments.

Sgt. Stein claims he was exercising his First Amendment rights on his Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page when he posted pictures of the President superimposed on posters of the movies “Jackass” and the “Impossibles” (which he re-titled the “Horribles”) and also posted that he would not obey an order from President Barack Obama.

In creating and administering a public Facebook page and in posting comments which his superiors say “were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and (which) could have influenced junior Marines” on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists Stein chose to walk a not-so-fine line. He made a deliberate choice to continue to walk that line when the Marines suggested his Tea Party page might reflect poorly on the Marines. Stein took down the page, and made the decision on his own to repost the page after adding a disclaimer saying that it was not a product of the United States Armed Services and modifying his stance on the President to read that he would not obey an “unlawful” order.

Department of Defense Directives 1344.10 limits permissible political activity while one is in active service. That is as it was when Sgt. Stein enlisted and that is how it continues to this day. The Directive states that a member of the Armed Forces on active duty “may express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.”

Stein maintained in a lawsuit filed in Federal Court that he was exercising his First Amendment rights and was not in violation of military policies when he criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page. He argued that even if he had violated the policy then the policy was itself unlawful as it violated his right of free speech. He sought to stop the administrative separation hearing that ultimately recommended his dismissal. The Court on April 13 refused to intercede in the military proceedings.

All protestations aside, Stein pretty much gave up his First Amendment rights when he joined the Marines, at least as far as criticizing his Commander in Chief goes and he knew it. The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the Commander in Chief.

The argument that he wasn’t identifying himself as a Marine on his page doesn’t fly. The argument that he was on his own time or not on duty doesn’t work either. Marines, soldiers, sailors, are kind of like police officers, fire fighters or parents; they are never off duty, even when they take off their uniforms.

Then there’s that pesky oath he took when he enlisted. The one that goes like this:

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

See, on day one he promised to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me” both of which he flouted in suggesting he would decide what was an unlawful order. The Marine Corps cannot risk keeping a Marine who may decide to lay down his arms if he decides he disagrees with the cause.

Stein cited a 1999 District Court case, Rigdon v. Perry, as support for his argument that he maintained free speech rights but that argument fails for a couple of reasons. First, it is a Memorandum Decision and therefore cannot be relied upon as precedent and second, that case dealt with military chaplains and the right to free speech in the context of religious freedom.

In that case the Court said:

The "speech" that the plaintiffs intend to employ to inform their congregants of their religious obligations has nothing to do with their role in the military. They are neither being disrespectful to the Armed Forces nor in any way urging their congregants to defy military orders. The chaplains in this case seek to preach only what they would tell their non-military congregants. There is no need for heavy-handed censorship, and any attempt to impinge on the plaintiffs' constitutional and legal rights is not acceptable.”

This case applies to military chaplains, which Stein is not, and their religious messages even when those messages have political overtones.

It is important to note that the Court said:

“Again, there is no evidence that military readiness or efficiency would be jeopardized (emphasis added) by permitting chaplains to preach in accordance with their religious beliefs.”

You see, when you talk about a chaplain preaching you’re not talking about someone giving a life and death order. The Court noted that military chaplains don’t affect the military part of the military. In Stein’s part of the military, military readiness or efficiency is the very reason for its existence.

So Sgt. Stein was warned and he deliberately chose to pursue his political activity. The administrative board did not buy his argument that the rules were not clear regarding criticism of the Commander in Chief specifically by “social media.” The board's recommendations of an other-than-honorable discharge go to a general who will either accept or deny them within the next three weeks. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.

Sgt. Stein was clever enough to make fun of the President. He needs to be man enough to face the consequences.

- Photo PatriotIcon.org

Can't We Find Common Ground on Important Issues?

2012-04-05T14:46:00.000-04:00

RXZ75R3ENVK8

Actor Robert DeNiro comes along and makes a stupid joke about the Republican Presidential candidates’ wives and Newt Gingrich wants the President to personally apologize.

With all due respects to the Hatfields and the McCoys, the hillbilly families who carried on a famous 30-year long feud, this fight between progressives and conservatives about which side is the more misogynistic is a bit like who stole whose pig first.

I spent hours on the Internet researching Bill Maher trying to determine whether he was a bigger misogynist than Rush Limbaugh is because that’s how I am. I like to be fair and I don’t accept anyone else’s word on anything.

So when Sarah Palin goes on and on about how progressives didn’t say anything when Bill Maher attacked her and how President Obama ought to give Maher’s campaign contribution back because of it I decided I needed to check it out for myself.

Then I realized something. I don’t care.

Yes, Bill Maher is a misogynist. I know that. He knows that. Everyone knows that. I also know he's not really a liberal.

That’s not the point.

We can argue from here to eternity about comparisons between the two but the fact of the matter is that conservative women, and I’m addressing women on purpose, are never going to accept any argument that says there is no comparison. I’ll make it again, Limbaugh is a political leader and Maher is (a not that funny) comedian, but it really doesn’t matter. This is not what we should be fighting about.

What really matters is that 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot to death because he was a Black kid walking down the street at the wrong time and the alleged murderer may never be charged because Florida has a “stand your ground law”, which allows people to claim self-defense if they “feel threatened.” The state also has a law that allows people to carry concealed weapons despite continued evidence that handguns serve no useful purpose.

What matters is 130,000 low-income women will lose cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care because of Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from Texas's Medicaid Health Program.

What matters is that the US Supreme Court will be considering whether to strike down the Affordable Care Act, which provides for free mammograms, colonoscopies, vaccinations and health care screenings. An act that will prevent insurance companies from charging women more for health care coverage, from excluding clients for pre-existing conditions and from establishing lifetime maximums on how much they will pay when a patient becomes ill.

What matters is that that Voter ID laws are being used to disenfranchise minorities, students, the elderly and the poor.

What matters is that the Violence against Women Act, which has never been a contentious issue before, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single Republican vote because of new provisions having to do with Native American jurisdiction and protections that extend to immigrant women and same sex couples.

What matters is that he Supreme Court may strike down affirmative action, which has most benefited white women since it was enacted, because a white woman who scored a mere 1100 on her SAT believes she was unfairly discriminated against by a Texas university because she is a white woman.

If you can sit back and watch these things happen without saying a word in opposition while arguing about who called whom an offensive name then I pity you and I fear for our country. There ought to be some things that are so awful that dealing with them crosses party lines. If you want to argue about misogyny, there are plenty of new and proposed policies across these 50 states that are prime examples.

Can’t we just agree that they’re both crude and should be chastised and move on to the more important issues? The more important issue between the two of them is whether either can affect policy. That is up to the marketplace to decide and the marketplace is deciding.

We will never reach consensus on the important issues if we are forever arguing about who insulted whom first and whether the other party reacted appropriately. No offense to men, but I’m particularly appealing to women as we tend to think of them as the more reasonable class, even as I recognize that men should be offended by boorish behavior, too.

After conservative women deal with all of the real issues that are offensive to women, I’ll start worrying about the insults. The rest are just words.

True Apology Demands the Ability to Say Only You Were Wrong

2012-03-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

Bill Maher indicated that Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his vile remarks about Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke in which he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” for speaking up for her classmates who needed prescription birth control for cysts and other health issues, tweeting:

Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting.

First of all, Bill Maher doesn’t recognize what an apology sounds like, as he never has to apologize for anything he says. As he points out, he has no sponsors for his television show, “Real Time With Bill Maher.”

But let’s not pretend that Maher is any kind of role model either. No one, and I mean no one, looks up to him as any kind of leader or quotes him like they do Rush Limbaugh or even, say, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Maher is a comedian, who is sometimes funny and who has a show on HBO that has guests who express both liberal and conservative political views. Yes, he can be crude, crass and juvenile and is often insulting to conservative women and men. Maher specializes pretty much in one-liners, which makes him a whole lot different from Rush Limbaugh, who appears five days a week and can, and does, carry on his tirades against innocent young women for days.

We could argue about the differences between Maher and Limbaugh or whether Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews or Ed Shultz or Maher are more misogynist but let’s not. Let’s leave that conversation for another time. The issue is the apology, or the lack thereof, not so much what he said.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are rarely on the same side of any issue but on this they are uniformly wrong, Rush Limbaugh did not apologize for his tirade against Sandra Fluke – and to the rest of American women he insulted. Ms. Fluke was right not to accept the so-called apology and so were the “liberals” Mr. Maher is so interested in rushing into acceptance of the apology.

Forget whether you felt offended by any of these men and focus only on the fact that there was supposedly an apology. Apologies are actions that are offered by one party because that party is acknowledging that he or she has hurt or otherwise offended the other party. It’s not something that’s supposed to be automatic, pleasant or defensive.

Apparently, we have a lot to learn about apologies and how they should be proposed. I say proposed because there is something we need to understand about apologies. We can propose an apology but the other party doesn’t have to accept it.

Just saying that you apologize and that your apology is sincere doesn’t make it so. There have been a number of recent public examples of what are claimed to be but are not apologies. Mr. Limbaugh’s is but one.

As has been pointed out by others, Rush Limbaugh said his choice of words were not the best. He said he thought listeners would understand that that his schtick was satire. He said he was sorry he descended to the level of the the leftists. Although he said his apology was sincere he never apologized for distorting the facts of her testimony or for saying that she was “having so much sex it’s amazing she can still walk” or for implying – during his apology – that she deserved derision because of her history as a gender activist.

His apology basically boiled down to, as the late, great comedian Flip Wilson used to say, “the Devil made me do it.”

He felt no remorse for his actions. He exhibited no regret for his words. He did not acknowledge the hurtfulness of the events he set into motion.

As much as it hurts to do it, apologizing preserves your dignity as well as that of the other person. When properly done, they force you to swallow your pride and act with grace and humility.

When I’ve had to apologize to someone, I’ve always had this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that I suspect comes from the combination of shame I feel from what I am apologizing for and the fear I feel that the person I am apologizing to will not accept my apology. I feel the apology. It is not something I do for show and it is something I would really rather not do. It’s about repairing the injured party not about making me feel better.

It is important to note that an apology requires one to take full responsibility for the offense. This modern-day excuse for an apology is not acceptable: “If I offended you (or anyone) I’m sorry.” That’s a coward’s way out. Either you’re sorry or you’re not. When you phrase it that way, you’re not. When you share the blame with the person you’re apologizing to or with anyone else or if you try to offer mitigating circumstances, it’s an excuse not an apology. An apology with an excuse is simply not an apology.

Take full responsibility for what you did. If you say, “I’m sorry if” or “I’m sorry but” then you haven’t taken responsibility. You’re placing the blame somewhere else.

I’ve seen two really good apologies from unexpected places recently; one from Keith Olbermann and one from a man some would call a racist Montana federal judge.

Olbermann seemed genuinely perplexed that comments he had made in the past were being compared to Limbaugh’s and deemed misogynistic rather than merely mean but he apologized anyway and swore to do better in the future.

"I'm going to try to raise my standard about not using gratuitously abusive remarks about women, and men," he said. "In fact, I'm going to suspend the Worst Persons segment again, possibly permanently."

His apology isn’t enough for many conservatives, including conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Michelle Malkin, to whom he is apologizing but remember your responsibility is to make the apology. You can’t force anyone to accept it.

Richard Cebull, Montana's chief federal judge, apologized to President Barack Obama for emailing a joke from his federal email that suggested that the President’s mother had had sex with a dog and that the President is lucky that he is human. The apology letter (attached) actually seems heartfelt. H e assumes responsibility and blames no one but himself for his actions.

“Please forgive me and, again, my most sincere apology,” Judge Cebull wrote.

We don’t know how the President felt or responded, but several advocacy groups and lawmakers have called for Cebull's resignation in the interests of fairness and justice. That seems fair. Given that the man’s job is to dispense justice to everyone no matter their race or politics, his action has cast doubt on whether he is able to do that. His self-identification as a Tea Party member who disagrees with the President’s policies and who emailed what he knew was a racist joke seems reason enough for the community as a whole to reject his apology. Judge Cebull doesn’t know what else he can do beyond apologize. He can resign.

Implicit in an apology is the fact that you really mean it. If you don’t then don’t say it because you’ll find yourself in Limbaugh’s position. No one will believe it. Remember, sometimes you can mean it and an apology is not enough.

The reason we have such a hard time making a proper apology is we’ve come to think of apologies as bad things. They’re not. We make them when we make mistakes. For example no one would take offense at someone saying, “I’m sorry I accidentally stepped on your foot.” But if a group of U.S. soldiers accidentally burn a bunch of holy Qurans, we’re incensed if the President says “I’m sorry we made a mistake.” GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum during an interview said at least seven times that the burnings were unintentional or a mistake but that the United States should not have apologized because the burnings were a mistake and apologies show weakness.

Understand this. Apologies are a sign of strength. A true leader, a true human being can apologize; without reservation, without excuse, without equivocation, without blame. We should respect people who can take responsibility for their actions, pledge to do better in the future and make every attempt to follow through on that promise. Anyone who does otherwise is merely a pretender and not worthy of our attention or our respect.

An honorable man doesn't have to be told what is right

2012-03-10T16:06:00.000-05:00

I have a son.

We spent a lot of time together when he was a child, some of it beyond what one might think of as the typical time and scope of the mother-son relationship because I coached his football, basketball and baseball teams.

Among the things he learned from having his mother as the head football coach was not to take offense when someone called him a “momma’s boy.” He proudly retorted, “Yeah, so?” Or when playing sports if someone said to one of his teammates “You throw like a girl” he would tell them, “That’s a compliment!”

As a coach and as a parent there were things I tried to teach him and all of the young men with whom I interacted. Many of them lived with only mothers or grandmothers and they didn’t have male role models in their homes. I made sure they learned from the experience of playing on my teams and interacting with my family to understand that to be men they had to respect women.

My son learned to be a man not just from seeing his mother in nontraditional roles, but from spending a lot of time with me, his beloved grandmother and his favorite aunt. The women in his life were instrumental in helping to make him into the young man he has become.

The young man he has become opens the car door for me when he drives. He holds open the door for others before entering a building. He helps mothers load their baby strollers onto buses. He helps little old ladies cross the street, really. He is, in short, a perfect gentleman. He does these things reflexively, not because he expects to get anything from doing them.

He also calls his mother almost every day and he has done so almost every day since he left home to be on his own.

We’ve talked about the love of his life, and how she broke his heart. We’ve talked about the young women he has loved and dated before and since then.

We don’t talk about it, but I assume he is sexually active. He’s a good looking young fellow in his mid-twenties.

We’ve joked about the grandchildren I assume won’t be showing up unannounced on my doorstep someday. In those discussions, in those jokes there are assumptions. There is an assumption, certainly on my part, that someone in the relationship is using birth control and that the someone is the girl. I also assume that he doesn’t think of her as a “slut” or a “whore” or a “prostitute” for doing so, and would never tolerate someone using those words about one of his exes. I also have two daughters.

Although my son fought mightily with his sisters when they were children, no one outside of the family –then or now – better ever say a word against them. He was fiercely protective of them – and they of him – and he remains so to this day.

There are two points I want to make here. One is that I hope I raised a man who knows that he is just as responsible for birth control as the woman in a relationship and two, I know I raised a man who is responsible for a woman’s honor. I expect that those values are so ingrained that no one should have to tell him to take action if they come under attack.

When Republicans decide to go after contraception I don’t expect my son to dismiss it as a “women’s” issue and something of no concern to him. Also, when a talk radio host like Rush Limbaugh calls women “sluts” and “prostitutes” I expect him to take the utmost offense. There would be hell for him to pay if I found out that I was wrong!

At the core of everything he is and does is the concept that he has learned that he must stand up for what is clearly right. I would be furious to find him in a leadership position saying “those are not the words I would have used,” or “an entertainer can be absurd” or “the use of those words was inappropriate.”

As a teenager my son had thoughts of becoming a politician. Had he done so, should he ever do so, I’d be extremely disappointed and embarrassed to find that he is no longer standing up for his sisters, his mother, his aunts and his grandmother’s legacy. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke last week, he attacked me, my daughters, my sisters and all of the other sisters and mothers out there who dare to speak their minds about our needs; the so-called “femi-nazis.”

As his mother I would be extremely disappointed if he were a Republican in today’s world but I’d be even more disappointed in him if someone had to tell him to do the right thing. An honorable man knows that a "women's" issue is really an "everyperson's" issue.

Liberals, Go Ahead and Hold Your Nose and Vote for Romney

2012-02-17T14:57:00.000-05:00

http://veracitystew.com/2012/02/09/liberals-go-ahead-and-hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-romney/

Unemployed and Forgotten: Seeking a Jeremy Lin Moment

2012-02-17T14:56:00.001-05:00

http://veracitystew.com/2012/02/16/unemployed-and-forgotten-seeking-a-jeremy-lin-moment/

Mitt, Really?

2012-01-18T16:35:00.000-05:00

I was going to lay out an argument about the Republican record and question how anyone of sound mind and concern for their fellow man could have even a fleeting thought of voting for any Republican politician on any level. I was going to ask how any American, much less any self-described liberal-progressive or independent, consider voting against President Barack Obama, consider not voting or consider voting for a Republican?

Then I came across this year-end (2011) Top 10 list from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which pretty much laid it all out for me. If you can consider voting for Republicans given the facts staring you straight in the face, then you deserve the government you get. Too bad the rest of us will have to live with it, too.

Top 10 Worst Republican Actions of 2011[1]

These are the Obama alternatives? Seriously?

Bring Back “Pre-Existing Conditions”: Health care reform is one of President Obama’s signature achievements. No longer can children born with health conditions be denied insurance. No longer can insurance companies deny care for “pre-existing conditions.” About 2.5 million young adults who lacked health insurance now are covered by their families’ plans. So what did Republicans do? Try to repeal “Obamacare” and put control back in the hands of insurance companies.
Kick Grandma Off Medicare & Give Her a Coupon: Republicans all lined up in favor of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s extreme budget plan earlier this year that would kill Medicare as we know it and turn it into a voucher program. Thank goodness the Democratic Senate was there to stop them and keep our promise to seniors.
Hand Over Cash to Corporations and the Wealthy: Another part of Paul Ryan’s plan: Give huge tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. While the middle class struggles to get ahead, Republicans tried to make things worse by reducing taxes on the wealthiest – and sticking everyone else with the bill.
Rip Away Workers’ Rights: When Republicans won the governorships in Wisconsin and Ohio, among other states, one of the first things they did was go after public workers, including taking away the rights of teachers and prison guards to bargain for better pay and benefits. Bad move. They clearly overstepped their bounds, and voters will remember at the ballot box in 2012.
Prevent You From Voting: Republicans this year decided that when it comes to elections, if you can’t beat, then cheat. From Florida to Wisconsin to Ohio, Republicans passed laws that will have the effect of suppressing Democratic turnout in these crucial swing states. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that more than 5 million voters will be affected by these laws – a number higher than the margin of victory in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Senate Democrats are holding hearings on the Florida laws in January.
Declare War on Women: It was bad enough that Republicans tried to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and other family planning programs. Then they tried to change federal law to redefine rape and to allow hospitals to deny lifesaving care for pregnant women. So much for the Republican promise to have a “laser focus” on jobs. The Republican War on Women is alive and well.
Shove Gay Soldiers Back Into the Closet: It was a huge victory for civil rights and basic human dignity when President Obama signed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into law. Finally, all Americans could serve openly in the military. Or not. This year, Republicans tried to bring back the policy, and some Republican presidential candidates have said reinstituting discrimination is one of their top policy priorities.
Launch Assaults on Sesame Street and Lake Wobegon: I don’t know what Republicans have against Big Bird and Garrison Keillor, but they will do almost anything to shut off their microphones. In fact, earlier this year, Republicans vowed to shut down the federal government if NPR and PBS weren’t defunded. Luckily, Senate Democrats were there to stop the nonsense, and “Sesame Street” and “A Prairie Home Companion” were given a reprieve – for now.
Let Consumers Fend For Themselves: One of the most important reforms passed by Democrats in decades was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to prevent big banks from ripping off their customers with dangerous financial products – some of the same products that contributed to the Great Recession. But Republicans hate anything that puts customers ahead of corporations. So they’ve fought the bureau – and people chosen to lead it – tooth and nail.
Increase Taxes for Middle Class Families. And last but certainly not least, House Republicans refused to support tax relief for the middle class, even as they demand it for billionaires and huge corporations.

[1] Guy Cecil, Executive Director, DSCC

Book Review: Two Old Women a Legend with Modern Implications

2012-01-17T15:16:00.000-05:00

"Two Old Women" is a remarkable little book. At only 145 pages and what looks like about 14 point type it’s a quick and easy read, which does not mean it is an insignificant book. It is not.

While author Velma Wallis based this book on an Athabaskan Indian legend that has been passed between generations of mothers and daughters, its theme is certainly poignant given our modern view of the elderly and how they are regarded by this society.

Two Old Women is the story of Ch’idzigyaak, 80, and Sa, 75, two elderly women whom the tribe decides are no longer of value to them, and that they no longer want to care for them. So they decide to leave them alone to die in the cold wilderness. Not even their families stand up for them when the tribe decides that leaving them behind is best for the tribe. After all, the winter was extremely brutal and resources were low. The future looked bleak.

It is not at all difficult to equate their situation with how the current Republican legislators on the federal and state levels are proposing to treat our senior citizens. We are short on resources. Both federal and state budgets are out of balance and daily deeper into debt. We must find ways to cut spending and the best way to do that is by leaving our elders behind. We call it reforming entitlements. Presto, chang-o, reform Medicare, reform Social Security, we take care of our problems and then we are no longer responsible for the old folks. They can fend for themselves in their final years. Our (proposed) ways are no less vicious than leaving two old women on the frozen tundra.

The women go through a range of emotions when realizing they are expected to accept their lot and die. Anger, humiliation, helplessness, hopelessness. They did not feel ready to die, yet the tribe had decreed that it was their time.

Defying all odds they turned this ending into a beginning.

“Knowing that her friend was dangerously close to accepting a fate of death from cold and hunger, Sa’ spoke more urgently. ‘Yes, in their own way they have condemned us to die! They think that we are too old and useless. They forget that we, too, have earned the right to live! So I say if we are going to die, my friend, let us die trying, not sitting.’ ”

There are many lessons to be learned from this little book written by a 33-year-old high school drop out with a GED. As is often my wish, if only our politicians would read this book they could learn some valuable lessons about what they should consider as they do their jobs.

There also are important lessons for those of us who have elderly friends, neighbors or relatives and for senior citizens themselves.

You’re not dead until you give up. You’re not dead until you’re dead.

Two Old Women: An Alaska Legend of Betrayal, Courage, and Survival by Velma Wallis (1993, Book, Illustrated)

Book Review: A Hand To Guide Me is a Good Reminder for These Times

2011-12-24T03:00:00.000-05:00

It's a nasty world for kids right now.

One in four children are living in poverty. The Republican presidential candidates have taken positions that are pretty much, if you are poor you deserve it. One Republican presidential candidate wants to fire parents, abolish child labor laws and make the children do their jobs. He claims that poor children have no work ethic because the only role models they have who work are those who are doing something that is illegal.

Republican lawmakers are doing everything they can to make it impossible for children to thrive, because they're making it impossible for their parents to survive. The current attitude is every man for himself; let your neighbor fend for himself.

In 11 Presidential debates, the Republican candidates have put forth the idea that people would rather "redistribute" money from America's wealthiest people than work, and they act as if these extremely wealthy people became so wealthy by hard work. They act as if these people who are trying to find jobs, or those who are among the working poor could become wealthy if they just worked as hard as the wealthy do.

If only it were that easy.

There are a myriad of reasons that people, that children, become successful or wealthy adults. Some are born to it. Others have been lucky enough to attain it through their hard work, but not everyone who works hard will attain great wealth.

In his book, A Hand to Guide Me: Inspiring Personal Stories, Denzel Washington suggests that the reason the 74 people who share their stories became so successful is because they had some person, some adult, who reached out to guide them in the right direction when they were young.

Among the story contributors are former President Bill Clinton, Choreographer Debbie Allen, Baseball Great Hank Aaron, Boxing Great Muhammad Ali, Actor Jame Farr (MASH) and Retired Juvenile Court Judge and Syndicated Television Personality Glenda Hatchett. There are plenty of businessmen and athletes, and others, all with inspirational stories to share in three or four page blocks, which makes them easy to digest.

An example of the types of stories shared comes from Ron Sargent, Chairman and CEO, Staples, who as a 12-year-old child was asked by a teacher whether he was thinking about going to college. That question inspired him to go to business school. Retired Television Journalist Bernard Shaw was inspired by Edward R. Murrow, whom he never met, but watched on television broadcasts on the news. Walter Cronkite, whom he did meet, became his idol, mentor, and his friend.

One of my favorites came from legendary basketball coach John Wooden, "No, there is nothing stronger than gentleness after all." I was also inspired by Muhammad Ali, who was inspired by Nelson Mandela. Ali, seeing that Mandela "radiated love and warmth" when he could have been "resentful or cynical" after being unfairly locked up for much of his life, strengthened Ali's resolve "for standing up for what is right."

You might wonder why I'm reviewing a six-year-old book. One, because I just got around to reading it and two, because I believe we could use some inspiration right now. I think we can use some people to look up to, people who encourage you rather than call you poor, lazy and unmotivated.

Besides, these are gems in this book and gems never get old.

I am left wondering who the mentors were for the child versions of the current Republican leadership and those who would be president. Given their utter display of heartlessness, it is hard to believe that any of them had any of the types of role models explored in Washington's book. Maybe they should read it. It's probably too late for them but maybe they could learn something about helping someone else.

Buy the book. Or for the price of postage, you can have my copy.

A Hand To Guide Me: Inspiring Personal Stories by Denzel Washington
Legends and Leaders Celebrate The People Who Shaped Their Lives
272 pages
Meredith Books
Des Moines, Iowa
Copyright (c) 2006 by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America

www.huentity.com

What OWS Taught Me About Bringing People Together

2011-12-12T19:04:00.001-05:00

All my posts up until now have been about how people over the age of 50 have been discriminated against in the job market. While I stand by that, I've come to a realization.

The last time I looked at the statistics, from April, laid off workers 34 and younger had a 36 percent chance of finding a new job within a year. Those in their 50s had a 24 percent chance of finding a job within a year.

Neither statistic is very good.

While it is my experience that the younger person is still more likely to get a job more quickly, things ain't that great for people under 50 either.

I now understand that it is not "us" against "them." While I do think human resources departments do tend to stick the resumes of those over 50 on the bottom of the pile, I understand that there are a lot of people of all ages who are hurting right now. There are a lot of people who can't find jobs.

The real problem is that there are not enough jobs, period. Those companies that should be hiring are either sending the jobs overseas where they don't have to pay decent wages or are laying off workers to improve their bottom lines which are already incredibly profitable.

Now, almost four years in to looking for a job I've decided my only choice is to start my own business.

A lot of other people have made other choices. More and more of them have chosen to protest the corporate and political decisions that have lead to the inequality of resources that have lead to the dire circumstances so many of us are facing. And it started with the young people. People we were willing to write off as an entitlement generation. It turns out they care about more than just themselves. They care about each other. They care about their country. They care about us all.

So they occupied Wall Street; then main streets all across America. They held up signs demanding justice. They started petitions. They inspired people of all ages to get out and let everyone know how badly they are hurting. People of all ages. People from all walks of lives. Veterans, teachers, union members, the unemployed, some employed.

Their steadfast refusal to be limited to demands that could be comprehended by the media and to the politicians that would destroy the movement is admirable. They have left room for the many stories, for the many problems begging for solutions. There is something so fundamentally wrong with this country that it can't be summed up in a list of ten demands or talking points. The needs are so dire and so diverse, who can speak to which are the most important and which needs to be addressed first?

So no longer are we alone in our pain. We know that others are in the same situation and in those numbers we know that we are not just railing against the wind. We will not fight amongst ourselves. We will fight with and for each other. Witness Occupy Foreclosed Homes.

America's financial and political structures have chosen to reward greed over people. And I'm proud of those who focused so much attention on the problem; those supposed spoiled little brats who don't care about anyone but themselves.

We will not accept the notion that it is us against them.

What Shall We Do, Just Die?

2011-07-06T01:14:00.000-04:00

They call it "the New Ageism."

You see it's not that ageism itself is new; it's the fact that it's being experienced by people at a much younger age that's a new phenomena.

We baby boomers are finding that every day in every way people are finding new ways to discriminate against us, whether it is in employment, healthcare or entertainment. Everyone (the universal everyone) begins to over look us and treat us as second-class citizens as soon as we turn 50.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. We're much too young for this to be happening to us. We're much too young to be unable to find jobs and we're way too young to retire. We worked all of those years paying into Social Security and Medicare with the expectation that they’d be there waiting for us. We didn’t expect them to be yanked away from us.

First of all, we don’t feel as old as everyone is treating us and we certainly aren’t ready to “act our age.” As I’m sure you’ve no doubt heard already, we’re much younger and healthier than our parents were when they were our age and we’re more savvy and capable than they were too. In many cases we’re much healthier, capable and savvy – and certainly more reliable – than many of the 30-somethings companies seem to prefer to hire instead of us. Although many of us (I’m not one of them) expected to be wealthy enough to retire at an early age, we didn’t expect to be forced to retire this early – in our 50s – when we should be adding to our retirement investments rather than drawing on them just to live another day because no one will hire us.

And here’s the magic question. If we spend our retirement savings today, penalties for early withdrawal and all, what will we have to live on when we really get old? Fear?

We expected to be living the high life, locking our parents away in nursing homes where we’d only have to visit old age every once in a while and here we find ourselves being treated as if we are our parents. After a certain age we believed our parents to be useless members of society who needed to be hidden away from the rest of society – only they were in their 80s. We’re only 50 or 60, and we feel 30 dammit. We’re not old yet. So why is the world treating us as if our useful days are over?

I suppose there are a couple of ways you could answer that question, one being that the world isn’t treating the over 50s any differently from anyone else. That’s a popular argument these days.

Unemployment is high. Everyone is looking for a job and companies are either hiring the best qualified or at least those with the best looking resume. Another argument is that the over 50s are under qualified for the jobs that are open. They lack the experience and training to fill the positions or they are unwilling to pick up the skills today’s jobs demand.

We’re not trying hard enough. We’re not trying the right tactics. We’re all wrong in every way.

Whatever the case, more and more over 50s are getting the idea that employers just want us to go away and no one wants to admit it.

Don’t just take my word for it.

There’s JPS from Park Slope who wrote in after a radio show in May wherein the topic was “the New Ageism.” JPS said:

“Age Discrimination Employment Act is currently one of the elephants in the room. I was explicitly told by the CEO of a firm I was with not to hire older workers. I told him about the legal issues and he was not aware of the Discrimination act. He was 30 at the time and I was 35. Now I see it all the time. The trend is here. I went to Google and I saw rows and rows of 20 somethings. But all of the senior execs were 35 - 40 + who actually did the decision making. The top research people happen to be older. Tells you something don't it?

What are older workers who aren't wealthy to do? Kill themselves? Didn't the Nazis engage in that that with the infirmed and the people they thought couldn't contribute?” …

Mike from NYC related:

“…Since I was laid off I have not been able to find another job. On at least one occasion, at my former work place, my application was passed over for a younger, less experienced person. For another job I was asked my previous salary had been and since it was 10% over what the job was offering, I was told I was not eligible. In other words, I was denied a position because of the years of successful experience I had had at a nearly identical job. What is that other than age discrimination by another tactic? My unemployment insurance has run out. I have had to take early social security, but now the Republican politicians and some conservative Democrats are claiming that the retirement age must be increased. What are people laid off in middle age, like me, supposed to do? Just go away and die?”

There are hundreds (likely thousands) of people over 50 who are feeling the sting of discrimination in hiring who are telling their stories but is anyone listening? More and more they are questioning how they are to live in a society that seems dedicated to pushing them aside.

It might sound a little melodramatic but is it such a far stretch from we want to deny you a way of sustenance to why don’t you just go away and die? If you haven’t been able to find a job for three or four years, you have no unemployment insurance, you have no healthcare coverage and you have no retirement income to rely upon, what is a reasonable person to think?

You draw the conclusions. Then if you are in a position to do something about it, do something.

To read more about the New Ageism follow the links below. To do something about the ageism in hiring, contact me at jlmindell@gmail.com.

You’re Just Not Qualified (Part I)

2011-06-15T02:16:00.001-04:00

You’re part techno guru, part social butterfly. You’re outgoing. You have amazing energy. You love to talk about cool technology. Well, we have customers waiting to speak to you.

That’s what that the ad said.

This is a job selling cell phones.

Based purely on the description, I thought I could make the cut. However, one might suspect that the ad is filled with code for only 20- or 30- young somethings to fill the position and that anyone older than that need not apply. Why do I suspect that? The words we use have meanings. “Techno guru,” “social butterfly, “amazing energy” “cool technology.” Be honest. These are not terms that would bring to mind for most people a 50-something year old. I’m thinking Paris Hilton and Justin Timberlake. Snookie or the Situation.

But companies can’t discriminate in hiring people over 40 based on age unless there is a bona fide reason to do so for the position. So they can’t be advertising for young people, can they? We’ve all heard the assumptions that if you are over 40 you can’t or won’t want to fulfill these types of job requirements.

The requirements, and I quote,

The successful candidate will be able to perform the following with or without reasonable accommodation:

· Ability to work flexible hours, including evenings, weekends and holidays

· Ability to stand for long periods of time

· Ability to complete all paperwork completely, accurately, in a timely manner

· Ability to lift up to 25 pounds

· Ability to operate a personal computer, wireless equipment, copier and fax

· Ability to work in other locations as the needs of the business dictate may be required.

· Complete all aspects of opening and closing the store in accordance with written procedures. Submit all transaction journals on a daily basis.

· Assists with inventory maintenance

· May be required to wear a uniform

Everyone assumes that those who have been in the workforce for years are not willing to take on such tasks. Let me tell you about flexibility.

I applied; I attached my resume and filled out their application.

I affirmatively agreed to do all of the above just for an entry-level job selling cell phones and I have not only a bachelor’s degree in Communications but a JD as well. I’m a licensed attorney and I said I’d be willing to wear a uniform to sell phones. How much more flexible can you be?

They say among the reasons “older” people remain unemployed longer than those under the age of let’s say 45 is that we are inflexible.

Turns out, I am “not qualified on testing” for the position for this full-time retail sales consultant position.

I was (and am) more than a little perplexed.

How could I not have qualified? I’m one of those people who always has to have the latest technology and I’m one of those people my friends and co-workers have always called on when they needed help with their computers or gadgets. As far as sales experience goes, I’ve sold everything from a package of chewing gum to diamond rings worth thousands of dollars. Surely, I can sell a cell phone.

You won’t find anyone more customer-service oriented than me; and I’ve always been an outstanding employee. This same company had given me outstanding reviews AND on my exit interview five years ago told me I was eligible to be rehired.

Now the required qualifications were:

If you enjoy… (All emphases are mine)

· Using competitive spirit to meet and exceed assigned sales goals

· Staying up-to-date on the latest data/entertainment technology and devices, such as Wi-Fi, data devices, TV entertainment tools

· Understanding customers’ needs and helping them discover how our products meet those needs

· Multi-tasking in a fast-paced team environment

· Working a variety of hours including weekends, evenings and holidays involving occasional overtime

· Educating and engaging customers through product demonstrations

· Interacting with customers and providing prompt and courteous customer service to all customers in person, via phone or written note

· Position may be commissioned and quota based

Tell me who is better able to determine what I enjoy, me or them? That is, how are they able to accurately test for these qualifications?

The test-taker is encouraged to answer the test questions quickly and honestly. I happen to love multi-tasking in a fast-paced team environment. I can’t stand jobs that are otherwise. Does their testing reflect this? I don’t know. If I answer honestly, on a scale of 1 to 5, I don’t “enjoy” working a variety of hours including weekends, evenings and holidays involving occasional overtime, but I would do it and I would do it gladly to get a job. But if I answer that question with a 3, because I’m honest, do I fail the test?

It is certainly legal to test as long as the test has a bona fide relationship to the job and it is not just a pretext to discriminate. In other words, a test has to be internally valid. The skills that are being tested have to be directly and provably related to the job.

I’m always suspicious of pre-employment testing anyway and I am not convinced this was a skills assessment test unless clairvoyance is a skill. I guess I knew I might be in trouble when it kept asking things like how your supervisor or your co-workers would rate you on the scale of 1 to 5. Well, I know how high I know they should rate me based on my performance but I don’t know how high they would rate me. So, I estimated conservatively. I assumed they were going to check. Did that cost me on the test? Once again, I don’t know.

I do know I wouldn’t leave a customer standing there just because it was break time and that I would say, “Someone will be with you shortly,” if I’m tied up with a customer and I see another one that needs to be helped.

Gatekeepers – and that’s what these testers are – serve a purpose and that purpose is to let only select people in. Experience has shown us that the gates, especially when they are imaginary tests, can keep some of the best people out. In this case, I suspect what is being kept out is some experienced people who are willing to swallow their pride and take a job for which they are overqualified.

I’m left wondering who does pass these tests, and I can’t help but wonder if I failed to pass it when I put in my application and resume that showed I had more than 30 years of experience,

I am convinced that this test could not have tested my “skills” in any area listed in the advertisement. None of my abilities were tested and, as I’ve said before, I’m the best judge of what I enjoy.

What could the company have been testing for that I could have failed? Of course they don’t show you your test results, but you’re welcome to retest in six months. And if you “fail to qualify” again you can take the test again in another year.

When you’re my age (in your 50s) and you’ve been looking for a job for more than three years six months is a life time. But, I’m told there are things I can do to bone up for the test the next time around, which we’ll look at in You’re Just Not Qualified (Part II)

Chew On This: Soap Cancellations about Ageism

2011-05-20T16:50:00.001-04:00

If you’re not a soap opera fan bear with me. Even though that is ostensibly the subject this is about much more, though far be it from me to say much more important.

As I’m sure almost everyone knows by now ABC announced last month the cancellation of All My Children (AMC) and One Life to Live (OLTL), each soap operas that have been on television for more than 40 years.

The rationale is that viewers’ habits are changing and that daytime television is facing increasing competition from cable television, the Internet and social media. It has been no big secret that network executives have been courting younger audiences and have been disappointed that their efforts have failed to attract a younger demographic as far as soaps are concerned.

Among the network arguments is that the shows continue to lose viewers and they can no longer justify their huge budgets. Reality and talk shows apparently cost some 30 to 40 percent less to produce than do soap operas. Moreover, reality and talk are what viewers want to see, they say. So, AMC and OLTL will be replaced with the type of programming viewers want, the Chew, a cooking show, and the Revolution, a makeover show.

Now, as a daytime television viewer I don’t watch Rachel Ray. I don’t watch Nate Berkus. I stopped watching Dr. Oz when I figured out he was making me think I was going to die from everything I was or wasn’t doing. I’ve watched The Talk twice; once when Eric Braeden (Young and the Restless) and once when Shemar Moore (formerly Young and the Restless) were on. I’ve tired of The View, so I don’t watch it much anymore. I rarely watch Oprah and she’s going off anyway and I hardly ever watch Dr. Phil, although his fight against violence against women has drawn me in some this season. Why would I watch new versions of dreck I already don’t watch now?

A lot of fans of the cancelled soap operas are asking this same question. What makes ABC think they can replace daytime dramas with reality/talk shows nobody asked for and expect us to just follow like sheep? The answer is because we always do. We accept our plight, we whine a little and we never fight back.

It would seem for once they’ve picked the wrong target; this time the offended do not accept their fate and slink quietly into the night.

Now, here is where this stops being purely about daytime television for me, and more about what I originally intended to write about, although I will continue to use soap operas as the basis for my argument.

Listen. This isn’t about pure greed or finances. It’s not just about ABC/Disney. This is about a culture of ageism and a little bit about sexism. It’s about condescension and ignorance. The people who control the television resources are telling us that our time has passed and they are finished with us. They want 18 to 49 year olds and that age group doesn’t want soap operas. If you are older than that – even if you do have the majority of the spending power – they don’t care what you want to see. They are telling us we have no real power. They are moving on and there is nothing we can do about it. Of course, they don’t put it quite that crassly, but the message is there just the same.

I’ve watched as thousands of protestors have commented on Facebook pages, websites and blogs about the cancellations. They’ve shared stories of how they grew up watching the shows, how they’ve watched them for 40 years, how they have watched them with their children, mothers and grandmothers. They’ve demanded that ABC rescind its decision, praised Hoover (vacuum cleaners) for its decision to pull all of its ABC advertising and urged other advertisers to do the same, and threatened never to watch another ABC program again. They’ve taken out media advertisements to ask Disney/ABC to reconsider its decision.

Disney, of course, has taken the attitude that there’s nothing anybody can do to make them change their minds; even though thousands of viewers are telling them they don’t want another talk show, another food show, another makeover show. Viewers are telling them, we’ll desert you. ABC is saying go ahead. We don’t believe you.

Hoover is only hurting the cause by pulling its advertising from ABC, not helping, ABC says. Do you think for one minute that if Poise, Activia, Vesicare, Reclast, Juvéderm, Bayer, Symbicort, Colonial Penn, Advair, Clinique, Miracle Ear and others pulled all of their advertising from ABC and spent it at, say CBS, it wouldn’t hurt? Do you think for one minute ABC would maintain its haughty attitude? It’s too late. There’s nothing anybody can do about it? I don’t think so.

My point is this. Although it is clear not all soap opera fans are over the age of 50, a great many of them are. The networks have decided – as has the rest of society – that this is a disposable market, rather than an age group to be courted. They’re wrong. We are strong in numbers and in buying power, and we are going to be around for a long time. You should not ignore us, take us for granted or condescend toward us.

I am heartened to see that so many people will fight for a cause they believe in. Generations watch these shows together. I’ve recently discovered the dozens of soap opera message boards that discuss the comings and goings and plot lines of the various soap operas. I think of how before her death my mother would call my sister to discuss episodes of the Young and the Restless. It brought them closer together. G-d knows this society needs things that keep us connected.

My hope is that win or lose the AMC/OLTL fight – and I hope ABC sees the light and does change its course – we continue to believe that we have the power to change the course of big business decision making. We have great battles ahead in the name of fighting ageism and we need each other more now than ever. I hope we will carry this spirit over into the fight against ageism in other areas, particularly ageism in hiring decisions.

Mr. President, Where’s My Bon Jovi?

2011-05-10T19:43:00.001-04:00

President Barack Obama named 49-year-old rock star Jon Bon Jovi to his new Council for Community Solutions. According to AARPORG/Magazine Bon Jovi is the only entertainer appointed to the council which brings together 25 “noteworthies” of diverse backgrounds to find ways to reduce youth unemployment.

What this means of course is that when Jon Bon Jovi – who has leant his voice to several significant causes – says we need to do something about a problem people listen because he is a celebrity. That’s why the President appointed him.

What I want to know is this, where is my Bon Jovi?

I need a job and no one’s out there stumping for me. I need a Bon Jovi (or a George Clooney or Denzel Washington) and an elite group of foundation heads, CEOs and academics to figure out how to get me employed. Where is my Council for Community Solutions that was formed to do something about unemployment of people over the age of 50?

The appointment is a slap in the face because many of us were there at the beginning of Bon Jovi’s career and all the way through the "big hair" era, attending his concerts and buying his records, making him the superstar he became. Many of us are still there among his biggest fans. And now when it comes down to the time when we could use his help – and this is not entirely his fault – a man that is closer in age to this over-50 crowd that is struggling in this horrible employment environment to find jobs, has been tapped to use the fame we helped to build to help a generation that really doesn’t need his help.

Yes, youth unemployment is high. It’s always been a problem as I understand it. But young people are going to get jobs eventually. At the very least, they are going to stop being teenagers and they are going to become young adults. Once they become adults everyone will want to hire them. This is, after all a youth culture; which is the problem for people over 50 who are trying to find jobs now.

People over 50 aren’t going to get younger. They can’t wait it out and expect that someday they’ll stop being too old. Each year, each month, each week they are out of a job works against them. What we’re seeing more and more of is the “older” generation, the baby boomers, being kicked to the curb.

The President’s appointment is a slap in the face also as even when the unemployment numbers show any small improvement, the unemployment and reemployment for those over 50 continues to be dismal.

Try sending out a resume or a few dozen resumes showing a few years of experience and see what response you get. More and more the answer is less and less.

· You respond to a job posting for which you have the listed qualifications and you’re told, send us your resume and we’ll contact you if anything matches your skill set. You never hear anything; or

· You hear you have too much experience for this position; or

· You’re told you wouldn’t be happy/satisfied in this position; or

· We’re afraid you’d leave as soon as a better paying position (or one in your field) comes along; or

· Nothing period. Resume launched into the ionosphere never to be heard from again.

The same thing is happening to so many people it cannot be coincidence; it cannot be purely the incompetence of the jobseeker and it can’t be just a few lazy people whining.

You can blame it on the "seniors", as many are wont to do, but that doesn’t change the fact that something catastrophic is going on. What else could you call a whole generation that is being written off right before our eyes?

Something has to be done and it can’t be done on an individual basis.

No matter how many times I tell a prospective employer as an individual that I'm willing to start at the bottom and I don’t need to make $80,000 a year, he still doesn’t believe me. No matter how many resumes I send out – and I’ve sent out plenty – I still can’t impact the stereotypes in a meaningful way. Not by myself. Hiring managers can still reject my applications, without ever giving me a reason and there is nothing I can do about it and no way I can prove what I know to be the case – that ageism is playing a primary role in the hiring decision.

All across the nation, the media has been reporting for at least the last three years about the job situation for people over 50 who have been searching for jobs for months -- for years -- with no luck. If you pull together all of the reports the message is clear, we people over the age of 50 need help. As a group. And we need to help ourselves.

As a useful segment of society we still have much to offer. We’re not dead yet and we’re probably not going to be for another 20-30-35 years.

Again I ask where is my Council for Community Solutions. You say we have the ADEA. We have the EEOC. We have governmental interventions that prevent age discrimination in hiring. They’re not working.

Re-training “seniors” isn’t the answer. Re-trained seniors that hiring managers won’t hire are just as bad off as they were before being trained. Hell, thinking of us as seniors isn’t helping either. That just sets us apart in a way that says our skill sets are inferior to those that are needed in today’s markets, and therefore justifies the decisions of hiring managers to seek younger employees. Seniors can’t do the same things younger employees can. They’re slow and set in their ways; and they take too long to learn.

I know you’ve got a lot on your plate Mr. President, and you’ll soon be running for reelection which will make you even busier, but I’m calling on you to give us our version of Jon Bon Jovi and the Notables.

I’m also challenging Congress and other politicians, the legal system, business, academia, those with jobs, those without jobs and every other thinking person to help us recognize that this bias exists, and is being imposed full force. Help us find a way to put “older” people back to work now.

We’re going to be around for a while and we can either be a drain on the country’s resources or (what we’d prefer) contributing members of society.

I sincerely believe we – CEOs, politicians, job seekers, celebrities and others – will come together on this issue and figure out a way of putting people who want to work and already have the skills to work back to work.

If all of the people I’ve recently read about in the media and on the Social Networks were to band together and not only share their experiences but demand action, we could affect a meaningful change. I’m challenging those of us older than 50 who are unemployed or way underemployed to stop whining about it and band together to demand action to do something about it.

Mr. Bon Jovi was quoted as being a big believer in the power of “we.”

So am I.

I am only one person but with you I am one more. Or we.

I believe we have power. Let’s use it. If you believe as I do don't just comment. Lend me your name. Commit to action. E-mail me your contact information. Let's get something started.