Verdict Delivered, Justice Denied?

I know the George Zimmerman case and the jury verdict have stirred up a lot of controversy. I know that people have strong emotions on both sides – those who feel justice was served, and those who feel justice was denied. I know that the “stand your ground” law in Florida was the basis for Zimmerman’s defense and ultimately the reason for his acquittal. I know these things, but I do not understand them. I do not understand how a young unarmed boy is killed, and his killer ends up being the victim. I do not understand that the “stand your ground” law is really the law, no matter the circumstances. I do not understand how anyone can look at what happened that night and honestly believe George Zimmerman is “not guilty.” I do not understand how anyone can believe that justice was served.

One rainy night in Florida a 17-year-old black boy wearing a hoody goes to the store, buys a few items, walks towards home, minding his own business, talking to a friend on the phone, and ends up shot dead before he can get there. Why? Because a 28-year-old man, a neighborhood watchman, a wanna-be policeman, thought this boy looked “suspicious” (well he was black and he was wearing a hoody and he was out at night, for God's sake!). This man, George Zimmerman, decides, before any direct contact with this boy,Trayvon Martin, just by looking at him, that Trayvon is a “fucking punk” up to no good. This man, George Zimmerman, carrying a loaded gun, chooses to follow Trayvon Martin, even though the police tell him not to. As a direct result of this pursuit, they get into a fight, and Trayvon (the pursued) defends himself as he has a right to do (well, maybe not in Florida) and Zimmerman, the instigator of this encounter, shoots Trayvon in the heart and Trayvon dies mere steps from his home. Why? Because Zimmerman, the pursuer, the instigator, who suffered only minor cuts and a bloody nose, all of a sudden "feared for his life.” And because this was a rainy night in Florida, regardless of the instigating role he played in creating and maintaining the fearful situation, despite the fact that he could have avoided any confrontation by just walking away, simply claiming he feared for his life was enough of a justification for the legal killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.  Is this really the law in Florida?

If this is the law in Florida, if Zimmerman indeed did have the right to defend himself with a gun because he feared for his life, then certainly Trayvon had the same right to defend himself with his fists when he felt his life threatened by some stranger stalking him. For Trayvon, fists were all he had – he did not have a gun. To say that using his fists, that defending himself, turned him into the aggressor and therefore it is his fault he is dead and the person who killed him is not at all legally responsible or culpable is, I believe, a twisted perversion of what happened and a gross miscarriage of justice. Did Trayvon Martin not have the right to “stand his ground?” Because in the act of defending himself his attacker got scared and killed him, this is all Trayvon Martin’s fault and George Zimmerman is “not guilty?” Is this really the law in Florida?

Zimmerman started the chain of events that led to the death of Trayvon Martin when he decided to get out of his car and follow Trayvon. Zimmerman was the cause, the instigator, the pursuer. Trayvon could not tell the police that he hit Zimmerman because he was frightened for his life. Trayvon could not claim that he inflicted a bloody nose and some scratches to Zimmerman’s head not as an overt act of aggression but while in the act of defending himself, in the act of “standing his ground.” Trayvon did not get the chance to tell the police anything at all about what happened or why it happened - because Trayvon was dead. George Zimmerman was the last man standing because he was the one who had the means –he had the gun - to end the confrontation, a confrontation instigated by him. Now the victim, Trayvon Martin, is not really the victim anymore; he is turned into the victimizer and is held responsible for his own murder. Is this really the law in Florida?

The way this tragedy unfolded, the first person to have a legitimate reason to be scared and fear for his life was Trayvon Martin. He was the one pursued by an unknown man, for what were to him unknown reasons. But we know the reason Zimmerman chose to pursue Trayvon - because George Zimmerman at first sight profiled him as a “fucking punk.” Because Trayvon was a young black man, wearing a hoody, walking the streets at night and Zimmerman was not going to let another one of these “assholes” get away. Without knowing Trayvon, without any prior knowledge of Trayvon, just by looking at him, Zimmerman decided that Trayvon Martin was a “fucking punk” and an “asshole.” These unprovoked, obviously hostile thoughts and feelings towards a black boy are what started this tragic chain of events that ended with this black boy shot and killed. Had Trayvon Martin been a white boy, George Zimmerman would not have pursued him, and Trayvon would not have died that rainy night in Florida.

 

What would the verdict  have been had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman during their fight, after he had been told by police to stay in his car, after uttering the same profanities, after stalking Zimmerman and getting into a fight and ending up with only minor injuries to show how threatened he felt? Would the police have believed him? Would the same argument that exonerated Zimmerman, “I got scared, I feared for my life, I stood my ground, so I killed him?” have worked for Trayvon?  Would the "stand your ground" law have protected him?  According to the evidence, Trayvon did stand his ground, but he got killed as a result and with this verdict, not only has George Zimmerman been declared "not guilty," Trayvon Martin's defense of his own life has been disregarded, disrespected and by some convoluted, frightening reasoning, has been found to be the cause of his own death.  This is the law in Florida.

Trayvon’s only mistake that night was being a black boy, wearing a hoody, walking home in George Zimmerman’s neighborhood. For that mistake, he paid with his life. That is very, very sad. What is even sadder is the jury’s verdict, not because it was not a legally correct verdict but because in Florida, it was.

Yes, the jury delivered a verdict – it most certainly did not deliver justice.

TIME FOR SENSIBLE GUN REGULATIONS

In the aftermath of the gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there has been a resurgence of discussions centered on the issue of gun control. Some argue that these discussions must not be about guns, but must be about issues of mental health and violence in the media and in video games. It is true that these are serious issues confronting us and society needs to address them. However, these are separate complex issues, which have merit in any conversation about violence in America but sadly are being used by those with a vested interest in the gun industry only to distract and divert attention from the pressing issue at hand, which is gun violence. They know that it will take time and financial resources to deal with the issues of mental illness; they know the depiction of violence in the movies or in video games is a 1^st Amendment issue that would certainly not be resolved quickly. They insist we need to take the time, that we can’t do anything quickly. That is simply not true and they know it. We can do something sensible right now about gun violence if we focus our attention on guns. We can talk about mental health and violence in America, but we need to talk about guns – it is time for common sense regulations.

What most people want, including the President and his Administration, is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, children, and criminals and to keep guns that have the capacity to kill large numbers of people, and whose only purpose is to do just that, off of our streets. Mandatory universal background checks and a complete ban on the purchase of military style weapons (guns capable of shooting multiple rounds without the shooter stopping to reload), and high capacity ammo clips (more than 10 bullets) by those not in law enforcement, are three practical ways to accomplish what most Americans believe is sensible and needed gun regulation.

While this makes sense to me and to most Americans, I know there are those on the extreme, the survivalists, who argue against any such regulations of the gun industry, fearing the government is out to “get them” and their guns. Gun manufacturers oppose such a gun and ammunition ban because selling these guns and high capacity ammo clips is highly profitable and they fear a loss of revenue. The NRA does not support such a ban because it fears losing the financial support of the gun manufacturers. Some politicians do not want to support such a ban for fear of losing the financial support of the NRA. Are any of these manufactured “fears” more worthy of consideration than the authentic concerns of those in favor of such a ban? Should the fears of the paranoid few who believe they need guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government outweigh the concerns of the vast majority of Americans who seek sensible regulations? Should any industry or organization’s greed for bigger profits carry more weight than the concern Americans have about the safety of the product producing those profits, whether that product is oil, cars, or guns?

“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.”

The 2^nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and neither universal background checks nor a prohibition on purchasing assault rifles infringe upon that right. President Obama never had, nor does he now have, the intention of taking away everyone’s guns. To believe otherwise is to believe the lie perpetrated by the conspiracy theorists, the NRA, the gun manufacturers or some politicians – all who have some personal, most often financial, stake in maintaining the status quo. Imposing sensible regulations on the sale and purchase of guns is well within the purview of the federal government; it is not an overreach and it does not mean all guns will eventually be banned. Every product made and sold in America is subject to regulations pertaining to that product’s safety; guns should not be exempt from such regulations simply because of some people’s contrived fears and other people’s greed.

This cannot be said often enough – the 2^nd Amendment is not being threatened. Nevertheless, the 2^nd Amendment has always been open to interpretation. What exactly did the founding fathers mean by a “well regulated Militia”? Whatever they meant back in 1791, the words imply that some form of regulation was considered appropriate; regulations in and of themselves do not infringe upon the 2^nd Amendment. Regulating who can purchase a gun and regulating what kind of guns are available for purchase by the public are not in violation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment and do not threaten it. Should policies restricting the purchase of some types of military style guns become law, the 2^nd Amendment will still exist and all adults who are qualified will still be able to purchase a handgun for protection and a rifle for hunting. A ban on the so-called “assault weapons” will not take away this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, a right most recently upheld in 2009 by the Supreme Court. It also will not prevent all gun violence. However, it can go a long way to prevent the kind of violence that devastated the children and staff of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

There are those who argue guns don’t kill people, people kill people. This argument says that guns are not to blame for the violence in society, people are. That is true – violence is not the by-product of owning guns; violence is the tragic consequence of complex psychological, mental, emotional, economic and sociological causes. The typical profile of a mass shooter is a young man who feels totally alienated from society, who feels invisible and voiceless; he did not become this way because of guns. However, the ability to obtain certain guns with high ammo clips makes it possible for him to turn his personal anguish and alienation from society into a vengeful attack on society in horrific, catastrophic ways, ways that would not be possible without those particular guns. Yes, with a handgun or a rifle he could shoot and kill a few people, but not 20 innocent children, each shot multiple times, within a matter of seconds. This kind of carnage cannot happen without these types of rapid-fire guns and high capacity ammo clips.

People behaving irresponsibly can do all kinds of damage with all types of means. Drunk drivers kill innocent people almost every day, proving that a car can be lethal; however, a car is not a lethal weapon whose only purpose is to kill; a car’s purpose is to provide transportation and that is why there is no ban on cars. A person can kill with a knife, but that is not the singular purpose for knives, and that is why we do not ban knives. The singular purpose of these rapid-fire, multiple shot rifles and guns and high capacity ammo clips is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible – there is no other purpose for these guns and there is no other purpose for these ammo clips – that is the only reason for their existence. They are not used for hunting, they are not used for self-defense; they are used for combat. For a soldier engaged in military combat there is good reason and a justifiable purpose to have such a powerful weapon and the ability to keep shooting and killing without stopping to reload his gun. However, what good reason or justifiable purpose would anyone not in combat ever have to own such a lethal gun and to have such a deadly ability?

According to the head of the NRA, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. That does not make sense to me – that sounds like a return to the lawless Wild West and with the availability of today’s lethal weaponry that cannot be good for society; that will not make us safer. We do not need to arm teachers to protect our children from the type of devastation a seriously deranged person can inflict with a high-powered, rapid-fire rifle with ammo clips that shoot 100 bullets. I would argue that the only sensible non-violent way to prevent such a bad guy from committing such carnage is to prevent him from having that gun in the first place.

The President made his recommendations on Wednesday. I hope his recommendations will receive serious consideration from all members of Congress. Mandatory universal background checks for the purchase of any gun, banning the sale of high capacity ammo clips and restricting the sale of rapid-fire military assault type weapons are three measures while not addressing – and certainly not solving – the causes of violence, would go a long way to protect society from the devastating effects of this particular kind of gun violence – the kind that kills numerous innocent children and adults, within minutes, and without pause. This is the kind of sensible gun legislation Americans deserve and I hope that this time they get it. I hope that this time common sense triumphs over fear and greed.

Share this:

• Press This
• Twitter1
• Facebook

Like this:

Like

Be the first to like this.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

This entry was posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site. Edit this entry.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

WHY I VOTED FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

I am a Liberal, a Progressive, a Lefty, a Radical Feminist. I proudly embrace these labels because of the values they represent. These are my values and why I have supported and continue to support President Obama – I believe he has proven that he shares these values and therefore shares my vision of the values I believe will be at the heart of the American future we are creating.

 

For me, the election of 2012 was all about a choice, a choice between 2 different sets of values. Values matter. Personal values reflect what matters most to the individual in the living of her life, of what gives her life meaning and significance. Political policies reflect the values of the politician proposing the policies; what a politician chooses to spend tax dollars on reflects what she values. Party platforms reflect the values of that political Party – what the Party says matters most – which is a clear indication of how they would govern. Our vote is our way of claiming and owning the values we want to see reflected by those in whom we are placing our trust to govern.

 

So what are the values I hold that define me as a liberal, progressive, lefty, radical feminist? (They are not really that far-out in my opinion but there are those who seem to think these values are somehow un-American and that I am someone to fear and from whom they have to take America “back,” whatever that means.)

 

I value the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe we all should have the liberty to choose whom we love and whom we marry. In that pursuit of happiness, we all should have the liberty to create our family according to our choosing and not have government mandating what the proper definition of family (or marriage) is and should be.

 

I value our democracy so I value voting and believe in voter’s rights. In the democracy I value, it is the right of every citizen to vote and have her voice heard. The government should protect this right for all citizens and not actively seek to make it harder to vote for those who are senior, poor or are a minority.

 

I value the separation of church and state. No God and no religion should ever be mandated the “right” God or religion for America (or the rest of the world, either).

 

I value women so I believe women should be paid the same amount for the same work. I believe women should be the deciders when it comes to their healthcare. I believe in a woman’s right to choose when or if she has a baby. I believe women should always have their voices heard and valued when politicians debate issues that concern women.

 

I value community. We are individuals on our very unique life’s journey but a shared path on that journey is the community we have co-created, the community that is The United States of America. Everything that is America is the result of what generations of Americans have created together with their combined strengths and weaknesses, their combined dreams and aspirations, their shared hopes and fears; their sweat, blood and tears. America is a community of 300 million people, and no matter how independent each one of us is, we are not separate from one another – we have impact, we have presence, we give and we receive from each other, in both small and large ways. We work together for the common good. We support each other in times of need. We care about our mutual welfare.

 

I value Government. Corporations aren’t people but community is and government has a vital role to play in providing for the safety, security and well-being of the people of this community because no individual can do all that on her own. We pay taxes to support the general welfare – taxes are a form of shared contribution to the community of which we are a part and from which we benefit. I can’t protect the community from those who would put profit above the safety of the cars we drive, the trains we ride, the toys we buy for our children, the drugs we take, or the food we put on our table, but government can. I can’t help protect my community from those who would put monetary profit above clean air and clean water and from those who would put monetary profit above the protection and preservation of our natural habitats and the wild-life that shares these habitats, but government can. I can’t protect my community from discrimination in employment, education or housing because of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, but government can. I can’t provide access to affordable, quality health care to those in need so they can live life free from the burden and fear of medical bills that could put them in financial ruin and negatively impact the rest of my community, but government can. Public schools? Fire and police protection? A social safety net for seniors, the sick, the poor, those struggling to provide a safe home for their families? Explore space? Invest in infrastructure? These are just some of the “big” things that only can be done well when we do them together, and we do them together through our government.

 

It would be nice if we didn’t need laws and regulations, if everyone did the right thing by everyone else out of mutual respect and caring, but that is not the world in which we live. At least, not yet. Government is not the enemy – government is the governing arm of our community, designed to do the things we can’t do alone. When we lose sight of the fact we are a community, that we have certain moral obligations to one another and that government of the people, by the people and for the people plays a significant role in that, then we lose a fundamental value of what it means to be an American.

 

As Abraham Lincoln said so well: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot so well do for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.”

 

I value the global community and so I believe in coalitions, in partnerships, in respecting and working together in cooperation with other members of this community. I believe in patient diplomacy. I believe in always seeking a non-violent solution to a global threat. I believe in restraint on when or if to deploy military force. I believe it is inhumane to demonize others, to diminish others in the world who are different. My community is a member of the larger global community and therefore should do its part for the safety, security and well-being of that community. I believe the United States should be an example to other nations in the way we respect others and in the way we honor our core principles even when times are challenging.

 

These are not my only values but they form the core of what I believe matters in the living of life. So as I looked at my choices this election, it was clear to me there was only one candidate running for president who shares my values, and that is the man who is president, Barack Obama. Do I think he is perfect? Of course not. Have I agreed with everything he has done? Again, of course not. But I did not vote for perfection in either the man or the policies – I voted for a set a values that I believe are critical for the future of this country and a president who at his core knows the values that matter most in the living of life; values that reflect a more just and fair society where individual success is not measured only in dollars and cents. President Obama has proven to me that he shares my values and my vision for the future of the country I love.

 

I also value and admire Barack Obama, and not only because he shares my values and my vision for America. I value his intelligence, his patience, his calm demeanor especially during these turbulent times. I value his depth of character, his integrity and his family values. I value his deliberateness in dealing with issues and his ability to focus on the current picture while never losing sight of the bigger picture – a true sign of wisdom. I admire and am grateful to him for the policies he put in place and the actions he took after taking office and discovering the economy was in worse shape than anyone had predicted – it truly was in free fall, we were on the brink of a depression, and he stopped the fall and has slowly brought us back on the road to recovery. I admire his regard for human dignity. I admire his ability to withstand with such grace the constant onslaught of the “haters” – those, including politicians with whom he has to work, who from day one and to this day continue to assault his character, his religion, his patriotism and even his legitimacy to be president. They constantly accuse him of things he doesn’t believe, hasn’t done and has no plans to do, like suspending the 2nd Amendment. While I can understand disagreeing with him on issues and believing there are better options for dealing with the economy, I do not understand this constant barrage of lies and hate. I know it has nothing to do with his policies, because the lying and hate began before he ever stepped into the office. This is not policy driven, it is driven by something else, something that to me seems completely irrational and is sourced in something much deeper than legitimate political differences.

 

And besides the “haters” he has been faced with a Republican opposition that also began on the day of his inauguration and has been relentless ever since. When the stated goal by those with whom he has to work to get things done is to make sure he is a one-term president and they agree to oppose everything he proposes – even stuff that they used to agree with! – so that he will not be able to claim any victories or successes, well, I am amazed President Obama has been able to get so much done anyway . And I only think of how much better off the country would be today if these men who trumpet their patriotism at every opportunity would have demonstrated that patriotism. What they demonstrated by their concerted effort to thwart President Obama’s every attempt to revive this economy – an economy they had helped put into financial ruin with two unfunded wars, an unfunded entitlement program, and 2 tax cuts that exploded the deficit – was their cynicism and their contempt, not only contempt for Obama the man, but for Obama as the duly elected leader of this country, the country they supposedly love.

 

I still believe in the power of hope and the change that is possible when that hope is shared by many. I still believe that greatness is possible, for President Obama and for our country. I still believe it is not too late to create that reality. And that is why I  proudly cast my vote on Nov. 6th for President Barack Obama.

Lance Armstrong’s Road to Redemption

Lance Armstrong is starting out on his road to redemption; he is seeking forgiveness.  He apparently has taken step one,  owning up to what many have known, to what most have suspected and to what he has denied for years, that he took performance-enhancing drugs.  His interview with Oprah will air tomorrow and then we all will hear the full extent of his mea culpa; we will hear how sincere it is and how deep it goes.  I hope that we will hear him own the damage he has done; I hope that he will not evade full personal responsibility by shifting blame to others.  Recognizing that he alone is responsible for the choices he made is critical – it is not enough to say, yes, I did it, but; there is no room for “but” on his road to redemption.  People will not forgive him if he does not own full responsibility for the choices he made.

We will also hear why he has decided to confess now, after all these years of vehement denial.  I think his motivation for doing so will carry a great deal of weight with the public’s perception of him; his motive will matter. I sincerely hope his motive goes deeper than simply the desire to compete again, as some have suggested; I hope his motive to tell the truth comes from knowing that the many people he denigrated and harmed while he was dishonestly defending himself deserve at minimum his public acknowledgement that they were telling the truth.  Asking for  forgiveness is important  but it will be difficult to forgive him  if he does not acknowledge and take responsibility for the negative impact his choices have had on other people’s lives, not just his own.

Lance’s cheating and lying over the years have hurt so many people, people who were personally very close to him as well as fellow athletes.  He has hurt his foundation, “Live Strong.”  He has disillusioned millions who admired him. He has turned his own heroic story into a sad tale of disgrace.  Not only did he lose friends and admirers, not only did he lose the trust and respect others had for him,  he lost his self-esteem, his self-worth, his image;  with his overwhelming desire to win at any cost, he paid a very high price -  he lost himself.   

If the athletic community and the public forgive him and allow him to re-enter the world of sports that will certainly give Lance the opportunity to regain doing what he loves, competing.  If those closest to him forgive him that will certainly give him a measure of inner peace.  However, the forgiveness Lance needs in order to reclaim all that he lost of himself is his own; he needs to forgive himself. 

Regardless of how sincerely remorseful he is over what he has done, the consequences of his actions may always include a life without professional athletic competition, a life without having legions of adoring admirers.  Lance will never be able to reclaim all that he lost from the outside world; no matter how contrite and sorry he is, he cannot turn back the clock and regain his life as he knew it.  Losing so much through acts that were completely of his choosing is self-sabotage on a grand scale. Getting the forgiveness of others will not be easy; getting his own may be his biggest challenge of all.  

Lance has started on a path that in order to travel well will take a great deal of personal soul-searching, will and integrity; it will not be without difficulty and it certainly may not end where he now hopes; his former life will not be restored.  How he inhabits his new reality matters.  If he handles the challenges he surely will face with dignity, if he creates a life of meaning out of the debris of his old life, if he lives his life in accordance with the true sentiment of “Live Strong,” he will have the ability to face and overcome the obstacles on his path towards redemption.  I do not know if he will succeed, but I wish him well on his journey.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

I have to admit that I am very frustrated and somewhat baffled with the way President Obama is handling the crisis in the gulf. I do believe that he is aware of everything that is happening in regards to this horrendous oil disaster, and that he has put all of the government's available resources into that area. I do not believe as some are claiming that he doesn't care about the environment, or white fisherman, or about the impact this is having on the people, the wetlands, and the fishing industry. I am sure he is doing everything that he can do, short of putting on a wet suit and diving gear and plugging the hole himself, to insure that BP is doing everything possible to put an end to this disaster. I realize and understand that there is just so much he can personally do to stop this gusher and prevent the oil from destroying the wetlands and the entire gulf coast fishing industry. However - and this is where my frustration comes in - despite all that he is probably doing, and I have no reason to doubt his complete involvement and concern with the day to day progress of containing this spill, he simply does not appear to be outraged.

This is not the time for tempered or measured responses - this is not the time for calm deliberation and assessment. There is a time for that to be sure - but not yet, not now. As the oil continues to spew into our ocean, as the wetlands are beginning to be destroyed, as birds are covered with oil, as the fishermen are slowly losing their way of life with no relief in sight, and with the undeniable knowledge that this was all preventable, now is the time for some emotional intensity, now is the time for some presidential outrage.

Outrage, because this was an accident that did not need to happen. All the evidence shows that British Petroleum (BP) acted without following all safety procedures - they cut corners in order to save money and because they did, there was an explosion. The explosion happened because of carelessness and greed. Because there was more attention given to ways to save money than ways to guarantee a safe drilling operation, 11 people died and oil is polluting our ocean, our coast line and many people's livelihood. Because of BP's malfeasance, we have an environmental and economic catastrophe that will haunt us for generations.

Outrage, because after the explosion, it was very apparent that BP was unable to stop the oil from gushing into the ocean - they were not prepared in case of an accident - they had no reliable and tested way to stop this "leak" this far under the ocean's surface. They proceeded with this drilling operation knowing that they were unable and unprepared to prevent a spill and should a spill occur, to stop it. This is nothing short of criminal negligence.

Outrage because BP is now knowingly polluting our ocean and our sea life with poisonous chemical dispersants, chemicals that are known to cause damage to sea life and humans, and that will have a lingering effect on sea life and humans for years to come - long after the visible signs of pollution are gone this invisible pollutant will continue to devastate.

I realize that feeling and expressing outrage does not solve problems - outrage is not a substitute for responsible action - but it is a motivating energy and there are times when it is the only legitimate and very human reaction to a situation that is unconscionable. It was outrage at injustice that finally got a Civil Rights bill passed in 1964 - it is outrage at the banks and Wall Street that is motivating financial reform today. What is happening in the Gulf is a disaster of enormous proportion. The damage the Gulf is sustaining, both to its environment and to its people, is immeasurable - there is no way to calculate the impact and scope of this devastation on the ocean, the fish, the ecology, and the livelihood of an entire region. And all of this was avoidable if BP had exercised caution and followed safety procedures and if our regulating agencies in charge of making sure safety procedures are followed had done their jobs. If this is not a situation that demands outrage from our president, then I don't know what is.

Is there no one in the administration who remembers what happened to President Bush during Katrina? Does no one remember how the perception that he didn't care and wasn't involved hurt him politically? Why do the people who advise President Obama think that this is any different? The President has been hurt by his seemingly cool and calm demeanor, his lack of visibility at the site of this disaster, and mostly, his seemingly complete lack of outrage at the people responsible for this national tragedy. He has given fuel to those who will use this apparent disconnect from the outrage that most people feel about what has happened to show that he is not a man in touch with the people, that he is arrogant and remote and above it all, and even worse, that he is incompetent and incapable of being a good leader. All of this could have been avoided. All the President needed was someone to tell him to be there and to be there often. Be with the families whose lives are being destroyed. Be with the families of the men whose lives were lost. Be on the scene - show you care - show you understand - and show you share the nation's outrage at what has happened and at the people who deliberately allowed it to happen through extreme and reckless negligence.


I am sure the President is angry. I am certain he feels the outrage many of us feel at this escalating crisis. My advice to the President is to show that anger, show that outrage, and not just at BP. Get angry at the regulators who are complicit in this crime. Be outraged at the irresponsible and reckless behavior of all parties involved. Don't just promise to investigate - there is enough evidence of governmental and corporate malpractice right now to take immediate action. Be outraged enough to put a halt to further oil drilling off of our shores, not just temporarily but forever. Be outraged enough to immediately stop the subsidies we give oil companies to drill for our oil in our waters and then keep the oil to sell to the highest bidder. Be outraged enough at the ineffectual and corrupt culture at the agency responsible for overseeing and regulating the oil industry and fire every single upper management person who has been a part of this abysmal and corrupt agency. This simply is not the time to stay above the fray, to appear to be aloof. It certainly is not a time to be out and about fundraising. It is not a time to be taking vacations, no matter how well deserved. This is a time to be visibly present at the scene of the worst environmental disaster to hit our nation in decades; present in both body and spirit. Be there, Mr. President. And please, I beg of you - be outraged.

AMERICA IS A BETTER COUNTRY THAN THAT

I am usually a patient and understanding person. I know that not everyone sees the world through the same filters as I do and therefore our interpretation of what is happening in that world can be very different. When my viewpoint and other’s viewpoints clash, I do my best to see the world through their eyes; I really try not to jump to arbitrary conclusions or stereotype people because of our ideological differences. Most of the time, I succeed, but the debate over healthcare reform between the Republicans and the Democrats has sorely tested both my patience and my understanding.

I know that not everyone who is opposed to healthcare reform and/or this particular Senate bill feels this way because he or she hates Obama. I know there are people who oppose this bill on principle – they do not believe the government has any legitimate role in regulating private industry. This is an honest difference of opinion and can be debated by reasonable people. I also know there are people who are opposed to this bill not on principle or because they are opposed to healthcare reform, but only because they have been listening to the lies of those who do hate Obama. I am increasingly weary of the lies and of the liars.

I am also increasingly angry with those who insist on distorting the truth – who lie - about the healthcare bills from the House and the Senate. The lies are purely for a political purpose, for the expressed agenda of bringing down President Obama, of not allowing him to succeed. There is simply no truth to the continuous and loud ranting and ravings that this bill is a government takeover of healthcare. The politicians and pundits who claim this are lying – and I say they are lying because they know what they are saying is not true; deliberately saying something that is not true is by definition, lying.

This bill is not a government takeover of healthcare! It is not even close to being that. One of the provisions that is in the proposed legislation is exactly what the Republicans proposed months ago – an insurance exchange, where those without employer provided insurance and small businesses that have a hard time providing insurance for their employees, can go and shop around for affordable insurance. It would be affordable, or at least more affordable than what insurance costs today, because of the competition, and it would not be “a government run health plan” – there is no government run health plan option in this bill!

The Senate bill, which is what President Obama is supporting, besides creating an exchange, sets minimum requirements on any insurance company that wants to participate in the exchange, so that there would be some basic standardized care provided by all the participating insurance companies. These are government regulations, not control and nowhere near being a takeover of healthcare. As President Obama said, this is no more a government intrusion into the lives of Americans than the FDA requiring testing of new drugs to make sure they (the drugs) do not kill people, or the government setting standards for the handling and processing of our food so that our food is safe to eat. Most people I think would appreciate this kind of regulation and do not fear this is taking away their rights or their freedoms.

What is being proposed right now this very minute in the healthcare bill being debated is just that – regulations that would set a standard for the basic services provided by the insurance companies participating in the exchange so that no matter what insurance company a person chose - whatever private, for profit, non-government insurance company - there would be uniformity in some basic services.

And let’s talk about the horrors of mandates. Who first proposed using mandates as a way to get everyone insured and at the same time keep costs down? Um, that would be Republicans. And when did they do this? That would be back in 1993 as part of their counter-proposal to the Clinton healthcare initiative. Ironically, back then it wasn’t considered unconstitutional by any Republican – nor was it considered unconstitutional as far back as June of 2009 when it was again proposed by Republicans as their better way than a public option to get everyone insured. And guess what? The mandates are now in the bill and all of a sudden - surprise, surprise - mandates have suddenly become unconstitutional.

I could go on and on about the blatant hypocrisy of those politicians who mere months ago supported something and now, because it is in the bill, because their input was heard and accepted, no longer support what they once supported and simultaneously whine that their input was ignored. If their input now is reduced to “let’s start over,” which is what apparently it has come to, I hope this time the Democrats do ignore what the Republicans say they want, because further delay is not what Americans want. Americans do want their politicians to stop the endless bickering – and they want insurance reform.

But I wonder, isn’t the Republican cry to start over really just code for wanting to scrap the entire process of healthcare reform – for not doing anything substantial, now or ever?

Republicans claim they want to start over; I claim they do not. They want to scrap the entire process of healthcare reform, saying it is “too complicated” but really meaning that they do not see any political advantage to themselves in changing this broken system. And yes this system is broken. America may have the best healthcare in the world, but it has an abysmal health insurance industry that makes getting this best healthcare financially prohibitive and almost impossible for far too many of her citizens.

When we get right down to it, Republicans do not want to tamper with a system that seems to work well for them, despite the fact that this system is not working well for far too many Americans. Republicans are happy with the status quo because they cannot see how doing something this good for the American people during the first year or term of Obama’s presidency could possibly be good for them in the upcoming elections of 2010 and more significantly, 2012. Because it is difficult to come right out and say that (unless you’re Beck or Limbaugh), Republicans have resorted to the tactics of lying about what is in the bill and what this bill will do to America – they have lied over and over again in order to scare the American people. Sadly, it looks like their tactics have worked and now too many Americans are unsure of what is in this bill and what this bill will do for them.

The entire bill is designed to provide consumers with protections against the arbitrary and capricious ways of the insurance company. Get sick? No problem, they just drop your insurance. Been sick before? No problem, they just deny you and your family any insurance – or charge you so much for insurance you probably won’t be able to buy it. Or they raise premiums because they can – they don’t even need a legitimate reason.

This bill is not perfect but if perfection was the criterion for getting a bill passed through Congress, no bill would ever pass. If it were up to me, I would insist upon a public option because it is the only guaranteed way to provide genuine competition and therefore keep costs down, but a public option, i.e. a government run healthcare plan, is not in the bill and has not been in the bill since it came out of the Senate. The House bill has a public option and that may still be incorporated into the Senate bill, but that seems doubtful – which is sad to me, not something over which to rejoice. And if that were to happen, if a public option were included in the bill, and if a public option were to become available to Americans – that still would not be a government takeover of healthcare – that would be additional choice and competition, two concepts most Americans embrace as part of the American way.

This bill, imperfect as it may be, is not a government takeover of the entire healthcare system. This bill is not proof that Obama is a socialist and wants to have the government run the entire country – that is just a talking point meant to scare people, not inform them. This bill is not the end of the United States of America as we know it. The provisions in this bill are intended to protect consumers against the proven greed of the insurance companies, because all of the practices that insurance companies have engaged in are calculated to do one thing and one thing only – increase the bottom line for their shareholders at the expense of the insured. This is not just about a private industry making profits – this is about a private industry making excessive profits to the detriment of the people who through their premiums are supporting this industry for the purpose of being insured should they get sick – not to guarantee that the CEOs can get an enormous bonus for coming up with even more artful ways to deny paying claims.

What the insurance companies are doing is legal within the laws of the United States but I find it to be morally corrupt and an antithesis to the true Spirit of the United States. That is why I support government intervention – regulations and not a takeover – so that insurance companies have some restrictions placed upon their practices. Insurance companies should not maintain the unfettered freedom to continue making their excessive profits at the expense of the health, well-being and sadly all too often, the lives of the American people; America is a better country than that.

AND STILL THEY CHEERED

I forced myself to listen to Sarah Palin address the Tea Party Convention the other night, knowing that I wouldn't like what I heard and that I would end up feeling distressed. I suppose that statement precludes any argument I might make that I am open-minded when it comes to Ms. Palin, but after all these months of watching her in action, if I suddenly expected her to be different, it would also mean I was suddenly delusional. Sarah won't change because Sarah likes Sarah and sadly, so do too many others within the right-wing of the Republican Party. Listening to her was bad enough - it truly was distressing - but listening to the cheering crowd was so much more than distressing, it was downright depressing.

Why were these tea-partiers cheering? As far as I could tell, Palin didn't say anything of substance or anything that was meaningful or insightful. And yet they cheered. She spoke like a not-too-bright cutesy teenage girl with all the requisite winks and smiles, and still they cheered. She rehashed partisan lies, she was sarcastic and snarkey, she mocked and ridiculed Obama, and you betchya, they cheered. Palin is an embarrassment to any woman who is serious about governing and who demands to be taken seriously; she is an intellectual light-weight, a woman lacking substance - she is a caricature of everything that is wrong with politicians - and still the crowd cheered. No wonder I was depressed!

My short assessment of Sarah Palin: ego-centric narcissist with delusions of grandeur. Her self-image is so distorted and inflated that she actually sees herself as someone who is capable and deserving of being President of the United States. This is so outrageous, it is laughable. But that there are grownup, voting Americans who feel the same way, well, that isn't funny at all - that is so very, very sad. And it certainly isn't worthy of our cheers.