Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Capitalism; Dead, Alive, and Broken

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org For but a moment, whilst the Group of 20 [G20] met in London's ancient financial capital, ,"The City," the roars of remorse, could be heard.  Words of woe had been whispered in hushed tones for quite some time.  Scholars spoke of various possibilities on occasion.  Whether Senior Economic Fellows from various think-tanks thought a system to be dead, alive, or near doomed, there was perhaps a bit of agreement.  "I see what you mean.  It is broken," Economist Mark Thoma mused more than a year ago.

The public screamed out in pain for decades; however, few cared about the cries of countless common folks.  Those who argued against principles that place profits before people were easily ignored for they had no power and less influence.  Much to the chagrin of corporate titans, even Economistswarned; this could be the end of Capitalism.  Yet, until early in the day, only weeks ago, no one paid much attention to what has become a customary declaration for everyday workers.  Morning has broken, and Capitalism is shattered as well.  

America adopted and advanced a system that was unsustainable..  More than once, "systemic failures" revealed the folly of free enterprise principles.  Nonetheless, worldwide people were convinced to purchase damaged goods and premises.  Yet, as Journalist Professor, Robert Jensen contends, "most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics" do not want to admit that this is so.

Wanted; Dead or Alive 
The evidence is everywhere.  What was a question rarely uttered, "Is Capitalism Dead?" has become a statement, or perhaps the dream of those who have been severely affected by this most devastating downturn.

Wealthy watch breathlessly as stock markets crash.  Banks fail.  Blue Chip companies crumble.  Foreclosures flourish, and people, those once thoughtprosperous, pour out onto the avenue in search of a job, or some sense of stability.

Perhaps, that is why, average citizens felt a need to break the silence, to speak of the broken Capitalist system.  In the shadow of powerful and prosperous Presidents and Prime Ministers, who gathered together for the G20 Conference, 4,000 demonstrators pleaded, not for pity, but for relief from a fiscal system that requires poverty.  

Frustrated and forlorn by an attitude that fosters further advancement of free market principles, at least in the United Kingdom, dissenters shouted in disgust.  It would not be wise to work within an economic structure that changed the global culture in ways that ultimately brought international institutions down.  

On a fateful day, early in April a young girl in the crowd, Aeyla Windridge pleaded.  I want "the death of Capitalism."  The twelve-year-old spoke to what Heads of State had not for centuries.  "Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis," so said another activist.  

Recovery, Reinvestment, and Rescue 
Few of the principal players, those who represented the twenty participant countries were willing, or able to acknowledge the free market theory is flawed.  Most of the prominent Heads of State were, and continue to be, content with sanguine assessments.  Up to 85 percent of global gross national product comes from the shores of but a score of countries.  Eighty [80] percent  of world trade comes from these territories.  Americans, who might be thought of as the authors of Capitalism, saw and see no reason to change the status quo, at least not substantially.

Borrow and spend had worked well in the past for the superpower, or so the US government attempted to advocate.  While the President poses this philosophy cannot stand, America must move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," in the same breath, the Chief Executive who represents the country that gave birth to free enterprise, endorses the framework, just as those who preceded him did. (Please peruse the text What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan)

Capitalism, the Obama Administration states, was not the cause of the planet-wide monetary collapse.  Only greed, excesses, and a lack of regulations brought about the demise of the dollar, and the rate of exchange.  As he addressed other world leaders in attendance at the G20 Conference President Obama conceded, "the crisis began in the United States.  I take responsibility even if I wasn't even president at the time." However, Mister Obama contends all countries must be accountable for this massive macro-breakdown.  America's Chief Executive proposes plans intended to strengthen a Capitalist structure.

In his April 4, 2009 Action to Address to the Global Economic Downturn, President Obama encouraged more regulations in an attempt to expand a consumer-based Capitalist theory.  With little regard for how the American way of life, which the President does not apologize for, cripples common, people throughout the world, Mister Obama declared. 

"(W)e know that the success of America's economy is inextricably linked to that of the global economy. If people in other countries cannot spend, that means they cannot buy the goods we produce here in America,  . . . if we continue to let banks and other financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, that affects institutions here at home as credit dries up, and people can't get loans to buy a home or car, to run a small business or pay for college.

Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination."

One is reminded of why, in earlier years, no one spoke vociferously of the crisis that is Capitalism.  Ordinary people were busy.  For centuries, regular folks worked day and night only to bring home a nominal paycheck.  Even in prosperous nations, people could barely afford to put food on the table.  People took trivial jobs just to secure shelter.  Millions felt forced to pursue professional paths that offer few rewards.  The only goal for the average Joe and Jane was to stay afloat.  Few have had the time or energy to protest their circumstances, or what the powers-that-be had and have imposed internationally.  Today, and in the past, worldwide economic slavery has sufficed.  That is until now.  

Lest the President and Prime Ministers elsewhere forget, in the States, and abroad, people are out of work.  The promise of an ownership society,where "people, from all walks of life," would open the door of their private residence and say, "Welcome to my home" proved to be but a myth.  The pledge of plump stock portfolios for everyone through Capitalism was a claim never substantiated.  Contrary to the oft-voiced assurances, the American Dream could be achieved anywhere on Earth If people only invested in a free market economy, this current fiscal crisis has shown the world, words were but wishes promoted by the prosperous.

Regardless of how average people are punished by a fiscal formula that requires there be poor people, the current President intends to preserve the Capitalist principles that govern a global economy.  While Mister Obama may not profess a commitment to an "ownership society," he too wishes to encourage people to possess what they cannot afford.  

Broken Beyond Benevolence 
In contrast, more than a few Economists have begun to contemplate the wisdom of a system based on constant consumption.  Experts in monetary movements examine, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. Other statistician who study the social science of fiscal affairs suggest there is ""Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism."  Certainly, no matter the belief, with cause, "Capitalism is under fire."  

William Pfaff, the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history has pondered the depths of a paradigm profoundly broken. Mister Pfaff offers a perspective less limited than the simpler theories often presented by Administrations and Academics.  The  observer of intercontinental issues writes . . . 

The essential question is, what capitalism are we talking about? Since the 1970s, two fundamental changes have been made in the leading (American) model of capitalism.

The first is that the "stakeholder," post-New Deal reformed version of capitalism (in America) that prevailed in the West after World War II was replaced by a new model of corporate purpose and responsibility.

The earlier model said that corporations had a duty to ensure the well-being of employees, and an obligation to the community (chiefly but not exclusively fulfilled through corporate tax payments).

That model has been replaced by one in which corporation managers are responsible for creating short-term "value" for owners, as measured by stock valuation and quarterly dividends.

The practical result has been constant pressure to reduce wages and worker benefits (leading in some cases to theft of pensions and other crimes), and political lobbying and public persuasion to lower the corporate tax contribution to government finance and the public interest.

In short, the system in the advanced countries has been rejigged since the 1960s to take wealth from workers, and from the funding of government, and transfer it to stockholders and corporate executives.

There is ample evidence to support the author's contention.  In 1970, the recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize on Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, encouraged an emphasis on corporate earnings. A culture that creates a vibrant community, Friedman insisted is counter to "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits"

Decades later, his disciples of sorts, Presidents Ronald Reagan,  George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, each implemented plans that increased earned income for the influential and decreased available dollars for the already disadvantaged.  Policies designed to protect and promote an American entrepreneurial taxonomy, or Capitalistic interests, were proposed as a means to spread democracy.  Planet-wide, people and economic practices were transformed. 

The second change that has taken place is globalization.  The crucial effect of this for society in the advanced countries is that it puts labor into competition with the poorest countries on earth.

We need go no further with what I realize is a very complex matter, other than to note the classical economist David Ricardo's "iron law of wages," which says that in conditions of wage competition and unlimited labor supply, wages will fall to just above subsistence.

There never before has been unlimited labor.  There is now, thanks to globalization - and the process has only begun.

The variance is vast.  Those who have possess so much.  The portion of population that owns little, have far less than even an average individual might imagine.  The wealthy cannot conceive of a life where food might be the most valuable commodity.  A world in which water is worth more than gold seems unthinkable to those who thrive in "civilized" communities,  Yet, this reality may come to towns in a Capitalist country.   Indeed, in some American communities, this truth appears today.

Nonetheless, agreements secured at the G20 summit ensure the adoption of a debt-driven American-style "democracy."  An arrangement, in which all are not created equal, will continue to be the practiced and preferred economic system planet-wide.  People will once again forget assessments presented less than a decade ago. 

Many of the radicals leading the protests may be on the political fringe.  But they have helped to kick-start a profound re-thinking  about globalization among governments, mainstream economists, and corporations that, until recently, was carried on mostly in obscure think tanks and academic seminars.

The reassessment is badly overdue.  In the late 20th century, global capitalism was pushed by leaps in technology, the failure of socialism, and East Asian's seemingly miraculous success.  Now, it's time to get realistic.  the plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused damage to poor nations.  What's more, there's no point denying that multi-nationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profits around the globe . . .

(After a ten-year expansion of market capitalism around the world, as of the year 2000) The World Bank figures the number of people living on a $1 a day increased to 1.3 billion, over the past decade.

The extremes of global capitalism are astonishing . . .  If global capitalism's flaws aren't addressed, the backlash could grow more severe.

Indeed, the repercussions have been relentless.  Near a century of consumption, solely for the sake of profits, has weakened the world.  The current fiscal crisis reveals Capitalism was never the cure for what ails the people on this planet.  Persistent poverty, and the threat of increased insolvency, born out of a free enterprise system is an expense few, if any, can afford.  One need only look at the Capitalism and what it has wrought.  Avaricious individuals may acknowledge one reaps what one sows.  Independently, or collectively, as a global community anyone might come to understand, "If my brother is poor, I/we too will suffer.  Ultimately, I/we will pay for the poverty I/we accept."  

Without such a realization, and inspired by the spirit of an individualism that has flourished amongst free-marketers, people may, as President Obama proclaimed.  Worldwide, or here at home, we "want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that [has] been missing."  However, it is not another glorious "morning in America."  Nor is it a beautiful day in most neighborhoods.  Were the clouds to clear, globally people might avow, authentically, there need be an actual new dawn.  It is time to dream of economic structures that have never been.

The majorities in the States, and throughout the globe, are no longer silent.  Common folks have spoken.  Capitalism is broken.  It is not wanted, dead or alive.

Sources for economic and empathetic structures . . . 

• Is Capitalism Dead?  No. By William Galston.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Maybe. By J.D. Foster.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Yes. By Alan Reynolds.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• I See What You Mean, It Is Broken, By Mark Thoma.  Economist View.  January 24, 2008
• 'The World As We Know It Is Going Down', By Marc Pitzke.  Spiegel International. September 18, 2008
• Systemic Failure: Capitalism "Lays An Egg," By Stephen Lendman.  SteveLendmanBlog. March 2, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Is Capitalism Dead?  The Washington Post. October 20, 2008
• Recession Pain, Even in Palm Beach, By David Segal.  The New York Times. April 12, 2009
• Blair: Global economic fallout is nation's major threat.  Cable News Network. February 12, 2009
• The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, By Milton Friedman.  The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970.  Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
• Colorado bank biggest US bank failure of 2009.  AFP. April 10, 2009
• Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, By Mark Healy.  The New York Times March 6, 2009
• U.S. foreclosure filings rise in February, By Lynn Adler.  Reuters. March 12, 2009
• In Defense of Income Inequality, By Peter Schwatrz.  Capitalism Magazine. March 28, 2009
• Congressional Finance Chair Discusses U.S. Economy. NewsHour.  September 3, 2007
• Disowned by the Ownership Society, By Naomi Klein.  The Nation. January 31, 2008
• The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola.  The Washington Post.  October 9, 2008
• The G-20 and the Future of Capitalism - Part I,  By Jeffrey E. Garten.  Yale Global. March 30, 2009
• President Obama's News Conference; Transcript.  The New York Times. March 24, 2009
• Century of Self.
• Story of Stuff.  By Annie Leonard.  The Sustainability Funders and Tides Foundation.
• Address by Governor Ronald Reagan, Installation of President Robert Hill, Chico State College. May 20, 1967
• What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan.  Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College.  November 10, 1977
• 12-Year-Old Protester: 'Death of Capitalism.' By F. Brinley Bruton.  MSNBC News. April 1, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Global Capitalism,  Can it be made to work better?  By Pete Engardio with Catherine Belton.  Business Week. November 6, 2000
• Obama's G-20 confession: "I take responsibility." By Marc Hujer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Christoph Schwennicke.  Salon. April 7, 2009
• Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address, The White House. Saturday, April 4, 2009
• Globalization: A Reference Handbook, By Justin Ervin, Zachary A. Smith.  2008
• Capiatlism at bay, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not.  The Economist. October 16, 2008
• "Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism," By David Wessel.  Wall Street Journal.  Economist's View. May 10, 2007
• Drinking water costs lots of dollars.  MarketPlace. March 17, 2009
• Analysis: Obama takes 'morning in America' mantle.  Cable News Network.  February 25, 2009
• A Different Sort of Red America, By Tobin Harshaw.  The New York Times. April 10, 2009

Black History Month; The Subject that Segregates

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org The history of Black Americans is a glorious one.  It is a chronicle filled with much triumph, as well as many trials and tribulations.  Yet, many debate whether a month that commemorates people, pitch in color, defies reason.  Do the days dedicated to the acknowledgement of African American achievements divide us as a nation?  The answer, some say is a complex one.  Consider the thoughts of Columnist, Clarence Page of The Chicago Tribune.  Is Black History Month already history?  Well, it depends.  Another view comes from a fellow Journalist and contributor to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cynthia Tucker.  She is more emphatic in her evaluation.  Ms Tucker writes; Month robs blacks of part in U.S. history,  It seems the subject, Black History Month, segregates opinions.

The theme divides people just as the annals of an analogous tale do.  Yet, perhaps, before Black History Month becomes but a memory we must reflect on a reality too painful to ignore.

A newborn was brought to his adopted parents who, while well educated, seemingly ethical, and definitely well-established in the community were cruel to the infant.  The proud father and mother were happy to take the neonate in.  "Dad" and "Mom" were fine folks.  Each spoke eloquently.  They wrote wondrous words such as "all men are created equal."  Yet, in the New World they acted as barbarians would.  All that they said they thought sacred was negated.  The patriarch brutally beat the baby.  He may not have physically laid a hand on the toddler.  Nonetheless, he had overseers do the dirty deeds.  The matriarch, while outwardly sweeter, swiped at the "boy" whenever he was near.  The man who acted as a father, and his spouse, did all they could to ensure the tot remain enslaved.

The head of the family provided no books for the little tyke.  His wife did not discuss deeper issues with the child.  Ignorance would surely suppress desires for advancement.  If nothing else, a lad, without formal erudition, would not believe, he could succeed.  Surely, a child who had not learned to express himself well or to imagine would not wander far.  It would be best, the couple conceded, if the Black baby did not have the means to survive without assistance from the Lord and Lady of the land.  

As much as the couple worked to keep the dark-skinned "boy" in his place, the curious lad proved to be creative.  He invented.  He was innovative.  At times, he achieved beyond expectations.  Still, the youngster, the adolescent he grew to be, and the adult man, pitch in hue, was not rewarded for his achievements.  Traditionally, his caregivers took credit for his achievements.  The pinker persons who housed him, confined the Black man to a symbolic cage, a field of cotton, a city slum, or a prison, far from civilized society.  

The ebony man escaped when he could.  He sought an education.  He excelled when given a semblance of equal opportunities.  However, even in good times, someone, somewhere sought to subjugate him.  Away from his parents' home, from father and mother's persistent grip, the Black man remained subordinate.  What he did well, he had to be better than his white counterparts.  For Caucasians, it seemed impossible to separate him from his color.

Given an inch, an inspired "Negro" would take a mile, a week, or a month, his parents once mused.  Indeed, children of color did.  In 1926, Historian, Carter G. Woodson, a man born to former slaves, went on to earn a doctorate degree from Harvard and invite Americans to adopt Negro History Week.  In 2009, with the first African-American President of the United States in the White House, countless citizens conclude, Black History Month isalready history.

Today, Americans are told the narrative is no longer relevant.  Accounts of African ancestors "robs" purplish-brown persons of the prominent role they played in the United States.  Journalist Cynthia Tucker writes, "The commemoration is a damaging form of apartheid, setting the contributions of black Americans aside as separate and unequal."

Commentator, John Ridley disagrees.  He opines, and offers, Yes, We Still Need Black History Month. He believes the legends must be shared.  Mister Ridley fears the anecdotes will be forgotten.  Most, he observes, are yet to be told, or taught in school.  Society remains segregated when the subject is race relations, or Black History Month.

Perchance that is why people in this country are, as the first African-American Secretary of State says the actions of pale skinned Americans are,"polite, restrained" when the races mix or muse over their shared history.  The story of what was, and was not, in a country founded on freedom for all, is a sensitive topic,  When broached, anger boils over.  Excuses are made, or the embarrassed blame the Black man or woman for overreacting.

On February 18, 2009, Artist, Sean Delonas. appeared in the New York Post, The Artist once nicknamed the Picasso of prejudice, castigated the Commander-In-Chief, the first American charcoal in color to occupy the Oval Office,  

Mister Delonas penned a political cartoon many thought racist.  In the image, a chimpanzee lay dead in the grass.  Blood streams from the two bullet holes in the primate's chest.  Police shooters, gun in hand, look at the slain beast and state; "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."  While some would wish to say the toon is but an innocent commentary, readers cannot negate an historic association.  Anglos have long referred to Black brethren as apes.  An African-American, even a President, the author of the financial package, is not exempt from scorn.  

Perhaps, in a cynical way, this is the proof those who prefer we not observe Black History Month seek.  In America, all men are created equal.  Any American might receive praise or punishment.  Surely, a defiant  The New York Post Editor, Col Allen would concur.  

Upon receipt of reprimands for the pictorial essay, newspaper executive Allen issued a statement in defense of the stimulus/chimp cartoon.  He said the caricature was but a parody of current events.  An actual chimp shot down in Connecticut was coupled with acts of Congress, or at least that is what thePost hoped people would believe.  

However, many Americans remember their history.  In the year 2000, long after the adoption of Black History Month, Doctor Marcus Neiman, Chairman Emeritus of Creation Anthropology at Landover Baptist University, published what was characterized as "his important findings."  

In an article entitled "It Took A True Christian To Find The Missing Link," the esteemed scholar stated; "God created human beings separate from primates.  There are different kinds of hominids, just like there are different kinds of mustard.  There are small primates called chimpanzees.  They are the cute little fellows who live in trees, like the one in that movie our greatest President, Ronald Reagan, starred in --  "Bedtime for Bonzo." . . .  There are large primates that live on the jungle floor and scare missionaries, who, being Christians, are armed against them.  They are called gorillas.  There are even primates that play basketball, rob liquor stores, organize marches and make some attempt at imitating human speech.  They are called Negroes.  Regrettably, if there is such a thing a "natural selection," most of them have selected to be naturally lazy.  They are living examples of the Lord's unfinished business because these more primitive hominids are still evolving."

Granted, those who think there is no need to teach Black History might argue there are infinite illustrations that counter a single comic strip or an eccentric scientist.  The little Black lad of yore lives no more in modern American history.

African-Americans have arrived.  Barack Obama is our President, elected by the people, Black and white.  Michelle Obama, America's First Lady, an African-American scholar in her own right, by her very presence teaches Black History literally and figuratively.

Oprah Winfrey is among the wealthiest women in the world.  The entertainer's entrepreneurial story is a "phenomenon, a modern-day Horatio Alger, up from roots in poorest America."  Tiger Woods is highly successful.  Perhaps, these accomplished individuals demonstrate "race no longer defines us,"or as Eric Holder so aptly stated, what "now passes as meaningful interaction . . . in reality accomplishes very little."  Surely, we are separate and unequal when we pretend that our past does not still define us, or that there is no reason to discuss the differences that continue to divide us.

Rather than rant or rage, Black History month is no longer relevant, as a nation we might realize as our Attorney General offered,  "This nation has still not come to grips with its racial past."  (What) will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful," will reap rewards.

What we may learn when we honor Black History, will be "potentially great,"  As Eric Holder espoused on the same day the controversial Delonas cartoon appeared.  The subject of segregation need not divide us.  When we acknowledge a problem, we can begin to solve it.  

Those who think there is no need to actively honor African-American history might wish to ponder the prominence of African-Americans who are unfamiliar to most.  Might those whose names we do not know from the past, and in the present, be representative of the young Black "boy" whose parents protected him, punished him, and did not honor him, or acknowledge his accomplishments?

Please ponder the draftsman, engineer, and inventor, Lewis Howard Latimer who worked as the original draftsman for Thomas Edison.  Scientist Latimer invented an electric lamp with an inexpensive carbon filament and a threaded wooden socket for light bulbs.  He also helped advance our current conversation, when he drafted the patent drawings for Alexander Graham Bell's telephone.  Yet, American's, for the most part do not memorialize the man who allowed us to chat more freely.  Black Americans' History, a month of homage?  Let us talk.

Might many have thought purplish-brown Americans arrived in 1941?  When the United States went to war, Doctor Charles Richard Drew was named Director of the Blood Bank for the National Research Council.  His expertise, allowed America to collect blood for the American Armed Forces.  The groundwork for the American Red Cross, blood collection, and procedures that allow for the storage of plasma are attributed to this African-American.  Yet, few know his name.  

White patriarchs were, and are, perhaps more prominent in the minds of many who have forgotten the tale of the young lad and his adopted parents.  In America, absentmindedness for a prideful past affects our present.

The African-American man or woman who sits beside his Anglo brethren is not segregated by homage to history.  A lack of awareness, acceptance, and praise for a people divides America.  

Perhaps the question Americans might ask is not whether to set aside days to discuss the trials and tribulations of Black people.  The query, instead, might be, is colormuteness characteristic in a country segregated, not by Black History Month, but by the actions of man.  Could it be that citizens wish to claim American culture is a colorblind.  In a nation where racism remains rampant, albeit politely restrained, and better hidden, would Americans rather not remember the glorious history of Black brothers and sisters?   
Certainly, a commemoration of feats and foibles, trials, and tribulations will not divide the country as much as ignorance of our past and present does.

References for race relations, and a reality too long restrained . . . 

• A History Lesson in the East Room, By Rachel L. Swarms.  The New York Times. February 18, 2009
• Learning to treat Negroes like human beings.  The Landover Baptist Website. July 2000
• Delonas for Wednesday February 18, 2009.  New York Post. February 18, 2009
• U.S. Is a 'Nation of Cowards' on Race, Says Holder, By Bernie Becker.  The New York Times. February 18, 2009
• Month robs blacks of part in U.S. history, By Cynthia Tucker.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Sunday, February 08, 2009
• Yes, We Still Need Black History Month, By John Ridley.  Morning Edition. February 17, 2009
• Is Black History Month already history?  Well, it depends, By Clarence Page.  Chicago Tribune. February 15, 2008
• Oprah is course focus and jumping off point for study of race issues.  By Andrea Lynn.  University of Illinois. February 1, 2001
• cablinasian like me, By Gary Kamiya.  Salon. April 199
• New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate, By Same Stein.  Huffington Post. February 18, 2009
• Unbound: Profiles in Black History. Charles Drew.  1904-1950

Slackers Uprising; Free Speech and Download

Slackers Uprising

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Today, you, dear reader, can do as no one has done before. Any of us in North America can view the full version of Slackers Uprising is now available for free to all residents of the United States and Canada. In the land of liberty, please take some. Be bold; be brave. Prepare to find reasons to partake in the democratic process. Get ready to click for a film, or cast a ballot for the next President of the United States.

The hype may heighten; still there is work to be done.

Americans already confident that their chosen candidate will win the Presidential election, may wish to assess what happens quickly. People are fickle. A voter can vacillate. Someone may say they will cast a ballot for one candidate or the other. However, when a constituent finally places pen to paper, punches a card, pulls a lever, or touches a computer screen, one never knows what that person will ultimately do. No matter what any individual tells a pollster, every citizen must remember, people change their minds.

The only certainty is the notion nothing is constant. Each of us must recall, how capricious any human being can be and how imprecise public opinion polls are. Even election results can be other than they appear to be. When humans are involved, anything can happen.

People are emotional, not necessarily rational. Constituencies are more easily swayed than we might imagine or wish to believe. We each may justify, intellectualize, and seem resolute. Indeed, every being is strong. Men and women are strong-willed. If the public harnesses this vigor, we, the people will have the power to change the county.

If as a united force, the populace is to transform America, every one of us must honor the reality; we cannot know what others will do. In truth, no one can predict what they themselves might act upon or achieve. Nor can any of us forecast or foresee the outcome of an election.

Michael Moore experienced this veracity four long years ago. It is for this reason the filmmaker hopes to get the vote out and ensure awareness. Every moment matters. From now until November 5, 2008, the evening after the ballots are counted, the public must not underestimate the effect of a word, deed, or thought not shared.

Until the tally is complete, the American people cannot assume a Presidential hopeful will win. It is up to us, each citizen of this country, to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitutional right. We can choose a person[s] to Represent us well, or not. The slackers can rise up and roar. People only need be a citizen who is interested in the quality of their life.

The connection to everyday excellence and country is evident or can be if individuals climb off the couch, get up from the chair, exit the car and consider the power people united have. A listless sole can seek influence, and find it at the polls. Slackers can arise, register to vote, cast a ballot, and create the change they wish to see.

Please ponder the history Michael Moore presents. We can learn lessons from the past.

Share the story with friends and family. Find the will and the way to work for your future, our future. Please, if you have been a slacker in an earlier time, reflect as you view the narrative. Then, if you would, rise up. Be eager, enthusiastic, an active member of the electorate. Perchance, your energy will excite a friend or someone in your family. Let us each participate in the selection of our President.

Collectively we can come together and unite the states. We, each and every one of us can make this country great again. Lazybones, ascend. Loafers, now is the time to lead this nation from the temptation of apathy. Please get out the vote! Stand strong and submit your ballot.

The Slacker Uprising Collectors Edition DVD features the full movie and lots of extras, such as:

Noodlegate: Mike Bribes the Slackers

George W. Bueller's Day Off

Storytime with Mike: My Pet Goat

The O'Reilly Factor for Kids

Crank Calling Pfizer: 212-573-1226

They Worked for George W. Bush

Letter From the War Zone: Will They Ever Trust Us Again?

Canadian Elevator Music

Joan Baez and Michael Moore: America the Beautiful
Get the DVD for $9.95
This is being done entirely as a gift to my fans. The only return any of us are hoping for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November."
~ Michael Moore

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 23, 2008 at 12:00 AM in Activism, American Patriotism, Americana, Civics, Communities, Elections, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin, Kucinich, and the People Call For Cheney Censure

Rep. Wexler Wants Cheney Impeachment Hearings

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

May I offer my sincerest gratitude to Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin. These glorious members of the House Judiciary Committee, recently raised the volume on the issue of impeachment for Vice President Cheney. The three invite us, the average citizen, to join them. Please express your distress; sign the petition. Call for Hearings. Without you the Vice President will continue to avoid an official and necessary censure.

Please sign the petition. Join Congressman Wexler’s Call For Cheney impeachment Hearings.

Please do not stop there. Americans have seen what occurs when we are complacent. For too long Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke of what many thought obvious, and only a few listened.

Throughout his term, Vice President, Richard B. Cheney acted on questionable information. He made decisions that many considered problematic. Cheney “may” have committed numerous “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, no matter how many millions of Americans joined in the call to censure, the cry was hushed. The mainstream media barely and rarely spoke of the measure. Only a scant number of Representatives endorsed House Resolution 333, submitted by the Representative from Ohio.

As House leaders sat silent, Vice President Cheney continued to violate the doctrine known as the United States Constitution. He did so without charge or challenge.

For years, Richard B. Cheney declared the Executive Branch has “supreme” power. Many scoffed; however, Congress initiated no formal action. The Vice President did not stop doing as he pleased. Complaints from the House and the Senate mounted; yet, Cheney remained safe from censure.

It seemed the Vice President’s skin, and his contempt for law, were impenetrable. Richard B. Cheney refused and rebuffs accountability.

The Vice President prefers aggression and plans attacks against other Nation States. Until now Congress, and the American people stood by. Finally, the tide may have turned.

Each day, Americans and Legislators discover much occurred within the White House walls over the last seven years. We are increasingly certain the Vice President acted with dubious authority. The more we learn, the more we realize a need to impeach Richard B. Cheney. Representatives and House Judiciary Committee Members Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, and the cyberspace community have stated their extreme concern. However, just as Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich realized during his campaign to hold Cheney accountable, the media would rather not address this state of affairs.

If we the people are to be served, if we are to honor the rights afforded us by the United States Constitution, we must do more than wait for Congress to act. Our signature on a petition will not be enough to convince a reluctant House Speaker that it is time to embrace this cause. I invite you to submit a Letter to the Editor of any and every newspaper. For Representative Wexler alone, although he tried, cannot create the news storm necessary for impeachment.

I offer my own submission for your review. Please request coverage. Ask Journalist nationwide to report on more than this Administration wants us to hear. I thank you for all that you are and all that you do.

If you wish to use my letter, without the links and signature, I offer a Portable Document Format [pdf] version.

Letter to the Editor, Call to Cover Cheney Impeachment Hearings.

Dearest Editorial Staff . . .

I am aware of a troublesome campaign to ignore the call to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. I write to express my distress and to request coverage.

On Florida Progressive Radio, Representative Robert Wexler spoke of what he and his colleagues experienced when they submitted an Op-Ed essay on the topic. The major print media outlets did not publish this important treatise on impeachment. The message was not muffled; it was ostensibly silenced.

The mainstream media acted as though an investigation into the practices within the Oval Office, or the Office of the Vice President, were permanently “off the table.” No matter the outcry from the masses, the media continues to dismiss the call.

Auspiciously, after the news organizations cast the cry for censure aside, Representative Wexler turned to the public. The cyberspace community connected to the memorandum the Congressman and his colleagues wrote. Those that surf the Web not only endorsed the crucial communication, Internet users garnered greater support for the proposition. An ambitious online effort heralded the need for immediate impeachment hearings. Within a short time, more than a hundred thousand signers stated they were in favor of a move to censure Vice President Dick Cheney.

Constitutional scholars have warned us. The precedent we set when we overlook what an arrogant Administration does will forever damage our nation. If Americans do not uphold democratic principles, we weaken our Constitution.

For too long, Presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich has been a lone Congressional voice. On more than one occasion, Kucinich spoke of the need to censure Vice President Cheney. In November 2007, Representative Kucinich presented a Privileged Motion on the floor of the House. Even that bold overture received little press.

Nonetheless, some of his fellow Representatives considered the possibility. With the introduction of new evidence, three prominent Representatives felt as though they too had reason to move forward with an investigation and hearings.

Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), all Members of the House Judiciary Committee, considered the novel revelation offered by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. The Vice President and his staff purposefully gave then Press Secretary McClellan false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert Central Intelligence agent. Dick Cheney and his team intentionally chose to release erroneous reports to the American people. This realization prompted the newly stated and amplified concern for impeachment.

Only after much protest from readers did the Miami Herald print an edited version of the original letter from the Representatives. However, it seems that Florida publication and all other periodicals are happy to leave the issue behind. We, the people are not willing to remain silent.

The need to impeach is imperative. I implore you. I invite your newspaper to truly inform Americans. Rather than encourage apathy, please tell the people, print, more than the White House wants us to know.

Sincerely . . .

Betsy L. Angert
Florida

Dear friends, family, and familiars; I thank you all for your interest and participation in the process. On behalf of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Representatives, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Tammy Baldwin, our country, and the Constitution may I extend my deepest appreciation for your thoughts, words, and deeds. We can only hope that United, America will peacefully stand strong again. We cannot know unless and until we begin to censure those that fight against us. We are one, or were, the United States of America, a democratic nation, of, by, and for the people. Together we can take our country back.

References and Resources in Support of Impeachment Hearings . . .

• Wexler Calls For Cheney Impeachment Hearings, By Congressman Robert Wexler.
  
• Synopsis of Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney.
  
• Cheney’s Law. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• A Man With Secrets. By Charlie Savage, Barton Gellman, Bruce Fein, Bradford Berenson, Jack Goldsmith, Michael Isikoff. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Interviews. Bradford Berenson, David Gergen, Jack Goldsmith, Charlie Savage. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Cheney’s View of the World. Barton Gellman, David Gergen, Evan Thomas, Ron Suskind, Charlie Savage, Bruce Fein. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service. October 16, 2007
  
• Impeach Cheney Now! Submitted by davidswanson. AfterDowningStreet.org.
  
• The Impeachment of Dick Cheney. Florida Progressive Radio. Blog Radio.December 20, 2007
  
• 30,000 People Join Congressman Wexler's Call for Hearings in Just 24 Hours. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 15, 2007
  
• Wexler Launches Online Push for Cheney Impeachment Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman.
  
• 100,000 Answer Wexler Call for Hearings. Robert Wexler. Democratic Congressman. December 19, 2007
  
• Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Vote On Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney TODAY. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
  
• Kucinich Statement on Privileged Resolution. Congressman Dennis Kucinich. November 6, 2007
  
• Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
  
• pdf Impeach Cheney, The Vice President Has Run Utterly Amok and Must Be Stopped. By Bruce Fein. Slate Magazine. Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
  
• Let Cheney impeachment hearings proceed, By Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, and Tammy Baldwin, Members of the House Judiciary Committee. Washington District of Columbia. Miami Herald. December 19, 2007

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Civics, Congress, Impeach GW Bush, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Valerie Plame | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Cheney; Comedy. A Rogue Nation, or Rebel Without a Cause

  
  Countdown: Cheney Casts Himself Out

  copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

  Updated, June 25, 2007
  Each day the Bush/Cheney Administration entertains us. They offer new twists and turns in what is seen as a “comedy of errors.” Possibly this latest report is classified as “comedy of the absurd.” This week it was revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch. Indeed, he is above the law, at least that is what the Vice President's office claims.
  

  Apparently, there are nuances within the definition of the Executive Branch that exclude the Vice President. Literally, the term ‘Vice President’ is not contained in the description of this arm of the government.

  Executive Branch

  The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
  . . .
  To learn more about the Executive Branch please visit the President’s Cabinet page on the White House web site

  If we seek further understanding and travel to the designated page, we cannot help notice there, under the heading Cabinet Rank Members we see the esteemed Executive Richard B. Cheney. If we journey further into the depths of cyberspace deliverance, we learn that the Vice President has been proudly proclaimed a policy decision-maker for decades. He has held numerous positions within the White House, and served under Presidents since 1969.

  Nonetheless, this exclusive and exceptional public servant claims he is not part of the Cabinet and therefore need not abide by rules governing this group. A man well-known for frequently invoking Executive Privilege when he does not wish to testify about the doings of his office claims he is not affiliated with the Branch of government that affords him rights under or above the law.

  Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
  He asserts he's exempt from showing an agency how his office keeps secrets because he's not fully part of the administration.
  By Josh Meyer
  Los Angeles Times
  June 22, 2007

  WASHINGTON — For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.

  Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.

  According to documents released Thursday by a House committee, Cheney's staff has blocked efforts by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to enforce a key component of the presidential order: a mandatory on-site inspection of the vice president's office. At least one of those inspections would have come at a particularly delicate time — when Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and other aides were under criminal investigation for their suspected roles in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

  In an eight-page letter to Cheney on Thursday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) also charged that Cheney or his top staffers tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office this year after its director tried repeatedly to force Cheney's office to comply with the presidential order.

  Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride confirmed the vice president's position Thursday but said she could not discuss the matter in detail, including whether Cheney or his aides tried to abolish the information security office. "We are confident that we are conducting this office properly under the law," McBride said.

  Nevertheless, there is information demonstrating that indeed, Mister Cheney and his cohorts wish to eliminate the Information Security Oversight Office. The two administrative centers have been in conflict for years. The Oversight agency, a division of the National Archives, in accordance with the President’s policy, has attempted to gather information from the Vice President pertaining to what documents his office has deemed classified. Mister Bush, in his infinite wisdom claimed the American people have the right to know what the “executives” representing them have are doing; albeit if not in the present at least in the future. Information must be preserved for posterity.

  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows:
  "Classified National Security Information

  This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nations progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nations security remains a priority.

  The President’s office has abided by the rules and done as required by his law. However, the Vice President never has. Dick Cheney has resisted all attempts to retrieve the required information.

  Ultimately, the Information Oversight Office appealed the issue to the Justice Department. That division has yet to rule on the case.

  Nevertheless, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry A. Waxman took action. In the midst of this “comedy,” Representative Waxman, Democrat of California, disclosed that documentation from the Richard Cheney’s office validates that this Vice has long endeavored to close the Oversight Office.

  Admittedly, Congressman Waxman, is prominent among those Democrats wanting to investigate the Bush administration. However, Representative Waxman states this issue is only one of many that cause him to question the practices of this Administration. His efforts towards resolving this quandary are separate from his other concerns.

  On Thursday, June 21, 2007 Chairman Waxman sent an eight page letter sent to the Vice President stating his alarm and his desire to resolve what surely must be a misunderstanding.

  Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

  The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.

  But the National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the archives division that oversees classification and declassification.

  “I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

  Absurd, did Chairman Waxman say “absurd?” This is beyond ridiculous. This comedy is replete with the bizarre. On June 23, 2007 the President himself stated that he too is exempt from his own law.

  The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

  An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

  Oh my. I understand there is much inferred and implied in this writ. I never truly thought disclosure was the intent, only the claim. In this post-September 11 era, privacy for Federal officials is preserved. Records are rescinded. Nonetheless, I did see this small clause posited below repeated referrals to the Office of the President and his Vice.

  Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

  (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
  (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
  (3) restrain competition; or
  (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

  My mistake. After re-reading that last line, I grasp the truer meaning. In the Bush Administration, every action is taken as an effort to secure the nation. Mister Bush often reminds us he and his Cabinet are protecting us, the people, from [a perceived] “evil.” Sadly or strangely, these Executives hear hatred in every utterance. They see malice in all endeavors, excluding those executed by them, the executives in the White House . . . or is it the Senate. I am so confused.

  Mister Cheney is President of the Senate is he not, or is he a member of the Cabinet? Is the Presidential appointees part of the Executive Branch. Might Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney be a rogue, a rebel . . . What of Mister Bush? Where doe he stand, and does the law he wrote apply to him or his office?

  Perhaps Assistant Press Secretary Dana Perino can help me understand. During a press conference on June 25, 2007 Miss Perino expounded.

  Q Dana, as long as we're talking about branches of government, can you go back to Vice President Cheney again, the argument that he's not part of the executive branch. Does the President believe he's part of the executive branch?

  MS. PERINO: I think that that is an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it. I think when we were talking about the EO from last week, we've gone over that several times. You probably don't want me to go over it again. But the Vice President -- any Vice President has legislative and executive functions.

  Every Vice President has legislative and executive functions. The executive functions are given to him by the President. For example, the Vice President's paycheck comes from the Senate. So these are -- that's an interesting constitutional question. When we are talking about this EO, it is separate and apart from -- the President and the Vice President oversee the executive agencies. Supreme Court precedent shows that the Vice President and the President are not seen as an agency when it comes to executive orders.

  Q I know that's your argument about an agency, but it's very separate from the argument the Vice President is making. And what is the President -- what is the White House's view of the argument the Vice President is making on whether or not he's part of the executive branch?

  Q For one, I think -- I mean, the information is clearly –

  MS. PERINO: I'm not opining on it, because the President did not intend for the Vice President to be subject as an agency in that section of the EO.

  I understand; I think. Dick Cheney works for those that pay him. I thought the American public paid his salary. Perhaps I am wrong. Please help me dear reader. Did the people not place Mister Cheney in the Executive Branch; was he not elected to serve as an Executive? Tell me this all but a dream. It must be. For now I experience up is down, and down is out or above the law. Were this all not so tragic this truly would be a comedy.

  I as a citizen of this country, or correction, a person in the American audience can only hope I will awaken from this nightmare and discover the theatre is closed.

  Bush and Cheney; Comedy of the Absurd, of Errors, of the Executives . . .
  

• Cheney claims a non-executive privilege By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2007
  
• pdf Cheney claims a non-executive privilege By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2007
  
• Executive Order Office of the Press Secretary. March 25, 2003
  
• Representative Henry A. Waxman letter to Vice President, Dick Cheney. The Oversight Committee June 21, 2007
  
• Bush claims oversight exemption too, The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's. By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 23, 2007
  
• Bush claims oversight exemption too, The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's. By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times. June 23, 2007
  
• Press Briefing by Dana Perino. Office of the Press Secretary. June 25, 2007
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 25, 2007 at 04:45 PM in Civics, Lawbreakers, National Security, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Procreate or Annul the Marriage. Washington Initiative

  © Copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
  

  

  After marrying, my Mom tried diligently for four full years to give birth to a child. She went from specialist to specialist. Batteries of tests were run, and then, re-run. Although she and my father were both fertile and they were a couple that thoroughly enjoyed intercourse, they could not seem to produce a baby. My Mom, a scientist at heart, concluded that perhaps, she was not fecund when most women were. Perchance her cycle was different. Once considering that possibility was enough. From then on, she was able to plan her pregnancies. My Mom gave birth to three children, none born in the first three years.

  Apparently, if a Washington State initiative passes, couples such as my parents would be required to have their marriage annulled. "Naturally," gay partnerships, would not, could not be considered. Obviously, such a union would not be classified as marriage material. The Religious Right, may have felt embolden after the state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, however they did not propose a plan to go further. They did not restrict what constitutes marriage in a manner that might seem feasible to them. Numerous pious persons say the bible deems the purpose of matrimony is procreation. Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance took action.
  

  This organization, [WDMA] has filed papers stating

  marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

  All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

  Organizer Gregory Gadow proclaimed in a printed statement, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." As absurd as this measure is, it may have purpose. Profundity is always welcome and wise, though the dynamics for introducing such depth could go awry.

  I have other relatives, friends too, that though bountifully able to produce babies struggled to do so. Many discovered they could not produce. For one or both the machinery was not as it was meant to be. Infertilty is common. Some couples, when first married cannot afford to give birth to a newborn. Times are tight. They plan to become parents; however, for now there is a need to wait. Many fathers and mothers want to provide a secure and stable home for their offspring. They are building a nest egg and attempting to establish a foundation. Furthering their family is in the plans; it will be, though in the future. First, they need to find the funds. Down payments on homes are steep.

  Some persons purposely choose not to have children. They may marry late. They may fear being the best of parents; theirs were not. There are a myriad of reasons for not bring children into a marriage.

  There is much to be considered when preparing for progeny. Customs and conventions do not always equate to wisdom.

  That being said, I am baffled. Conservatives claim the Progressives want too much government in their lives. Yet, when it comes to "privacy" issues, it seems the traditionalists want greater restrictions, even, or especially, in the bedroom. They actively wish to stamp out sex, unless the intent is to procreate. The Right seeks to further scrutinize what goes on in the boudoir.

  Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

  Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

  Perhaps, enthusiast are not working to change the law. Perchance they are only wishing to discuss how ridiculous the people in America are. When, we as a nation, determine the definition for family we forget circumstances within our own. I understand the logic; I fear unexpected results.

  Please peruse the Initiative . . .
  

  Initiative 957
  If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
  

  add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  

  require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  

  require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized";
  

  establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  

  make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

  Consider this assessment. Fewer Americans married with children - Census Bureau statistics show that married people with children account for 25% of American households. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Then, make your own. What does "marriage" mean to you.

  Contemplate the references . . .
  

• Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids. NorthWest Cable News. Associated Press. Tuesday, February 6, 2007
  
• Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance.
  
• Statement by Gregory Gadow, Sponsor of I-957 (the Defense of Marriage Initiative). Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
  
• Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted by Secretary of State Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
  
• Married Without Children Marriage Partnership. Christianity Today International Fall 2003
  
• The State of Our Unions, The Social Health of Marriage in America 2006. Essay: Life Without Children. By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead Dav. 2006
  
• Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01
  
• pdf Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Ethics, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Marital Status, Marriage, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Religious Right | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Is Biden a Racist? Was Kerry "Electable"? America Decides.

  © copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
  

  
  Please view the video and listen to Presidential hopeful Joseph Biden describe the dreaded "incident."
  Biden Responds to Obama 'Clean' Black Comment.

  For former Governor Howard Dean, the end began with a passionate scream. Apparently, some thought expressing excitement is not Presidential. For Senator Joseph Biden, the close of a Presidential campaign may have started with a stumble. Say it ain't so Joe. This foot-in-mouth blunder may have profoundly altered a campaign that began only hours earlier. The elder statesman offered this assessment of his fellow Senator and Democratic candidate Barrack Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean that's a storybook, man."

  Years ago, Joseph Biden tripped on his own tongue. He made a disparaging remark about Indians. For decades, many of the electorate thought Biden the storybook man. Senator Joseph Biden was often thought of as an electable candidate. He seemed to have it all, good looks, a strong and consistently liberal voting record, a grasp of the issues, a white face, and a male body. Yet, Senator Biden consistently creates what he cannot control, an endless downward spiral. Perchance, Americans join him. Our fellow citizens make arbitrary assessments again and again.
  

  Numerous persons say Senator Biden is just too chatty. When he apologizes for one misstep, he stumbles into a deeper hole.

  A symbol of Biden's predicament was that the Delaware senator could not decide which verbal sin warranted the biggest apology. He abjectly apologized to Jesse Jackson and Sharpton -- both prior presidential candidates -- for implying that they were not as "articulate and bright and clean" as Obama. Biden also gave contradictory explanations of what he meant by "clean," saying in a press conference that it was a shorthand for "clean as a whistle," and then insisting to Stewart and Sharpton that he was praising Obama's "fresh" ideas.

  As I reflect on the Biden blunder and contrast it with the Dean Scream, I find myself horrified. I do object to the seemingly racist comment Senator Joseph Biden made this week, and the one he uttered years ago when he was out on the campaign trail. However, I never struggled with the enthusiastic utterance made by Governor Dean. My problems with Dean were deeper. I actually enjoyed his energy and thought he was more “electable” than John Kerry. Nevertheless, the choice is not mine alone to make.

  What horrifies me is, how we as a nation judge so quickly. Our assessments are superficial and frequently shortsighted. As I contemplate whom we vote for and why, I feel deeply distressed.

  Although Americans are raised to believe beauty is only skin deep, they often act as though the opposite is true. Citizens in the United States consider what is on the surface and then decide. Good looks and great sound bites often sell a candidate. Name recognition solidifies a lead. During our last Presidential election, presumed electabilty ruled the race. Substance was, and today is, rarely considered. Actually, an intelligent man or woman is not highly thought of in Party circles.

  Public relations experts say a scholarly sort cannot relate to the common people. The pundits prefer a likable popular fellow or female. You might recall the numbers that stated they wanted to go have a beer with George W. Bush.

  This was on my mind as I listened to Senator Biden speak of his African American opponent, Barrack Obama. Biden spoke favorably of the Black American Senator from Illinois, or so he thought. He mentioned characteristics that he believed to be complimentary and I thought of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. However, unlike Obama who may have a chance, Congresswoman Chisholm never did The Congresswoman knew this and spoke of it.

  "I am a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I make that statement proudly, in the full knowledge that, as a black person and as a female person, I do not have a chance of actually gaining that office in this election year. I make that statement seriously, knowing that my candidacy itself can change the face and future of American politics — that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you — even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win."
  
~ Shirley Chisholm June 4, 1972

  Perhaps, we as a nation might ponder; what constitutes a "win." Missus Chisholm may not have become President of the United Sates; nevertheless, she won great respect. Shirley Chisholm was a forthright, determined educator-turned-politician. The Congresswoman shattered racial and gender barriers. she became a national symbol of liberal politics in the 1960's and 1970's. this woman, this African American person, this fine female won the hearts and minds of many Americans. Shirley Chisholm made possible what was considered impossible for centuries. She may not have been President of the United Sates of America; nonetheless, she left quite a legacy.

  Many that never took the highest office have made quite an impression. Consider former Senator and Vice President Albert Gore. People continually push him to seek the seat that was meant to be his. They want the Nobel Prize nominee to take the podium and rightfully claim the office he was elected to. Many forget the compromises Al Gore felt forced to make as a Presidential candidate. Likely, he recalls.

  America is Wal-Mart country; we look for a bargain, not brains. We want a quick fix, not quality. Americans wait for a crisis before they act. You might recall Senator Albert Gore published his book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit in 1992. He was passionately concerned about the environment more than fifteen years ago. Then many thought him silly. Now as climate change creates infinite hardships worldwide, we turn to Albert Gore. We honor him. We listen to his wisdom. A Presidential candidate, Al Gore may be forced to stifle his passion again. You doubt it? Remember Dean, the scream, and then let us talk about Dukakis. What was his sin?

  Howard Dean was considered a man of strength, a campaigner that stood by his convictions, and that hurt him. Mark Singer, a Journalist writing for Time Magazine penned his perspective of the Dean downfall and discussed how it damaged the Democratic Party.

  Dean would have one more, less tangible advantage: he doesn't sound like a politician. One reason the flip-flop charge has stuck is that Kerry, with his meandering, caveat-filled speaking style, often seems like a guy trying to avoid a straight answer. Sensing that vulnerability, Republicans have run the same playbook they ran against Al Gore: portraying Kerry's personality deficiencies as deficiencies of character. As a result, while Kerry leads Bush on most domestic issues, voters turn sour when asked about Kerry the man. In last week's TIME poll, Kerry's biggest deficit versus Bush was in "sticking to his positions." Only 37% of registered voters in the survey said Kerry does that, compared with 84% for Bush.

  Dean wouldn't have that problem. Polls in Iowa showed him doing best among voters who value a candidate who "takes strong stands." It's true that Dean's passion exploded the night he lost Iowa — into a scream heard around the world. But it was the flip side of the spontaneity that made him seem authentic, a straight shooter. With his blunt, no-nonsense style, Dean actually evoked — more than any of his Democratic rivals — President Bush.

  Were Dean the nominee, the Bush campaign would probably be going after him not as a flip-flopper but as a lefty. Lefty isn't exactly a term of endearment. But at least it evokes issues rather than character. Character debates sank Al Gore and threaten to sink John Kerry now. A debate about issues, on the other hand — especially the biggest issue of all, Iraq — is something Democrats could win.

  The nature of a person is difficult to discern when the media and the opposing Party promotes an image. A candidate's attempts to control the message can also cause difficulty. It seems that more American's remember the image of Michael Dukakis in a tank than they recall what he stood for. Issues are rarely discussed on the campaign trail and when they are, watch out. Consider what a contender says and how he says it. The public certainly will. The honorable Governor Dukakis was devastated throughout his run, rarely were issues the focus. Character was. When Michael Dukakis answered a question too calmly he was considered cold and thus, not electable. Yet, let us look at the man again. Perhaps, time will afford a more accurate assessment

  The National Governors' Association honored Dukakis in 1986, naming him the most effective governor in the nation.

  By 1988, the stage was set for Dukakis to ascend to the White House. He won a tough primary, sharpening his political teeth against several well-heeled challengers, including Al Gore, a senator from Tennessee, and Gary Hart, a former senator from Colorado.

  "The best America is a nation where the son of Greek immigrants, with your help, can seek and win the presidency of the United States," Dukakis told a crowd of supporters during his contentious presidential campaign.

  As Dukakis squared off against Republican nominee and then Vice President George H.W. Bush, his campaign hit a few rough patches.

  He struggled with image problems as the Bush campaign attacked him for being too liberal. For his part, Dukakis called himself a "proud liberal" and attempted to link the Bush campaign to one of the Reagan administration's biggest scandals -- the Iran-Contra affair.

  One of the most pivotal moments of the presidential campaign came during the second debate between the hopefuls.

  CNN's Bernard Shaw asked Dukakis, a well-known opponent of the death penalty, if he would support a death sentence for the killer if his wife were the one raped and murdered.

  Dukakis's rote answer to such an emotional question -- that he opposed the death penalty because he did not consider it a deterrent to crime -- sounded unfeeling to some.

  Others criticized the question itself as unfair.

  In November 1988, Dukakis lost the presidential election to Bush, and he returned to Massachusetts to finish his term as governor.

  Still, Dukakis counts losing the presidential election as one of his biggest disappointments.

  "I think about it every morning when I open the newspaper and read about the current President Bush," he told CNN.

  Howard Dean was reamed for being too passionate; Dukakis for being too composed. Chisholm was too Black, too feminine, too respectable, and Senator Biden might be too contrite or not repentant enough. Perhaps he is a racist, though his voting record does not reflect this. Were I Michael Dukakis, I would not feel disappointment. I would rejoice in not being elected by a populace that is so frivolous. Howard Dean might assess American's and understand that they can be shallow. Albert Gore may look at the public and think, how glib. Shirley Chisholm might reflect on America and conclude, this nation is racist and sexist. She would be correct, or so I believe.

  I experience my countrymen and women as critical, judgmental, disapproving, and disparaging. We are discriminating, though not in the best of ways. We categorize and compartmentalize our candidates. Gore is too stiff and Obama is inexperienced. Kerry was decidedly electable; yet, he was not.

  In America we determine who we think will win and forget to consider whom might best serve the needs of a nation at risk. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is a name rarely mentioned. Senator Tom Harkin was a hush. Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa is but a blur for now. Some names are barely memorable. There is no spin. Authenticity, altruism, and ardor are not desirable qualities in a presidential candidate. Americans wants a looker, a likeable guy, or a person that listens to them. Oh no, not the latter.

  Presidential Pondering . . .
  

• Biden Responds to Obama 'Clean' Black Comment. YouTube.
  
• Biden, President '08
  
• Obama's race dilemma, By Joan Vennochi. Boston Globe. February 4, 2007
  
• The Ticket That Might Have Been. . . President Chisholm. P.O.V. Public Broadcasting Services.
  
• Earth in the Balance. Ecology and the Human Spirit. By Albert Gore
  
• Al Gore Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. By Doug Mellgren. Associated Press. Breitvart. February 1, 2007
  
• If Howard Dean Were the Candidate ... By Peter Beinart. Time Magazine. September 27, 2004
  
• pdf If Howard Dean Were the Candidate ... By Peter Beinart. Time Magazine. September 27, 2004
  
• Running On Instinct, Howard Dean’s critics say he is winging it. Can that get him to the White House? By Mark Singer. The New Yorker. January 12, 2004
  
• The Ticket That Might Have Been... President Chisholm, By Gloria Steinem. Reprinted by permission of Ms. Magazine. © 1973
  
• Dean Dumps Campaign Manager. CBS News. January 28, 2004
  
• Biden Tells Dems He Regrets Obama Remark, By Nedra Pickler. Associated Press. Forbes. February 3, 2007
  
• Who's more likeable, Bush or Kerry? By Richard Benedetto. USA Today. September 17, 2004
  
• Then & Now: Michael Dukakis. Cable News Network. September 29, 2007
  
• Kucinich for President
  
• Tom Harkin for President 1992 Campaign Brochures; ‘Tom Harkin is fighting to reclaim the American Dream.’ 4President Corporation.
  
• Iowa governor announces White House bid, Vilsack becomes first Democrat to declare candidacy. By Charlie Neibergall. Associated Press. MSNBC. November 9, 2006
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 4, 2007 at 11:00 AM in American Patriotism, Americana, Civics, Elections, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Facts or Fictions, Political Campaigns, Politics, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Worthy Woes for President Bush, State of the Union © copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

  Please view the Bush - State of the Union 2006 - "The Enemies of Freedom" video. Assess for yourself. According to a recently released Associated Press – America Online poll, Americans have.

  An Associated Press – America Online poll reveals, sixty-six percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. It is now infinitely clear Democrats and Independents are not alone. Some Republicans object to the war in Iraq. The findings of this newer study conclude wranglings within this country disturb those on the right, perhaps as much as they have those on the left and in the middle. Health care, the economy, Iraq, and terrorism are the issues that cause Americans great concern. The situation in this country is grim. As President Bush prepares to speak to the nation he, or the pollsters, realize he has little support.
  

  However, George W. Bush still has one thing in his favor. Many of his fellow citizens think he, as a man is likable.

  At the same time, Americans see the president as likable, decisive and strong -- but also stubborn.

  It appears that the personality that secured the vote for boy George in 2000 and 2004 is still strong. Many think the man born with a silver spoon in his mouth would be a great guy. Throughout his campaigns many proclaimed, 'I like to have a beer with Bush.' It seemed numerous individuals saw this strapping stud as one of the boys.

  Perchance, being pleasant, amiable, and congenial is or was enough to get this President elected. It seems sociability is often appealing to American voters. After all, over the years many proclaimed they would like to have a beer with Bush. Pundits often marveled at this message. Would we, as a people vote for a man to serve as our President simply because we think he would be good company. We want to sip a brew and chat with this chap.

  Being a person that does not imbibe alcohol and never has, I always wondered about a man the could hold his liquor. This President did it well until the age of forty. Yet, he stopped drinking, cold turkey, and turned his life over to the Lord. Possibly, these actions are admirable. They might be endearing and engender great praise. The public may appreciate a man that overcomes his demons and turns to G-d.

  Still, the people do not necessarily trust this kinder and gentler, compassionately conservative leader. They say he is a nice man, just a little bolshie [obstinate].

  And only a minority think he is honest -- 44 percent, down from 53 percent two years ago

  As he sends young boys and girls to their death, people, some, a few think this chap is fine. Actually, many approve of the newer Bush strategy to surge.

  Support for sending more troops to Iraq grew slightly after Bush's speech, although the idea is still unpopular.

  Almost one-third of the public -- 31 percent -- favor the plan, an improvement from 26 percent in a survey done almost entirely before he spoke to the country January 10. Thirty-five percent now believe additional troops will help stabilize the situation in Iraq, also up from 25 percent.

  Bush's overall approval rating inched upward to 36 percent, from 32 percent early in the month. Despite that low score, 53 percent of Americans say he is likable; 58 percent, decisive; and 58 percent, strong.

  
  Perhaps the fact that he has struggled with what life has offered him, [wealth, the means to travel, an education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard,] somehow people feel they can relate to George W. Many of us, no matter what affluence befalls us are challenged to accept our selves. I understand that. I have had my own experiences, though they differ from Mister Bush's exploits.

  There are those that party hearty to escape. Americans are addicted to numerous substances. Sad as that is, and I believe it is truly a sadness, most do not have the power to put hundreds of thousands of others in harms way.

  Thankfully, President Bush found G-d, as many Americans have. Perchance this endears the Commander-In-Chief to the citizens of this nation. Karl Rove realized that the Religious Right might be George Junior's saving grace. Those that shared his devotion too the Lord might cast their ballots for him. They did so, in droves.

  However, no one could have expected the trials and tribulations to come. Americans could not imagine a country mired in a protracted war. Nor could they phantom how George W. Bush might react.

  In the eyes of 83 percent of Americans, he [President Bush] also is stubborn.

  "Mainly it's his 'stay the course' attitude," said Bill Basher, 21, a Republican from Angola, New York.

  Even Republicans are now requesting a change in course.

  That's a stark reversal from mid-January 2002, when 68 percent said the country was on the right track and 29 percent said it was not. Then, the nation was still coming to grips with the terrorist strikes four months earlier on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people. And, U.S. troops Bush sent to Afghanistan had toppled the Taliban government that harbored the terrorists believed responsible.

  After the U.S. led an invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public support for the mission there began to slide as the war continued, the U.S. death toll climbed and the violence raged on.

  John Raab, 77, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, a conservative Republican, said the United States can change course "if people rally around the president and he can get this fiasco in Iraq under control."

  Others think we need more than further support for a stumbling President.

  Kerry Moore-O'Leary, a 31-year-old Democrat from Boston, said it will take new leadership.

  "I really think the only time we are going to see some real changes is when we elect a new president," she said. "Even people who are moderate Republicans are going to say that we need someone who's a breath of fresh air."

  The new Democratic Congress is making promises, pledging a change. The first one hundred hours, in the House seem impressive to some. Others thought the progress lukewarm. Several are not so easily elated. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich had higher hopes. Secretary Reich acknowledges aloud what many Americans truly believe. There is little hope that true change is coming. Professor Reich shares the reasons.

  the Dems who took control of Congress know they (1) don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto, (2) still have lots of "blue-dog" conservative Democrats among them who don’t want change, (3) can’t do anything very dramatic without stirring up the business community – which has more lobbyists and more clout than ever before, and (4) want to show business they’re "responsible" in order to get corporate campaign contributions for 2008 and remain in power, and possibly even elect a Democrat president.

  Ah, such is life in America. The State of the Union is split. On the eve of the annual speech, George W. Bush has a lower approval rating than any other President since Richard Milhous Nixon, post Watergate, in 1974. This matters not for the White House maintains that it does not pay attention to polls. Thus, we await the speech. Our countrymen and women want to know; what is the Sate of the Union according to Bush, and are we expected to believe a man that ultimately we do not approve of? Stay tuned America.

  You may wish to ponder the poll or pour over the reporting . . .
  

• Poll: While preparing speech, Bush faces sour mood. Cable News Network. January 22, 2007
  
• How different groups feel about President Bush, top issues . Associated Press. San Diego Union Tribune. January 22, 2007
  
• pdf How different groups feel about President Bush, top issues . Associated Press. San Diego Union Tribune. January 22, 2007
  
• “That Guy” in Chief, A beer with George W. Bush ain’t as good as you think. By Charles P. Pierce. The American Prospect.
Web Exclusive: October 8, 2004
  
• Profile: George W Bush. BBC news. Wednesday, 19 November, 2003
  
• Eye on the Clock, House Democrats Put Their Focus On '100 Hours.' By Jonathan Weisman. Washington Post.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
  
• Why the Dem's First Hundred Hours is Much Ado about Little, By Robert Reich. Robert Reich's Blog. January 18, 2007
  
• State of the Union: Unhappy With Bush, By Gary Langer. ABC News. January 22, 2007
  
• Poll: Bush's Ratings Drop on Nearly All Fronts, By Michele Norris. All Things Considered. October 13, 2005
  

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 11, 2007 at 03:42 PM in Approval or Love, Bush 43 Administration, Civics, Congress and Bush, Iraq War, President Protects America , Presidential Politics, Voters Speak, Wars Bush Commanded, Who Writes Our History? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Give Thanks for Genocide. Thanksgiving, National Day of Mourning ©

  

  The day is done, bellies are bloated, and now, rather than pretend to give thanks, we can reflect. Might we mourn our motives, the message, and the myths of Thanksgiving Day?

  We are not vanishing. We are not conquered. We are as strong as ever."
  ~ United American Indians of New England.
  
  As a child, I felt as my Mom did in her earliest years, "What are we giving thanks for on this holiday, hurting a loving native nation?" In the first grade, she was sent to the principal's office for questioning the "accepted" truth of Thanksgiving. She understood the tales taught to schoolchildren; however, my Mom contrasted these with what she knew of the Indian people. In my youngest years, I could or would not tolerate "Cowboy and Indian" games or the genre in films. I saw the slaughter of a loving people and wondered, as I do now, "Why do we allow this to happen?" Why would we celebrate such carnage?

  I have yet to understand why we as a nation give thanks on this day. Are we grateful for our ability to rape a land, to ravage a race, or to reject the rights of those that lived in North America before "we" did? I know not. I understand that for the United American Indians of New England, this is a National Day of Mourning.

  Our forefathers landed on the shores of what is now the "United States." Many came to this continent in search of religious freedom others in search of wealth still others to simply make a new start in life. Those fleeing religious persecution then proceeded to persecute others. Those seeking wealth ignored the natives' stole their land and oppressed them and the life changers road along in the domination and exploitation. We, as a people, as a nation, now celebrate these acts.

  As children, we are taught to commemorate the Pilgrims landing. We are told that the natives befriended the white people. They did, both native and Anglo accounts support this belief. Showing compassion for others is consistent with the native culture. The white man saw this open caring nature as an opening, an opportunity to steal, pilfer, and enslave the inhabitants of this, a beautiful land. The pure and principled Puritans saw the strength of sharing as a weakness. They chose to betray, deceive, and diminish the value of the darker skinned inhabitants of the new world.

  Today, as we celebrate, some say they are not forgetting our past, the founding of this nation; they are remembering. However, it is likely that they only recall childhood chants, the musings of men and women that prefer to hide the truth. After all, who writes the history books the majority of us read? It is the magnanimous man or woman wearing white skin.

  Anglos and Europeans wish to appear benevolent; yet, an alternative history tells us a different tale.

  The pilgrims [who did not even call themselves pilgrims] did not come here seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland. They came here as part of a commercial venture. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on Cape Cod -- before they even made it to Plymouth -- was to rob Wampanoag graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians' winter provisions as they were able to carry.

  Nevertheless, on this fourth Thursday in November myths move the nation; and we, as citizenry continue to believe the best of ourselves and our ancestors. We wish to think our forefathers honorable.

  Yet, do we? Are we only paying lip service to this history, real or imagined? Is Thanksgiving, in modern times, more than a meal, families coming together to eat, drink, and be jovial? Is it merely an introduction to the holiday season, perchance shopping is our focus and the reason we give gratitude? How often do people truly thank each other, or their ancestors? Perchance, if thanks were to be specified it would be for our shared prowess, and the American ability to possess land that was never theirs to take.

  Citizens of these United States rarely discuss this truth. What we as a nation are thankful for is what Christopher Columbus perceived and spoke of succinctly.

  Native Americans in the Caribbean greeted their 1492 European invaders with warm hospitality. They were so innocent that Genoan Cristoforo Colombo wrote in his log, "They willingly traded everything they owned . . . They do not bear arms . . . They would make fine servants . . . They could easily be made Christians . . . With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

  We, the white man, can force people, human beings into submission. We can come, and conquer. White wonders can enslave these harmless hearts. Converting them to our religion is possible, probable, and oh, what power we can over these naïve natives. I wonder; will we be honest with our neighbors, our image, or ourselves. Will we say that what we honor and give thanks for the bounty of land and wealth we systematically took from the benevolent Indians!

  While the whites tell their stories, and hope that no one will ever know or question their facts, their fiction, the "Indians" share theirs. The narrative is passed down from one native born generation to the next. There is ample evidence, even in current day society to verify the veracity of Indian legends. They did everything to welcome and share with us, the whites, and we did everything to destroy, to dominate them. Nevertheless, the [drum] beat goes on. Americans prefer pretence, symbolism, and shopping. Shhh, say nothing, it is a secret, for it is sacrilegious to think that citizens of this country care more for Capitalism than meaningful traditions. However, they do.

  The reality never dies. The reality is that on this "Thanksgiving Day," many mourn. Officially, since 1970, Thanksgiving Day is considered a National Day of Mourning among the Indian nations. Even some educators are observing this, or at least instructing their students on the possibility.

  Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he "discovered" them.

  The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.

  Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.

  He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.

  Complex it is. Originally, there was no sin. Ooops, those words were taken from another text. The earliest settlers were pure; after all, they were Puritans. At least, most of us learned that fable.

  There are other versions of this fairy tale. Aspects of these may be accurate. I believe they are, for they appear in each accounting. Hospitality and generosity are among the traditional teachings in tribal communities. Among the Indian populations, the memory lingers; it is passed down from generation to generation. The Indian ancestors participated in a series of feasts throughout the year. The Wampanoag feast, called Nikkomosachmiawene, or Grand Sachem's Council Feast was among these. It was during this celebration in 1621 that the Wampanoag's amassed food to help the ill-prepared Pilgrims. The new arrivals were homeless, seeking shelter, sanctuary, and shelter. They had none; they had nothing. These Anglos only had needs and desires.

  Conquest and a quest for personal freedoms were their focus; nevertheless, it mattered not that in acquiring their yearnings the Anglos and Europeans robbed the native born of their own liberties. However, I digress. I meant to mention the first Thanksgiving and how it evolved.

  This Wampanoag feast is marked by traditional food and games, telling of stories and legends, sacred ceremonies and councils on the affairs of the nation. Massasoit [the leader of the Wampanoag's] came with 90 Wampanoag men and brought five deer, fish, all the food, and Wampanoag cooks.

  The tribal ritual, over time, and with the luxury of legend, became known as Thanksgiving Day. When we celebrate and commemorate this coming together, supposedly we are acknowledging the delight of genuine sharing. Yet, in fact, we are unabashedly praising that we the Anglos and Europeans were intent on becoming occupiers, overseers, and eventually, the oppressors!

  When we party hearty, we deny that five years earlier, English explorers arrived hoping to seize land from the native people. These journeymen landed on the shores at a Pawtnxet village. Captain Thomas Hunt was among these early arrivals.

  He started trading with the Native people in 1614. He captured 20 Pawtuxcts and seven Naugassets, selling them as slaves in Spain. Many other European expeditions also lured Native people onto ships and then imprisoned and enslaved them.

  In 1621, when the white English Puritans encountered the Wampanoag tribes, they identified them as "Indians." The settlers did not distinguish one culture or clan from another. The Wampanoag were a quiet people. They were farmers and hunters. Their native lands stretched from present day Narragansett Bay to Cape Cod. They, as tradition determined shared their crops and their culture lovingly. They had no expectations, no fear of what was to come. Racism was not their reality. However, with the white man cometh change.

  Native lands would eventually become modern day urban neighborhoods. Groves would be demolished; giant buildings would rise from the ground. Tribal leaders and elders would bear no witness and have no say in what was to become of their lands. Governments would dictate codes. President George Washington compared the native born to "wild beasts." Washington did not wish to provoke their savagery.

  Through treaties and commerce, Jefferson hoped to continue to get Native Americans to adopt European agricultural practices, shift to a sedentary way of life, and free up hunting grounds for further white settlement.

  Though at times, Jefferson seemed torn; he wished to honor that this land belonged to the natives, the Indians, he also revealed himself, often.

  Thomas Jefferson -- president #3 and author of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to Indians as the merciless Indian Savages-- was known to romanticize Indians and their culture, but that didn't stop him in 1807 from writing to his secretary of war that in a coming conflict with certain tribes, [W]e shall destroy all of them.

  As munificent as past Presidents attempted to be, the more the "man" was able to wield power against the "Indians" the more they wished to exert.

  Between 1785 and 1866, over 400 treaties were made with the Indians, and it is fairly well-known that every one of them were broken. Some typical scenarios involved taking back the land promised to them or not allowing the Indians to deal with trespassers themselves the way the treaties promised. Starting around 1985, some Indian tribes, like the Oneida, have won Supreme Court decisions giving them back their aboriginal lands, but because these actions would relocate thousands of white people and involve huge sections of states, the matter of enforcing it is anything but clear. The states have not cooperated, and the Tribes have resorted to suing white residents in the area.

  Here is a list of significant events in Native American history:
  

  The Indian Removal Act (1830). This forced a mass relocation of Indian nations to west of the Mississippi, the most infamous one being the "Trail of Tears" which left half of the Cherokee nation dead.
  

  Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). This Supreme Court ruling held that tribes are not foreign nations, but dependencies, and need not be treated equally.
  

  Massacre at Sand Creek (1864). Outside of Denver, a wagon train wiped out an entire peace-loving tribe of 200 Indians after inviting them in for supper, then hung their victims' body parts from the wagons as they traveled westward.
  

  The Major Crimes Act (1885). This extended U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction into Indian territories, effectively breaking all treaties that guaranteed they could have responsibility for law enforcement themselves.
  

  The General Allotment (or Dawes) Act (1887). This used a "blood quantum" test to take away over 100 million acres of land from "mixed blood" Indians.
  Massacre at Wounded Knee (1890). U.S. cavalry gunned down 300 Indian men, women, and children for participating in a Ghost Dance, the purpose of which is to enter a world inhabited only by Indians.
  

  The Indian Citizenship Act (1924). This conferred U.S. citizenship on all Indians who wanted it and would renounce their claims to tribal identity.
  

  The Indian Claims Commission Act (1946). This gave Indians the right to claim monetary compensation for land unjustly taken away from them, in 1865 dollars.
  

  The Relocation Act (1956). This qualified Indians for job training if they moved off the reservation to urban areas.
  

  The Sioux Occupation of Alcatraz Island (1969-1971). U.S. Marshal's eventually cleared the Indians off, but they believed they were exercising their rights under an old treaty that gave them first claim to any "unoccupied areas."
  

  The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971). This eliminated indigenous mineral rights in Alaska so the U.S. could build the Alaskan oil pipeline. 25% of all oil reserves, 35% of all coal reserves, and 50% of all uranium deposits still lie under Indian land today.
  

  The AIM Occupation/Protest at Wounded Knee (1973). This was a staged protest to expose police brutality, and the crowd succeeded at instigating it.
  The Fish-ins and Sit-ins at Oregon & Maine (1980s). Indians protested fishing quotas and lumber company activities on sacred ground.
  

  The Consumer and Sporting Event Boycotts (1990s). Indians protested use of Indian images and nicknames for products and athletic teams.

  Though natives of this northern continent are taking action, they are standing up for their rights, it is obvious. If change might impose on the lives of the lovely fair skinned Anglos or Europeans, then court rulings will remain in limbo. The indeterminate state of affairs will be as the unwritten history, known and ignored.

  On this Thanksgiving Day, as on those in the past, gluttony will live long and prosper. The giving of thanks will often be a greedy endeavor. Most Americans will enjoy prosperity, as the natives within this country go forgotten. The original Americans will fret for freedoms lost. They and their numerous and knowing compatriots will mourn, as another year of discrimination passes. I wish them an their offspring authentic peace. I pose no pretense of smoking the pipe.

  Please Walk a Mile in the Moccasins . . .
  

• Thanksgiving is for Turkeys, Amerikkka Celebrates Genocide. Do or Die November 28, 1997
  
• Be there! National Day of Mourning 2006. United American Indians of New England
  
• The First Thanksgiving. Scholastic Incorporated
  
• The "First Thanksgiving" at Plymouth. Pilgrim Hall Museum
  
• The National Day of Mourning. Pilgrim Hall Museum
  
• Thanksgiving. 
A National Day of Mourning for Indians, By Moonanum James and Mahtowin Munro. Z Magazine. November 2006
  
• Thanksgiving: A Day of Mourning By Roy Cook
  
• Teaching Thanksgiving from a different perspective. Cable News Network. November 22, 2006
  
• The Defining and Enabling Experience of Our "Civilization" The thanksgiving Myth, By S. Brian Willson. November 2005
  
• Letter to James Duane, By George Washington TeachingAmericanHistory.org. September 7, 1783
  
• President Jefferson and the Indian Nations Monticello, The Home of Thomas Jefferson
  
• Give Thanks No More: It's Time for a National Day of Atonement. By strongwindsahead. The Rocky Mountain Resister November 22, 2005
  
• Understanding Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples and Native Americans. By Dr. Tom O'Connor. North Carolina Wesleyan College. December 30, 2005
  
• Native Americans Will Mourn Thanksgiving, By Viji Sundaram, New America Media. November 23, 2006
  
• 2000 Day of Mourning, Remember the Ancestors "Remember Wounded Knee 1890/1973/1990", From Aaron Two Elk, AIM Florida. The People's Voice. Tuesday, October 10, 2000

  Please peruse another wonderful assessment . . .
  

• No Thanks to Thanksgiving, Robert Jensen, AlterNet November 23, 2006

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 24, 2006 at 10:01 AM in Aggression, American Patriotism, Brutality, Self-Defense, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Current Affairs, Democracy or Monopoly, Discussion, Dreams Live and Die , Ethics, Ethics and Profits, European Émigrés , Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Rapes, God Bless, Inequality in America, Lawbreakers, Lies, Propaganda and Politics, Question Everything, Racial Discrimination, Rights and Rules, Society, Teach The Children, United States Constitution, Who Writes Our History? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

  Call For Change; The Battle Cry Continues ©

  In the spirit of Veterans Day, a revolutionary election, and a society that is now more reflective, I pose this question, "Why Billy; Why?"

  I did ask Donald.  I questioned George.  I queried Dick; I sought answers from my representatives.

  While the system shows us change is possible, I acknowledge it is slow.  I believe we cannot be solely celebratory.  We must remember there is much work to be done and if we, as individuals, do not do it, who will?  If each of us does not choose to begin independently of what others, think, say, do, or feel, who will start the process.  We must believe and act on our beliefs.

  The war is not yet over.  The issues still haunt us.  Health care, wages, Social Security, voters' rights, election dilemmas, immigration issues, and education are all beckoning.  Please heed their call.  Please contact Congress; call your neighbors.  Speak to your friends, your family, and familiars.  Write to anyone and everyone.  We never know who might be reading our words.

  I invite you to join in this domestic deliverance.  The struggle did not end on Election Day or with the Rumsfeld resignation.  Please continue to Call for Change.

  Please reflect; ponder this presentation, Why Billy Why?
  I realize, and hope we all acknowledge, there is still need, a desire for answers.
  
  

  Review the References.  Choose your position.  Pursue, as you will . . .
  • Health, A Right or a Privilege For The Few ©, Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
  • General Information on the Minimum Wage. The Economic Policy Institute.
  • An introduction to Social Security. The Economic Policy Institute.
  • Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws. United States Department of Justice
  • Keeping the Voting Clean, By Richard L. Hasen. New York Times. November 11, 2006
  • It is the Economy [or Education], Stup**! ©, Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
  • Bush immigration plan has new chance, By Dave Montgomery. Detroit Free Press. November 12, 2006
  • MoveOn 2006

  Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 12, 2006 at 01:55 PM in 'Regime Change' , Activism, Civics, Communities, Politics, Who Writes Our History? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack