Voting Rights Under Attack

The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are hearing arguments in a case that could see them overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case  involves a law suit by Shelby County, Alabama arguing that the Voting Rights Act's monitoring requirement is both unnecessary and burdensome.

The Court appears to be divided with the conservative majority ready to overturn the key provisions in the landmark Voting Rights Act, which requires monitoring of states and localities with a history of racial discrimination. Justice Antonin Scalia called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” According to Think Progress' Flatow and Millhiser: "His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a 'perpetuation of racial entitlement' came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious." (TP Justice)

These comments by Scalia should not be surprising given his past rulings, including Citizens United, but somehow, they seem over the top even for him. Clearly Alabama has a long history of racial discrimination and racism which has, by no means, disappeared either in Alabama or anywhere else in the deep south. It should be self-evident that Shelby County's suit stems directly from its racist past. Why is the Voting Rights Act a "burden"? If it is burdensome to guarantee EVERYONE the right to vote, then there is a problem with the attitudes of those in charge of the voting process. What could that problem be? One only has to look at the history of the county which was placed under the watchful eye of the Justice Department for a reason: racial discrimination. It would be nice to think Shelby County was not being disingenuous by saying the law was unnecessary but, sadly, they clearly are.

It doesn't seem like an accident that this move towards striking down the Voting Rights Act coincides with the most widespread attempt to disenfranchise voters since Jim Crow laws. The radical right in this country, represented by ALEC, are constructing and writing laws all over the country which make it more difficult for people who are traditionally Democratic to vote. Those people tend to be people of color, the elderly and youth. It is no coincidence that all these laws are aimed primarily at this demographic.

One wonders whether this plot (yes, plot) to make it harder to vote for minorities, the elderly, poor and youth are simply political maneuverings aimed at disenfranchising people who are Democrats or if it is more nefarious, based in racism, sexism and hatred of people who are poor or elderly. Most likely is all of the above and more. The 1% are REALLY out to get you. It is not paranoia. They want what they want (everything) when they want it (now).

Antonin Scalia is a manifestation of that but a really dangerous one. He is in a position of power essentially unchecked by any other branch of government. The only way to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court is by constitutional amendment, which is extraordinarily difficult. We also cannot possibly get constitutional amendments passed for every bad decision this conservative, activist Court makes. That is especially true when the Tea Party-G.O.P. has control of the US House of Representatives. It is essential, then, for the "99%" to organize. Collective action is the only way to take on this attack by the radical right and their masters.

 To overturn the Voting Rights Act would mean that not only would Democrats lose almost every election from then on but that people of color, the poor, the elderly and women would be voiceless once again. We cannot allow that to happen.

A Hand Up

A Hand Up 

by Cherie Boeneman

Life is unlimited.

Your world expands with the generosity, compassion,

inventiveness, and service that you contribute.

Money that is spent or given away returns multiplied.

The more love that is given, the more love returns.

The more a helping hand is given, the more hands

are strengthened and empowered to help.

We can help each other to all be winners.

We can all have food, and jobs, and love, and happiness.

- Jonathan Lockwood Huie

I had been unemployed for three years with no hope in sight of ever finding a job. Then I saw a notice for a 12 week fellowship with Organizing For America, the organizing arm of the Obama campaign. I filled out an application and several days later received a call from the county field director. I accepted the unpaid position on the spot. I received excellent training and started organizing right away. I met with people one-on-one and recruited them to be volunteers on the campaign. Then we set up a neighborhood team. That team would go on to branch off a new team, and so forth. I made hundreds, if not thousands, of phone calls, registered voters and led a canvass. Suddenly, my self-confidence was back; it made all the difference in  the world. I wish I could say that I found work because of my experience but that isn’t the case. However, I can say that I learned a great deal about myself and how to relate (or not relate) to other people. What I learned mostly was that I have difficulty figuring people out. I cannot read people well. That causes problems for me but at least I know it now. So what about others like me?  Can there not be a program where internships are established for those who have challenges?

I know that most internships are about giving bright young people hands-on experience (and providing cheap labor) but what if there was a model for internships set up and designed for people (of all ages) who have been overlooked for various reasons even though they are ALSO bright and talented? Yes, it would take more work but people with Asperger's could be writers or IT in an office or do research. Many people with Asperger's Syndrome  or otherwise on are chronically underemployed or unemployed. It would be well worth the extra effort to design an internship for an individual with AS or on the Autism Spectrum as the hand up it gives could do wonders for the person and help the person's prospects for employment, thus reducing the overall cost to society.

While setting up internships for those who are capable, on the higher end of the Autism Spectrum could be a way to reduce that burden to them and to society the same might be true with other forms of disability. It might also be useful for those workers who have been unemployed for a long time through no fault of their own. Many people simply need a hand up, not a hand-out.

Is there ANYONE out there with an interest in a project like this?

Who Gets To Cut The Pie?

I have been watching the partisan dickering and whining that has surrounded the sequestration and the budget deficit. It has been anything but uplifting and has brought out the very worst in people.

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Speaker Boehner said, "Most Americans are just hearing about this Washington creation for the first time: the sequester," Boehner writes. "What they might not realize from Obama's statements is that it is a product of the president's own failed leadership."

For his part, President Obama said this: "Republicans in Congress face a simple choice. Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them? Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations?"

What we have in front of us should be a television game show but it is not: The Blame Game.  In game shows there are always winners and always losers. In this game the biggest losers are the American People who are on the sidelines wondering whether and how we can shed the weight of political grandstanding on the bloated deficit largely created by a GOP Congress and President. 

How SHOULD we be approaching the looming budget cuts? The answer is probably not as simple or cut and dry as either the President or Speaker Boehner would have us believe. Yes, spending has to be cut but how, where and how much? Would it be fairest to cut the projected spending by and equal percentage to each sector's share of the budget? For instance, Defense is projected to have a 14% share of Federal spending. They then would be required to trim 14% of their budget. I realize this is simplistic and probably untenable but a concerted effort by the GOP and the President to think "outside the box" is required at this juncture. It is possible to cut "fat" in each sector's share of spending, to hunt down and get rid of inefficient use of funds. No more $600 toilet seats. The reality is that won't be enough and cutting will need to include "meat" as well as "fat."  That also will not be enough and an increase in revenue will re required. How do we cut and how do we raise revenue?

First of all, we need to agree on the problem. It is actually not required that the source of the problem be identified, just define the problem itself. Should we rely on EITHER Congress or the President to define the problem and come up with the solution? Maybe we need a mediator or why not bring in a bi-partisan (or non-partisan) panel of citizens? To bring in experts from outside the Beltway would relieve both sides from taking the "fall" for the situation and could actually succeed in coming up with good solutions. Maybe if the American People are actually included in the discussion and decision making we could get beyond political posturing. It would be the political equivalent of mom or dad stepping between two squabbling siblings. Maybe it is time for the People to shout, "Enough!"

Response to the SOTU Address

My response to the President's State of the Union address:

I appreciate what the President had to say about raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour. That is LONG overdue. I wish he had a specific plan to help the long term unemployed who cannot find work because no one will give them a chance. I am also not convinced by his assurances that he won't cut Social Security and Medicare in ways that would harm seniors and the disabled. He has this unfortunate tendency to cave in to the GOP. I also appreciate his stance on ending the war in Afghanistan but what will he do for the returning troops in the way of mental health and jobs?

I am most disturbed by his mention of cyber security and specific, targeted attacks on American enemies. There is plenty of room in his statements that would allow him to target American citizens and call it legal. This aspect of President Obama's policies deeply disturbs me. He may or may not misuse the powers he is giving himself but some President some time surely will. It is almost inevitable.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that his emphasis on gun control can push us in the right direction in terms of protecting our right to life and liberty while still allowing for second amendment rights. As he said, "Gabby Giffords deserves a vote." Mr Speaker, please come down off your high horse and do the job the People expect.

Fetuses, Women, Guns, Corporations and the Constitution

I find it interesting that first fetuses, then corporations and now guns have more rights than a grown woman.

Constitutionally, fetuses have no rights because they are not born:
1:  All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 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 laws. (14th Amendment Section 1)

The same is true of corporations. They are not persons born or naturalized. Women, however, are clearly fully autonomous human beings and if they are born or naturalized they are citizens of the United States, with all the rights that brings.

Guns are another issue. The second amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to rightly interpret this amendment one must look at the entire context of the word "militia" in the Constitution. Every where it appears, "militia" refers to an established, government regulated civilian force. The closest equivalent we have would be the National Guard, NOT the anti-government para-military variety found across the country.

Article 1  Section 8:  (The duties of Congress)
15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clearly, the militias referred to in the second amendment are these, the ones established and regulated by Congress. The right to bear arms, then, belongs to those who are members of the regular militias.

The framers of the Constitution clearly never intended for fetuses to have rights  that supersede their mothers, nor every one to run around with semi-automatic weapons or for corporations to be people. The Constitution was based on something rare these days: common sense. It is based on the premise that fully autonomous human beings born in the United States or naturalized are citizens with all the rights and privileges therein. It is also based upon the premise that militias are formed and regulated by Congress.  It would promote anarchy if it was set up any other way. Indeed, that is precisely where we are headed if rule of law is not applied to the ownership of guns and they are not fully regulated by Congress. To the NRA I would say, "Get over it! Guns are not God, guns do not supplant the right to the life and liberty of fully autonomous human beings " 

I

Ecumenism vs. Exclusivity

Following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut there was an inter-faith worship service attended by members of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths. The closing benediction was  delivered by Pastor Rob Morris from Newtown's King Lutheran Church.

Recently, at the request of the the President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pastor Morris apologized for his participation. Apparently, it is forbidden for clergy in the Missouri Synod to worship with members of other religions.

This kind of exclusivism deeply disturbs me. To think that one's own particular denomination, let alone Christianity, is the only path to heaven is arrogant to the extreme.
It would be nice and convenient if that were the case. It makes proselytizing far easier if one has the exclusive claim to the Kingdom of Heaven. Without that claim what incentive is there for people to choose the Missouri Synod over say, the Lutheran Church of America or the United Methodist or Episcopalian Churches, to name just a few.

Then there is the issue of different religions altogether.  If Christians were to worship with people of the Jewish and Muslim faiths it might be seen that God loves all regardless of faith traditions. To me, that is precisely the point of such worship but people who focus upon exclusivity are afraid that their tradition is somehow undercut by engaging in the ecumenical movement.

Personally, I think they undercut their own tradition by this exclusivity. They are, in essence saying, "We are so insecure in our beliefs that we cannot commune with you."  Jesus did not give us a Spirit of Fear but of Faith and Love and Hope. 

I deeply regret that Pastor Morris could not stand up for what was really in his heart and refuse to apologize for being strong enough in his faith that he could commune with brothers and sisters of all faiths. It could have provided an important moment for the Missouri Synod as well as for all of Christendom.  As it stands, we will have to wait for another moment in time. One of these days, Christians will get it right and say, with John Wesley (in his sermon "A Catholic Spirit"): "If thy heart is as my heart, take my hand." 

Stigma

Stigmastig·ma  (stgm)n. pl. stig·ma·ta (stg-mät, -mt, stgm-) or stig·mas 1. A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach:
Archaic A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.
(Free Online Dictionary)

Very few people refute the fact that there is stigma attached to having  mental illness. In fact, almost nothing evokes such a visceral response as telling someone you have a mental illness. That almost no one will readily admit to it says a great deal about society and the lack of education about mental illness that results in fear and ostracizing of those who happen to have such a disorder. Even the way we speak says a great deal. Most often we say "He (or she) is mentally ill". We do not, however speak that way say, of cancer. No one ever  says, "She (or he) IS cancer." As we speak, so we think (and feel). The former way of speaking about those who have a mental illness indicates that we equate the person with their illness. He or she IS mentally ill, no more, no less. To speak in such a way is to put the person in a little box, neat and defined and where they are expected to stay.

The problem is, however, that life is never quite so neat as our definitions. People with a mental  illness are not only that illness. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, coworkers and employers.  And so on. Often, the mental illness goes into remission, sometimes permanently. Why would we place a stigma on someone for a temporary condition and which affects only a part of their lives? We may as well tattoo "Mentally ill" on their foreheads. Essentially, that is what we do as a society. Those human beings are effectively pushed  away. Why? Because we are afraid of them. Why are we afraid? Because we do not understand and what we do not understand we fear. And what we fear we ostracize.

As a society we have been asked to (forced to, in many cases) get beyond that kind of fear several (many) times over. One only has to think about the civil rights movement. And even there, we have a long way to go. We have been so afraid at times that we have put people in camps (Japanese Americans during WW II) or on reservations (with Native Americans).  How often must we fight this same battle? Apparently we still have more work to do regarding inclusiveness and appreciating diversity. Those with a mental illness deserve to be respected and treated as full human beings and included in society as full participants. That can only happen, however, when we, as a society, make the decision not to be afraid of the differently abled. Let each of us make that decision sooner than later.