Back From The Future

One hates to admit that a portion of the news is completely opaque.  Try as I might, I simply could not understand from the media what had happened at the Supreme Court this past week regarding affirmative action in Michigan.  Probably because those people reporting perhaps didn’t understand it either!  What I understood, perhaps incorrectly, was that the majority of the Supreme Court believed that if the people voted in a law, or voted out an existing law, unconstitutional as that law is or was, it must stand.  That the people had spoken, and this took precedence. 

Consequently I located Justice Sotomayor’s minority rebuttal and read that.  This rebuttal was magnificent in its ordering of the history of cases in this country regarding the ways in which the white (or Anglo) majority in this country had tried its very, very best in the past to prevent minorities from having even the most basic of civil rights, from a good education up to and including voting.  Case after case, with the majority of these laws, ordinances and policies being declared unconstitutional under the 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Bill of Rights progress was made at a snail’s pace to protect all of the citizens of these United States.  These two amendments read: 

14.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws… 

15.  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude… 

What the Supreme Court this week did was deprive minorities in Michigan due process of law.  This case involves this last chapter of discrimination:

 After a century of being shut out of Michi­gan’s institutions of higher education, racial minorities in Michigan had succeeded in persuading the elected board representatives to adopt admissions policies that took into account the benefits of racial diversity. The members of those boards are nominated by political parties and elected by the citizenry in statewide elections. After over a century of being shut out of Michi­gan’s institutions of higher education, racial minorities in Michigan had succeeded in persuading the elected board representatives to adopt admissions policies that took into account the benefits of racial diversity.”  Justice Sotomayor.

Justice Sotomayor goes on that what the Supreme Court did was to deny minorities due process.  She explains:

 “The effect of §26 is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who wishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a black Michigander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very uni­versity cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy”. 

Now a minority Michigander must change the Michigan Constitution in order to challenge the admission policy.  Race has become the defining entity that determines whether an admission policy is valid or not.  A white Michigander can lobby the Board of Regents for a change of policy.  A black, and presumably brown, Michigander must change the Michigan Constitution to change the policy.  This is a blatant denial of minorities’ right of due process.  Although this is a Michigan problem right now, it sloshes over into California’s UC admission policies as well, but this thing in Michigan, in my opinion, is much more blatant and cause for concern. 

Since we have four daughters, two granddaughters, and three great granddaughters, the Republican efforts to roll back all of the successes women have achieved over the past 40 years really rankles with me.  I have lived through all of the various cultural attitudes toward women that have been prevalent from rape to subtle denigration over these 80+ years, and I do not want to go back to those times myself, nor do I want our progeny to have to live through them.  Even in the past 15 years or so I have experienced subtle denigration over gender from overt comments to some men thinking they had the right to give me less than welcome hugs.  This will, in time, wear out as new generations come into being, but let’s project into the future a bit.  Although I hate speculation in the news, it is good to occasionally do it on issues because that is where our understanding of “what is afoot” comes from.

Let’s suppose the Michigan decision is allowed to stand and minorities are denied the right to question admission policies.  Other universities in other states can now go the same route.  If enough of them get away with it, then state propositions to deny LBGT people the right to lobby admission policies, and be required to change the state’s constitutions are a possibility. 

Or, hey, let’s go after the 19^th Amendment:

19.  The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

You think this is farfetched?  I was denied the right to attend San Luis Obispo’s public college, California Polytechnic (Cal Poly) back in the late ‘40’s and early ‘50’s because I was female.  And don’t think this couldn’t happen again.  The attitude of we’ve got to keep those women from being educated is right under the surface.  They only introduce emotionalism into politics, and present a sexual diversion into the important decision making required of us white men.  Yuk!!!

 

 

 

Yes, Paul Ryan Loves Me

Since the Republicans have brought fundamentalist religion into the political sphere, during this holiest of weeks for both Christians and Jews, I do not believe it to be inappropriate to comment on this, particularly after Paul Ryan, who claims to be a Catholic Christian, presented his federal budget in the House of Representatives, and it passed.

Ryan’s budget would gut nearly every social program that is funded by the federal budget.  These include, but are not limited to, programs that help children to have food and medical care; programs that help families over some really tough financial times brought about by asinine policies during the W and Chaney presidency; programs that help the elderly.  Since I try to keep this blog at about 600 words, there is not room to go through the budget in detail, but it would be a disaster for millions of Americans.

There is little or nothing in Ryan’s budget that would raise taxes on the wealthy, close tax loopholes that allow the obscenely rich to keep $3 T+ in overseas accounts to protect that money from being taxed, nor to stop subsidizing oil, gas, and coal industries – industries that are some of the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world.

Bible-banging federal Legislators are fond of going through the Bible and finding single verses that support their position on defunding these programs.  They insist that funding these programs are really detrimental to the people receiving the assistance because it makes the people lazy and unwilling to work.  What amazes me is that they ignore those many, many verses and chapters from both the Old and New Testaments that emphasize love, mercy, justice, and peace.

The fundamentalists in all versions of Christianity like to blame someone else for the death of Jesus.  But I like what Sr. Joan Chittester wrote in, “In Search of Belief”, pg. 119.

“Love, mercy, peace and justice—These are the apogee of human existence…  And they are no more acceptable now than then.  Call for an end to military pulverization carried out in the name of foreign policy initiatives and see what people think of you.  Call for life sentences for those on death row and see how people look at you.  Call for demilitarization in the name of human services and see how fast you’re accused of being unpatriotic.  Call for public daycare centers, wage equity, standardized promotion policies, and universal health insurance instead of abortion and see what happens then to the proclaimed concern for women’s rights.  Call for a distribution of wealth in a world where profit, power, and personal freedom are the gods of the day and see how quickly you lose your place at the tables of the rich and the powerful.  Call the Church to discuss the question of women’s ordination and see how long you are considered pious.  Or, more to the point: Cure lepers on the Sabbath, forgive adultery, refuse to bear a sword, contest systemic evil in both church and state, cure a woman with a hemorrhage of blood and see how long you last in society.  These are the things that put people on crosses.  These are the things the cross is all about.”

Paul Ryan, and the rest of the radical right-wing Republicans are forgetting one of the most germane verses in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters.  He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and mammon.”  (The definition of mammon is avarice or greed.)

One of my favorite courses in college was the study of John Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost.  It is a wonderful poem and Milton describes the rebellion of some of the angels against God.  In Book II he has one angel trying to convince the other angels onward in their rebellion.  Every time Paul Ryan gets up to discuss his budget, I think of the below passage:

On the other side up rose

Belial, in act more graceful and humane;

For dignity composed and high exploit:

But all was false and hollow, though his tongue

Dropped manna, and could make the worse appear

The better reason, to perplex and dash

Maturest counsels:  for his thoughts were low:

To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds

Timorous and slothful:  yet he pleased the ear,

And with persuasive accent thus began:

 

 

Bernie Sanders and the Koch Brothers

After I decided what to write my blog on this week I sort of wiped out yesterday just thinking about all of the research I would have to put in to come up with what I perceived is the radical right’s agenda based on my research of what they have already done.  A daunting task but one that I believed needed to be done, for my own sake even if no one else was interested!  I began to think that no one but Bill (my husband for those living elsewhere) and I recognized, how dangerous to our American form of democracy that agenda really is.  Don’t forget, we lived through the Great Depression and World War II, and were subsequently very aware of what could have transpired in this country if we would have lost that horrendous war. 

And then, lo, and behold, this morning when I began reading my e-mails there was one from Reader Supported News, which collects articles from hither and yon and this becomes their news.  This site is pretty middle of the road, though it does tend to collect more liberal news, and this morning it had an article written by one of my heroes, Senator Bernie Sanders.  The article is entitled, “What Do The Koch Brothers Really Want?” 

Wahoo!!  My research had been done for me.  Assuming that you who are reading this will continue reading, as you come to each point contemplate that this is precisely what is going on in the Tea Party today, which is not surprising since the Tea Party has been funded, at least in part if not entirely, by the Koch Brothers.  It has been said that one of the signs of maturity is the ability of the individual to change, and the ability of the same individual to allow the other person to change.  From the listing below, it would appear that the Koch Brothers are still pretty immature.  The section below came from the article mentioned above, and printed today, 4/12/14.

In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

• “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”(Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News, “What Do The Koch Brothers Really Want?”, 4/12/14)

For example, if it seems outlandish that one would want to get rid of the Postal Service, that most venerable of our institutions, remember that a Republican administration requires that the Postal Service must fund its retirement system for the next 75 years in a 10 year period.  That is a prescription for disaster.  And yet, this is in line with one of the points above to abolish the Postal System.

The frontal assault taken by the Koch's in 1980 was a dismal failure.  In order to achieve their goals, they have taken to heart the maxim that taking apart the foundation of a building pebble by pebble it is possible to bring down the whole structure over time.  And that is what they are doing to our democracy.  Bit by bit they are attempting to bring down the entire structure for their own benefit. 

No wonder Harry Reid calls them un-American.

 

Cesar Chavez, et al.

It was about 1946.  WWII was over.  My father was still working in the oil fields, where he had worked for the entire war.  He had tried to join the Merchant Marines (too old for the draft), but when it was discovered that he was working in the oil fields, he was told to go back and keep on drilling – that the oil was just as vital for the war effort.  Which it was, although not nearly as fulfilling.  Anyway, the war was over, and the AFL-CIO, as it was known in those days, wanted to unionize the oil field workers.  The company my Dad worked for was Texaco, and the mucky-mucks came to my Dad and told him that the company wanted to form a company union, and they wanted my Dad to head it up.  Which, being a loyal employee he did, successfully, and the AFL-CIO lost out in the election.  Not too long after the company dissolved the company union, leaving the workers without recourse.  My Dad never really recovered from that.  It took me several years to finally figure out what had happened, and needless to say, I became quite suspicious of corporations if they promised anything. 

Skipping ahead to around 1965 when my own family lived in Fresno, I decided to get healthy and lose weight after having five kids, so I joined an exercise place called Gloria Marshalls.  While there one day I overheard one of the other ladies talking that she owned a raspberry farm south of Fresno, and those “blankety blank” farm workers were really making trouble.  They even wanted a place to wash their hands after “taking a leak”.  I was horrified that they didn’t have a place, frankly, and told her I would never buy another raspberry from any store!  The problem was that it was the time that Cesar Chavez was attempting to organize the farm workers, and sentiments were really running high.

In the early 1970’s we moved nearer Fresno State when we realized we would have four kids in college at the same time.  This way they could live at home so long as they were in school.  I attended the Newman Center attached to Fresno State, and was elected to the Pastoral Council.  At that time there was a real problem at the Center because it needed a source of funding in order to provide the services it wanted to provide the students and parishioners.  It was decided that if a rental agreement could be decided on, renting the hall would be a great source of funding.  About half of the council supported Cesar Chavez, but the other half certainly did not.  As a result the two sides could not agree on who could or could not rent the hall.  Both had written up criteria for the rental agreement, but could not agree on whose should be adopted.  Being an optimist and new to the council, I offered to try to resolve the two documents. 

When I got them together, side by side, I realized they were almost identical.  There were a few minor issues that could easily be resolved.  So I put the two documents into one, took the one back to the next meeting, and both sides were thrilled that I had taken their document!!  It was after the rental agreement was approved, and we had used it successfully a couple of times, that I told them what I had done.  What a lesson for me that was.  Listen to both sides of an argument because often people assume that the other side is wrong when they don’t even know what it is!! 

So, admittedly I have a “preferential option for the poor”, and have had ever since that term came into usage from the advent of Liberation Theology, and I have an antipathy toward corporations and people who adamantly oppose unions and support corporations.  Consequently I have a real difficulty with trying to reconcile the radical-rights determination to cut all programs that benefit poor people, while at the same time protecting the finances of tremendously wealthy individuals and corporations.  It is impossible to sit down with a list of reasons for cutting benefits and reasons for not increasing taxes and then reconciling the two.   

The mind-sets of the two points of view are so divergent that for some it is impossible to even think through to the other’s viewpoint.  In Fresno in the 1960’s and ‘70’s, although no one really wanted to admit it, there was a great deal of innate racism involved as well as a fear of losing profits.  It is the same now with Paul Ryan’s comments about “inner city men” and Romney’s infamous discussion of the 49%, or the former Lt. Gov. of some southern state who said you didn’t want to feed animals and poor people because they just reproduce.  And to be fair, on my side are too many people who can’t get past thinking that the radical right are just greedy wolves who don’t want to share a nickel.

Perhaps what we need is a Peace and Reconciliation Commission based on the one established in South Africa after the dissolution of apartheid.  God, we need something!!