Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Polls; Panoply of America's Age of Unreason

American Failure in Education, Reason- Moyers, Susan Jacoby

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org He is up.  He is down!  Thankfully, the opposition says, "Soon he will be out of favor and ultimately out of office!" If voters do not remove the renegade from his prestigious position, term limits certainly will do him in.  Liberal loyalists assert; President Obama is not the problem.  Congress is the cruel joke. It seems no matter the political persuasion, citizens of this country find someone to fault.  Surely, societal ills are thrust upon the public by an outside force.  Regardless, of whether the electorate places the onus on an individual, an industry, the nation's Chief Executive, or other government officials, the oft-heard battle cry in the Age of America's Unreason. is someone else is to blame.  The American people do not imagine themselves responsible for inertia.

This stark reality is perhaps most apparent in daily Presidential polls.  The Commander-In-Chief has a single four-year term to prove himself competent.  In truth, in the United States, the "first hundred days" determines how many minefields a President has managed to avoid.  The second turn of the calendar indicator follows closely behind.  If the Chief Executive has not proven himself golden in six months, his fate might be sealed.  Witness the woeful popularity numbers the Press reports most fervently.

In the Information Era, within a matter of weeks, an amplified and somewhat shallow assessment of American speciousness was available for all to see.  Periodicals and pundits alike announced, statistically speaking Mister Obama's personal magnetism is no longer viable.  His favorable numbers have fallendrastically. The American people are not swayed by speeches.   Nor do the plans the President submits speak to the general public.

The count was first publicized in early July.  Ohio citizens were given an opportunity to express their disdain aloud in an early public opinion Quinnipiac University poll.  

In Michigan, a locality which, for years, has been mired in a "one State recession" skepticism has never waned.  While a bit more hopeful after the 2008 election, constituents from this Great Lakes region remained cautious.  By mid-July it became apparent, Mister Obama's every promise would be scrutinized.  How could a population so severely depressed do much else.

By early August the raw data showed citizens countrywide were doubtful that Barack Obama was the correct choice. The public rated his job performance poor.  National Public Radio reported the results of a nationwide survey. By then, it was obvious; that the honeymoon lasted less than six months.  Indeed, it seemed, the registered voters, interviewed by a bipartisan panel, did not support the Administration's plans.  His policies were deemed a failure.  A whopping forty-two percent of American's stated they did not approve of Obama performance in office.  Perchance, many anxious Americans in the Age of Unreason were ready for a divorce.

For some, the "Recovery" plan did not revive the economy as promised. Others fear the Health Care coverage options the President has put forth will be catastrophic to them and their families.

The stimulus package did not serve to satisfy the people in the areas of the country hardest hit by the economic downturn. >Information that conflicts with raw rants does nothing to confirm slow yet substantive successes.  For the more vocal masses, the Recovery plan offered no relief for the Middle Class.  As the summer wanes, so too does support for the President. In the American Era of emotional Evaluations it appears, there is consensus.  The Obama White House has not helped improve the economy.  Countrywide, citizens clamor.  Change has not come.  

Chants, cheers and jeers are palpable  "Candidate Obama's commitments were only political ploys."  The latest polls illustrate, Independents and Republicans who once felt they could trust the Illinois Statesman, now believe he is no better than all the other politicians.  Driven by emotional elucidations, Americans rationalize Presidents have an omnipotent power.  The conventional wisdom is the people need only vote for a person with the Audacity to Hope. That person will inspire a nation to move mountains.  He [or perhaps she] will make my life better.  "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead" is the rally cry during a political campaign.

However, sadly, during the post election season reality set in .  Faith faded swiftly.

This angst is expressed as distress.  Anyone in a position of power is thought to be a disappointment to persons whose pocketbooks are empty and by the affluent who now may earn a bit less than they would like to.  The President of the United States, this time Barack Obama is thought to be responsible for all that is wrong with America.

Reactions, what we the people do as a result of what occurs, may reveal an irrationality all American's possess. In this civilized country, personal attacks are the preferred means for engagement.  Through film, theatre, and television, residents in urban and rural environs have been trained to seek quick answers.  In these mediums, a story can be introduced, involve an audience, and offer a resolution, all within twenty-two [22] minutes.

Advertisers, more prevelant post World War II, understand that the medium is the message.  A product can be sold within four [4] seconds.  Anger can be generated just as quickly

The cost for immediate gratification and irritation is dear.  Since the 1950s, credit has help to satiated urgent desires.  Americans have been inured to habitually react.  The population proclaims, "Do it now or do not do it at all."  "If you cannot turn down the heat, get out of our kitchen."

As is characteristic in the Age of Unreason, if there is a perceived problem, the President, Congress, City Hall, or whoever might be deemed liable for the public's pain, will receive the brunt of an American's wrath.

One might hear the calls wherever he or she may live.  Many amongst the electorate anxiously await the day voters will be able to once again "Kick the bums out."  Republicans may rage.  Independents become more impatient.

Progressive persons propose that the lack of follow through is not the fault of Barack Obama.  Individuals who still wish to believe that they are Organizing For America place the onus on Congress.  Their rant, "Representatives in each political Party are the problem."  Independents, Republicans, and those who lean Left have reached in accord; "Invoke term limits," they shout.

Accepted American adages in these less than reflective times are a constant.  Turn on the television and hear, "If you cannot get with the program, then, get the Hades out."  Stand on a street corner and listen; "You are either with us or against us." Stroll down the avenue and someone will screech, "Move on" or be mowed over.  In the States, there is no patience for a slow progression.  Ignorance, lack of full knowledge, and unawareness can lead to actions born  in haste.  People in the United States have no time to waste.  Attention spans are very short in the Age of Unreason.  In this nation, the blame game is popular, more so than the President, elected Representatives, proposed plans and public policy.

Thus we see the repeated tallies. As the two-hundred day term ends, the number of dissatisfied Americans rise.  The President's standing falls.  Fault is easily found; that is everyone is to blame for what ails this country, except the unreasonable citizens who wait for someone else to fix what the people choose to let stand.

Again and again, the American people do not think they are responsible for the nation's inertia.  Only others are onerous. Thus, he is up.  He is down, and the people are one more time out of luck.

Please ponder the video presentation; American Failure in Education, Reason - Moyers, Susan Jacoby, or peruse the transcripts, The Age of American Unreason. Please reflect on responsibility.  If you would, contemplate the reality; the President, prominent persons in Congress, paid Lobbyists, and persuasive corporations do not have the power that the people possess. If only the public truly chose to be the change they wish to see.

References for Unreason . . . 

• Obama's 'Renegade' Campaign For The Presidency. Talk of the Nation. June 10, 2009
• Daily Presidential Tracking Polls.  Rasmussen Reports. August 5, 2009
• America closes the book on intelligence,  By Laura Miller.  Salon.  February 15, 2008
• Is Race for Governor More About Obama? Some Voters Who Backed President Disillusioned Over Economic Pledges.  By Sandhya Somashekhar.  Washington Post. Wednesday, August 5, 2009
• Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush, President Points to 'Inherited' Economy.  By Scott Wilson. Washington Post.  Saturday, March 14, 2009; Page A01
• Recovery.gov
• Obama, the healthcare Riddler, Why is the president suddenly so afraid of a single-payer solution to America's healthcare crisis? By David Sirota.  Salon.May 16, 2009
• Obama's Approval Drops To 50 Percent.  Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Half Say President Acted 'Stupidly' In Race Dispute.  Quinnipiac University National Poll.  August 6, 2009
• Obama's poll numbers dive bomb toward Earth, By Jimmy Orr.  Christian Science Monitor. August 6, 2009
• Audacity to Hope.  By Barack Obama.  The New York Times.  October 17, 2006
• What Do Poll Numbers Really Mean for Obama?, Dan Balz.  The Washington Post. July 30, 2009
• The 44th President's First Hundred Days.  Cable News Network.
• Second 100 days. Cable News Network.
• Obama's Approval Drops In Ohio, Critical Swing State, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; 2010 Senate Race Tips Slightly To Democrats.  Quinnipiac University July 7, 2009
• Poll: Obama inspires, but some question toughness.  Cable News network. July 9, 2009
• Recovery.gov
• AP Derails GOP Spin On Stimulus Jobs, By Matt Apuzo.  Huffington Post.  July 10, 2009
• Have the Stimulus Programs Failed? By Gary Burtless.  Brookings Institute. August 4, 2009
• Credit Cards at 50: The Problems of Ubiquity.  The New York Times. March 12, 2000
• Advertising History Timeline.  A 295-year synopsis of the most important events in American Advertising, 1704 to 1999.  advertising Age.
• In a Cluttered Mediaverse, Some Ads Stand Out, By Elizabeth Blair.  All Things Considered. May 22, 2007
• The Age of American Unreason, By Susan Jacoby
• The Age of American Unreason.  Bill Moyers Interview.  Public Broadcasting Services. March 2008
• ;American Failure in Education, Reason - Moyers, Susan Jacoby

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

What Pulls Us Apart

Defending Islam at a McCain rally

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

It was a cool Fall evening in South Florida. The breeze was gentle; the sunset glorious. As I approached the intersection where, each weekend I stand in support of peace and tranquility, I did as I do when at this crossroad. I placed my arm out the window. My digits were extended and formed the symbol associated with serenity. When I am in a vehicle, at the locale commonly considered the Peace Corner I work to preserve the intent of my Saturday mission. I strive to advance awareness for the notion, this nation remains at war. Soldiers are slaughtered far from the shores of home sweet home. Civilians, in their native country continue to lose their lives for a want of war. I crave global harmony and will work to restore some sense of civility worldwide. However, as I sat silently in contemplation cries of "Country First" startled me.

The divisiveness that has become pervasive during this political season smacked me in the face. Shaken, I turned to see where the words of contempt might have come from. There they stood, two young boys, perhaps eleven years of age stood on the sidewalk with homemade signs in hand. "McCain Palin" was painted on a poster. Smaller type, difficult to read from even a short distance, said more. I might pretend to portend what the words were meant to communicate. However, I rather not assume. I can only describe what was said and done as the seconds on the street turned into minutes.

As others had done when they passed me with my peaceful placard for oh so many years, I expressed my belief in a manner that might be visible to these youthful demonstrators. I reached for my Obama sign, which is neatly tucked between my windshield and the dashboard. I held the glossy rectangular navy blue sticker up, my arm stretched beyond the side of the automobile. The near Middle School age gents immediately saw my marker and exclaimed. "He is a Muslim!"

I calmly cried, "No, he is not. Barack Obama is a Christian." "However," I continued, even if he were as you seem to believe, why would that matter?" " Do you really wish to be intolerant of other religions?" "What of our rights as afforded by the United States Constitution?" Perhaps as one who taught Junior High School students for so long, an invitation to discuss seemed ideal to me. These young people, not familiar with me, and my love of open and reverent conversations were intent on repeating the rhetoric they likely heard in their homes.

I could not help but wonder would the words Communist, Socialist, or terrorist, pass through the lips of these lads. Might one boy or the other tell me as drivers had days ago when I stood on the corner in vigil for peace, "Barack Obama is Black"? My mind raced as I reflected upon the two chaps. I realized the issues important to them were those the elders they loved had discussed at length. Human as the young men were they knew what they knew. The adolescents were taught to think as the adults important in their lives did. We all do, at least initially.

I remembered a tale I frequently told pupils in the past. In my own life, I later understood, when I was young I was unaware of the infinite options and opportunities to think, say, do, and feel, in ways that were uncommon in my family. I could not imagine what was novel to me. If questioned I would defend my beliefs; however, unlike these preteens I did not dismiss a request for thoughtfulness. A want for greater wisdom was instilled in me from the first. I learned to desire discussions. Fury in my family seemed a futile emotion. It brought more wrath and offered little promise for peace.

However, my relatives did not raise these miniature men. Perhaps that explains why the pair of youthful McCain/Palin supporters began to rant and rage. They chided me for the size of my sign. The littler than full-grown lads laughed as they pointed to a banner firmly planted, permanently into the ground. Behind them was a monstrous sign, perhaps eight-feet wide and six feet high. The words McCain Palin stood strident for all passer-bys to see. On a background, so dark as to appear near black, the white letters screamed support for the Republican ticket.

The boys shrieked; "I cannot even see your sign." "It is so small," the two shouted. I did not react. The language the boys used morphed into a lexicon I will not utter, even when distressed. After moments when I avoided actual engagement; although I did not put my Obama sign down, I decided to speak again. "Love and peace," I proclaimed. I was quickly told there would be none of that. A slew of statements not to be repeated spewed from the mouths of babes. I was stunned, not by the venom but by the similarities and contrast.

While I waited for the light to turn green, I found myself lost in reveries.

As a child, also at the age of eleven or possibly twelve, I first began on my path as an activist, an advocate for people, regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. My civic maturity was intellectually realized through acceptance. I was taught not merely to tolerate others; I learned to embrace all. Amongst my lessons, diversity is as significantly wondrous as similarities. These were our family values. More importantly, the skill that was honed in my parents' home was listening.

My Mom and Dad helped me to understand that if I chose to hear what another believed, I could grow wiser. Together, communities are greater when the commonweal is the central concern. Fundamentally, my family believed, all individuals believe in love and goodness. "All men [and women, children too] are created equal.

Perhaps that is why, while in Middle School my family participated in a civil rights march. I was invited to join them. Years earlier, at the age of five, I became interested in politics. As my parents engaged in the most animated discussion I had ever witnessed, I learned of elections.

I grew aware of the emotional impact an economic issues and the impact these could have on a vote. Education, the environment, war, and peace all played a part in ballot decisions. At the kitchen table, as I sat and listened to the lively talk on topics that related to every aspect of life, I realized the power of everyday people. All Americans who vote shape our society. I also understood that those to little to cast a ballot had influence.

Mothers and fathers often jest, "My children learn what I never did." Proud papas revel in the knowledge a son or daughter shares. Modest Mamas marvel when their offspring offer informed opinions. In my youth, I may not have realized the words I uttered as a student enrolled in school were of interest to my Mom and Dad. What I saw and felt taught them. As I talked aloud, my parents learned. We chatted. The child was a mentor. Caregivers were counselors. Each gained and received a greater education from the other.

The difference between my experience and what I witnessed at the intersection was in my family, peace was promoted. A reciprocal reverence was advanced. A word such as "Muslim," a person's religion, was not considered a source for a slight.

I was not encouraged to slam or damn another being, not one who stood before me, or one who wished to serve the public. Indeed, behavior than might demean or dismiss another being was sincerely discouraged.

As a child, I was taught to believe competitive temperaments are counter productive. Characteristics that could be classified as cutthroat were considered childish, aggressive, and contrary to the traits that might create peace. Calmness was considered the pinnacle path. In my family, communication was thought to be the greatest travel, that is, next to thinking.

Even in election season, I learned at the knees of Mommy and Daddy; empathy is the best educator. I wondered. What had these young men experienced in their homes?

Would their mothers and fathers be pleased as they heard their brood proclaim prejudice statements from the pavement, "Barack Obama is a Muslim." Might the Moms or Dads of these chaps be indignant at the discordant idea of "Country First?" Would they rather the children cry in concord, "We, the people, are the change we can believe in." Likely not. Progeny are the products of parents.

If we teach the children to chastise, they will. Offspring trained to offend others do. Those tutored to act defensively often deliver dubious dictums. Fear fills the spirits of those who were not treated with abundant respect. Apprehension is frequently expressed as anger.

Concerned communication gives birth to calm and care. If we edify praise, as well as unity and peace, our offspring will practice kindheartedness. When mothers and fathers teach attentiveness and acceptance, the children will acquire comparable customs. Elders who choose to listen and learn from and with their progeny teach little ones to do the same.

Perchance what divides our country is not political parties, religious practices, color, or creed. What fractures America is the manner in which we parent our children.

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

The Audacity to Hope is a Dream From My Father

Barack Obama in Berlin

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

It is the day of my father's birth, July 24th. The man who taught me to dream of unity gave me the freedom to aspire. Leon inspired and inspires me today. Since earliest childhood, Daddy ensured I saw no walls and created no barriers. My father, through his actions, helped me to understand the importance of fellowship. He demonstrated the need to build bridges in federations with those we call foreign. Whether Daddy spoke of companions or countries, he emphasized the strength of coalitions. Lee, as others might label him, taught me the value alliances, in every association. With thanks to Daddy, I have the Audacity to Hope. Barack Obama also has the courage of conviction. Illinois Senator, and Presidential hopeful Obama communicated this commitment to a broader community, today, on July 24, 2008, in Berlin, Germany.

Barack Obama spoke of the belief he holds dear, and the one my father shared with me. Perchance, Dreams From My Father, and his, were evident in a speech given this afternoon on distant soil. Citizen Obama expressed a belief in the power of partnerships. He advanced the notion, when we come "together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life, all is finer.

The presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, and potential President of the United States, declared, as a community, large or small, people connected can strive to achieve for the commonweal. Individually and as a culture, we thrive when we are united. Divided, we worldwide will fall. Whether it be in Berlin, or at an American border, when people build walls, society is weakened.

This sentiment resonated within me. People abroad responded as well.

Possibly, we all have fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers that help us to acknowledge "the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another." As the assembly in Germany applauded the words "this is the moment when we must" trust, give hope, come together, "summon that spirit [of promise] anew," and "renew our resolve," I choked back tears.

I do not agree with the thought that any of us is, or has an enemy. Nonetheless, I greatly appreciate the broader concept offered; compassion towards all beings is vital. The thought expressed frequently in Barack Obama's address that touched me is, empathy is essential. I too believe that we must join as one. As a whole we need to act on our spoken intention. All individuals say they crave global tranquility. If each of us embraces the "fierce urgency of now" much will be achieved.

The time is upon us. Each of us can choose to act on our hopes and our desires. I have faith that if we recall, as my Dad taught me, no one person is our leader; no one is, or can be the person in charge, then, we can truly prosper. (I thank you Daddy for the lesson. 'All are equal. An egalitarian society is essential if humans are to live in harmony. As you said today Daddy, we each must have an opportunity to shine.)

Today, and every day, the man with a dream is not necessarily a person of any particular gender, race, color, creed, or ethnicity. He is you, me, my Dad, Barack Obama's father, and yours. The person with vision is a woman, a child. He or she is every being. If we are ever to end the nightmare of an era bent on destruction, we must join hands, extend our hearts, empathize, and endeavor to be one.

I offer an invitation, an inspirational speech. May you peruse the text, reflect on the transcript, and live as a person with intent. May I present, Barack Obama and his speech delivered in Berlin on the date of my Dad's birth.

Transcript Obama’s Speech in Berlin July 24, 2008

The following is the prepared text of Senator Barack Obama in Berlin, Germany, as provided by his presidential campaign.

Senator Barack Obama: Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father – my grandfather – was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning – his dream – required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that’s when the airlift began – when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won…The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty…People of the world, look at Berlin!”

People of the world – look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

People of the world – look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall – a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope – walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers – dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth – that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations – and all nations – must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century – in this city of all cities – we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations – including my own – will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust – not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here – what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don’t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people – everywhere – became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation – our generation – must make our mark on the world.

People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

Source of Inspiration; The Audacity to Hope . . .

Book Excerpt: Barack Obama, Audacity to Hope. Time Magazine. October 15, 2006

Dreams From My Father. Excerpt. Three Rivers Press. Copyright© 2004 By Barack Obama.
ISBN: 1-4000-8277-3

Transcript; Obama’s Speech in Berlin. The New York Times. July 24, 2008

pdf Transcript; Obama’s Speech in Berlin. The New York Times. July 24, 2008

The Fierce Urgency of Now. The Rolling stone. November 4, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 24, 2008 at 03:45 PM in 'Regime Change' , Communities, Global Village | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Netroots Nation 2008; A Dream Realized

Netroots Nation 08 - Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi Keynote

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Welcome Home Netroots Nation attendees. You may recall, it began with a dream, an impossible hope for a future unforeseen. It was your wish, his want, her desire, and my aspiration. Together we were the inspiration. We imagined greatness would be if we worked together. The issues of import to us were and continue to be the Environment, Education, Energy, Ethics, Wars in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and of course Peace. Health Care, and the fragile nature of medical coverage in the United States, does not escape our gaze. While we may embrace Free Enterprise, we are not ignorant of the inherent flaws within a system that rewards the rich and punishes the poor. The Courts, and Congress do not escape our scrutiny. Those of us who are far from apathetic examine the Executive Branch of government as well. Indeed, citizens that actively care inquire of and study every subject, deeply.

We, the vibrantly engaged people believe prosperity for all is a real possibility. Power, we trust does not reside within the halls of Congress, or corporate chambers. Nor is it found in the Oval Office. ,Rather the strengthen to bring about change is embodied within us.. When we came together and communicated, we created a net that grows from the roots. As a whole, we are a nation of thinkers, doers, and dynamic. We are determined to attain the incredible, just as our forefathers intended. We, the people who participate in endless discussions of what is, could be, would be, and work to ensure that the beauty of America is as was proposed hold dear the original declaration of independent believers

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The words of our ancestors resonate within us. Hence, just as the authors of this glorious creed did hundreds of years earlier, we met to discuss what we might do. Initially, we became acquainted in a community of computers. Then, we moved closer together in conferences, online and ultimately outside our homes. We may have met three years earlier at the first Yearly Kos, or two months prior as we passed through an essay. It matters not when we introduced ourselves to each other.

You gave rise to his verve. He encouraged her to trust. She buoyed my beliefs. Together we, each one of us, energized a nation. The topics we spoke of titillated, tantalized; others thought these subjects were taboo. Yet, for us, politics was personal. Religion was real. For us, the vocal few, faith is found everywhere, not merely in a house of worship.

We, the wondrous ones, willing to participate in profundity, cared to discuss what we thought crucial. Education, the curriculum, what our children learn, and teachers teach, reaches far beyond the classroom. We yearn for a healthy happy community, just as our forefathers did when they wrote the United States Constitution.

Perchance, that is why we consider the law. We understand that essential freedoms must be retained. For us, an awareness exists, if Americans are to be safe and secure, we must be able to express ourselves, particularly in private. Those of us who talk of the taboos rather than blindly trust concur; we are not able to feel as though our life is our own, if we do not live a liberated life within reason, an inherent right to happiness will not be realized. Contentment comes when we, within the greater community care for our brethren.

Perhaps, this knowledge prompts us to share stories of our experiences with the health care system. We have learned to consider the complexity of how, where, if, or when we will receive treatment. Chatters in cyberspace also ponder those who are denied a cure. We, the people within the net neighborhood broach what hurts the hearts of those who do not verbally venture into the realities that preclude a more solid union.

In America, more than a few have died needlessly due to medical glitches and Insurers hitches. That is the reason, unlike many, we do tell tales of woe. We acknowledge that those with medical coverage could lose the medical plans that provide a false sense of security, in an instant, indeed, retroactively. Those within the net neighborhood run, skip, walk, and crawl away from computers to aid the ailing. Advocates in the blogosphere take action to correct a structure wrought with corruption. Our desire to delve expands our horizons.

The common folks from throughout the land, when in cyberspace, chatter of health care and how the notion cannot exist as long as medical coverage is inaccessible or too easy rescinded buy "providers."

Food for us is more than an ingestible. Fodder, we realize, has an effect on our bodies, the environment, and our evolution. A cuisine, when commercially produced, can be a source of contaminants to man and beast, and we are not afraid to say so. Oh, there is much that those in the worldwide web talk of and take on. Problems are but a paradigm, and shifts are sustenance. In the Internet neighborhood, silence is the only enemy.

Those who address the unspeakable, discuss sex. You, he, she, and I give voice to the words often whispered; physical intimacy is a not a sin and lust does not give birth to closeness. Out in the open we speak of the significance of marriage, and not just the ceremony or the legal license issued. It was you, he, she, me, and we, who understood that love is not limited. Each of us trusted, our gender did not restrict the fondness we feel. Emotionally, we work to be intelligent and just, fair, people who honor reverent freedoms. We are Progressives and proud to care for our fellow man.

We know ethics cannot be ethereal if we are to achieve a greater good. Profound principles are essential if we, the people are to truly unite as one, and this week we did. In July 2008, in Austin, Texas, bloggers beamed with delight as we entered a new era. On Thursday, the 17th through Sunday the 20th politicians, pundits, professionals, and people from all walks of life joined forces and followed what was no longer a whimsy. Careful, thoughtful, honorable change came and united each of us. Together, we moved forward. More than two thousand strong showed they are committed to countless causes. As a nation rooted in the Net, individually and as a whole, we thrust towards a venerable transformation. There we were, Americans returned to the roots the founders provided.

Netroots Nation, we have grown. Our influence increases. As long as we continue to believe and act, no matter our differences, we can achieve the excellence envisioned. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, let us all remember . . .

(W)hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Let this thought be our guide when next we meet. Until then, please register for the next Continental Constitutional Cyberspace Conference, Netroots Nation 2009. Until August 13, 2009, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, may we look forward to our Internet interactions.

A Byte of Information . . .

• Netroots Nation


• The Online Candidate Confronts Critical Netroots, By Katharine Q. Seelye. The New York Times. July 16, 2008


• Appealing to Bloggers’ Influence, Gore Asks for Help in Promoting Energy Challenge, By Katharine Q. Seelye. The New York Times. July 20, 2008


• The Next President and the Law, Netroots Nation 2008


• Time for Action: How the Netroots Can Lead on Healthcare Reform, Netroots Nation 2008


• The Recipe for Change in America's Food System, Netroots Nation 2008


• Breaking the Frame: Revitalizing and Redefining Reproductive Rights Media Coverage, Netroots Nation 2008


• Whatever Happened to the Religious Left? Netroots Nation 2008


• Politically Active Youth on Political Participation and Civic Education: What They Have to Teach Us, Netroots Nation 2008


• Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org.


• Netroots Nation Registration.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM in Activism, Bloggers Unite, Communities, Communities and Communication , Daily Kos | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

US Policy; Attack Adversaries. Appease Americans. No Diplomacy

Don't Bomb Iran

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Days ago, United States Commander-In-Chief, George W. Bush reminded us of the need to remain vigilant. He admonished anyone who might think to talk with those who politically, philosophically, or perhaps physically have the potential to oppose "us." The President of the world's superpower 'wisely' proclaimed ""Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." America's leader addressed Israeli lawmakers and said, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." As a protective parent might alert an easily frighten child, the Mister Bush forewarns his citizens. "Do not speak to strangers."

US policy under Bush is to attack or alienate. The Administration insists we will not appease or engage in diplomacy with what we identify as rogue nations. Persons classified as terrorists are to be threatened, and possibly killed. The President of the United States wishes to ensure he protects the public. Punitive measures multiply in a nation once defined as democratic.

Citizens in a country founded on the principles of equalitarianism no longer practice as they preach. Americans or the Administration ignore what is too often real; statistically, evidence shows those we know may be more dangerous. Close associates can harm "us." Those we have yet to encounter in our daily lives are not scary; they are unfamiliar. Hence, frequently, much to our own chagrin, people follow the lead of penal persons, just as we have in the United States. Today, American citizens are easily appeased, and willing to attack. We are willing to alienate our allies and all others. We spread democracy only to destroy the tenet.

People whose names, faces, customs, cultures, and skin color differs from "ours" are classified as aliens. Those who we do not speak with are considered adversaries, for "we" have not taken the time to become acquainted. "We" assume the people who are foreign to "us" are antagonistic. Americans, seem willing to dismiss the accepted wisdom; friendships are formed. Foes are those we do not know, and thus, fear.

That said, the defensive stance adopted by the paternalistic President presumes that "we" just as little children, are less learned. Therefore, we will give all our toys to another tot, or to the big-bad-boogie-man, he vehemently told "us" not to play with. The word "appeasement," as referenced in Mister Bush's speech does not speak to diplomacy, a skillful communication between countries; it connotes the giving of gifts.

Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the hope that Hitler would not drag Europe into another world war. Appeasement expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of World War I and to correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty.

Guilt motivates many a parent who realizes, in the past, they were overly punitive. A child, who chose actions that were combative and cruel may not learn to be kind, if a guardian slams and damns the young person, and then confines the lad or lass to a barren room. An adolescent starved for love, stripped of all possessions, severely reprimanded, and forced to submit reparations will not thrive. When a tot or a teen is stripped of a sense of self, as well as deprived of any dignity survival is a struggle. It is no wonder, upon reflection, the parents or persons in power were remorseful. The Versailles Treaty denied the German people all that made life whole.

This treaty held Germany solemnly responsible for WWI. Germany was forced to pay reparations totaling 132,000,000,000 in gold marks, they lost 1/8 of its land, all of its colonies, all overseas financial assets, a new map of Europe was carved out of Germany, and the German military was basically non-existent. To the German people they were being ruthlessly punished for a war not only were not responsible for but had to fight. The main terms of the
Versailles Treaty were:

(1) the surrender of all German colonies as League of Nations mandates
(2) the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France
(3) cession of Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Memel to Lithuania, the Hultschin district to Czechoslovakia, Poznania, parts of East Prussia and Upper Silesia to Poland
(4) Danzig to become a free city
(5) plebiscites to be held in northern Schleswig to settle the Danish-German frontier
(6) occupation and special status for the Saar under French control
(7) demilitarization and a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland
(8) German reparations of £6,600 million
(9) a ban on the union of Germany and Austria
(10) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war
(11) provision for the trial of the former Kaiser and other war leaders
(12) limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies, no aircraft, and no airships
(13) the limitation of the German Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with no submarines

Germany signed the Versailles Treaty under protest. The USA Congress refused to ratify the treaty. Many people in France and Britain were angry that there was no trial of the Kaiser or the other war leaders.

The treaty devastated Germany politically and economically. Because of the treaty, many Germans were desperate to find a new leader to get them out of the Great Depression, which they blamed on the extravagant reparations they had to pay to the Allies.

A chastised child ultimately will not sacrifice their soul. They will rebel and revolt, as Germany did. Perhaps, Neville Chamberlain and those who chose "appeasement" overreacted as parents, or as people often do. Too often, an abusive authority figure will engage in one extreme behavior or another. Penalties and presents do help a youngster to learn. Neither deed will deliver a child from "evil." Calm, careful conversations help create a union between mother, father, and child. When Moms, Dads, or government officials love the other and self enough to empathetically listen reverent relationships grow. The same is true when we speak of nations. Negotiations are necessary if peace is to become a possibility. We do not war with those who work well with "us." Composure cultivated in conversations evokes cooperation.

Notwithstanding, the veracity that talk can educate and place a distressed child at ease, country or diplomat, Americans are asked to avoid discussion with those our "leaders" deemed dictators or terrorists. "We," the people are expected to forget, as George W. Bush expressed not too long ago. On February 13, 2006, just over two years earlier, Commander-In-Chief Bush avowed his desire to resolve disagreements with Iran in an irenic manner. The President of the United States proclaimed the potential nuclear crisis need not be a cause for confrontation. After talks in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the decisive Mister Bush said the allied leaders agreed; the issue must be solved "diplomatically by working together." However, as is evident, for persons who dominate, the definitions for "diplomacy" and "peaceful" are fluid, as is the description of democracy. Merriam-Webster offers . . .

de·moc·ra·cy
1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3. capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States (from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts)
4. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

What may be thought odd is, in a nation founded on the principles of social equality, there are elite 'leaders.' These elected officials believe they must assure the common folk, it is best not to speak with our "enemies." In the United States, in practice, it seems democracy is a disciplinary dictum. The President envisions himself as a penal parent might.

Might we also muse of the contradiction? In a country of equals the race, religion, or social rank of an individual might reduce the presumed significance of a fellow citizen. Here in America, too often one neighbor is the nemesis of another. How could that be? We might ponder another paradox. If every individual is worthy, one of no more value than any other, why are there privileged people who have power over the populace? We may know not why; nonetheless, we are aware those in authority tell average Americans, 'Diplomacy would be pernicious.' The incongruity of the situation does not escape observant historians.

Academics who study the democratic system note Americans have less social equality than we like to think we do. Citizens of this country are as those in a family where retaliatory parents rule. The word "family" connotes a connection. Yet, when guardians are not caregivers and are instead castigators. "family' is but the facade.

Yet, just as in a dysfunctional home where the relatives wish to believe all is well, in this "progressive" nation, we may wish to believe the system works. Americans firmly assert the present is far better than the past was, and the future will bring greater improvements. We reassure ourselves with charts and graphs. We watch market reports and read research that validates what we wish to hold as truth.

Admittedly, the average American accepts that in this affluent and democratic nation problems persist. Income inequity has always been a constant; it remains pervasive in the States. Here, in the richest country in the world, in a nation where people are taught to believe everyone is equal, opportunities are not. Most dismiss the imbalance as temporary. Certainly, the prospect for change is plausible. Shortcomings are the effect of economic growth. Corrections will come, sooner or later. Perhaps tomorrow will bring a better day. Of course, it will. Americans know how to grow an economy. With expansion, earnings increase. People prosper, equally.

Most of "us" believe that democracy has survived each trial and tribulation, and a government of the people, as we presume ours to be, will continue to thrive. Yet; perchance, we have been persuaded to have faith as we do. Democracy is best. Nothing functions better.

This is a powerful assumption. It may be tested by reflecting upon the fact that, despite American progress, the society has been forced to endure sundry movements of protest. In our effort to address the inconvenient topic of protest, our need to be intellectually consistent -- while thinking within the framework of continuous progress -- has produced a number of explanations about the nature of dissent in America. Closely followed, these arguments are not really explanations at all, but rather the assertion of more presumptions that have the effect of defending the basic intuition about progress itself. The most common of these explanations rests upon what is perceived to be a temporary malfunction of the economic order: people protest when “times are hard.” When times stop being “hard,” people stop protesting and things return to “normal” -- that is to say, progress is resumed.

Unfortunately, history does not support the notion that mass protest movements develop because of hard times. Depressed economies or exploitive arrangements of power and privilege may produce lean years or even lean lifetimes for millions of people, but the historical evidence is conclusive that they do not produce mass political insurgency. The simple fact of the matter is that, in ways that affect mind and body, times have been “hard” for most humans throughout human history and for most of that period people have not been in rebellion. Indeed, traditionalists in a number of societies have often pointed in glee to this passivity, choosing to call it “apathy” and citing it as a justification for maintaining things as they are.

This apparent absence of popular vigor is traceable, however, not to apathy but to the very raw materials of history -- that complex of rules, manners, power relationships, and memories that collectively comprise what is called culture. “The masses” do not rebel in instinctive response to hard times and exploitation because they have been culturally organized by their societies not to rebel. They have, instead, been instructed in deference. Needless to say, this is the kind of social circumstance that is not readily apparent to the millions who live within it.

The lack of visible mass political activity on the part of modern industrial populations is a function of how these societies have been shaped by the various economic or political elites who fashioned them. In fundamental ways, this shaping process (which is now quite mature in America) bears directly not only upon our ability to grasp the meaning of American Populism, but our ability to understand protest generally and, most important of all, on our ability to comprehend the prerequisites for democracy itself.

Perhaps, the words of Professor Lawrence Goodwyn help to explain why Americans believe people elsewhere are complacent. In the United States, the public presumes people abroad will not create change on their own. They must be taught to do as the American Administration thinks wise. This assessment of what occurs within our homeland may expose why "we" believe democracy can be forcibly imposed on other nations. The theory Goodwyn offers helps illustrate why in a "democratic" nation the deciders dictate policy for one and for all planet wide. However, the hypothesis may not be accurate.

In other territories, protest may not have been trained out of the populace. Perchance, residents in other regions were not appeased with material goods meant to buy love and obedience? We cannot be certain for there is so little that Americans are allowed to know of the persons our power elite wish to remain estranged from "us."

Nonetheless, it seems apparent from accounts, in other parts of the globe, dissent is not defined as terrorism. Discontent is not considered destructive. The voice of the people is not pernicious. Possibly, in some places governments are not as powerful as prohibitive parents might be. Oh, those who reign may try to exert absolute rule; however, the people are less easily "appeased" or patronized.

Many a Persian person may describe a situation different from Americans trust to be true in the Middle East. Numerous would share, in Iran, were it not for America's invasive input the inhabitants may have eliminated what the United States considers evil. Indeed, Iranians were working to end the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, American intervened, and all changed, for the worse.

The follies of Bush's Iran policy
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi
International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The confrontation between Iran and the West has developed a new dimension over the detention of several Iranian scholars, journalists and political activists who have been living in the West for years and have recently traveled to their homeland.

What is the root cause of these events? Part of it is the deep unpopularity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Internal opposition to his government is becoming increasingly louder as Iranians are recognizing the danger in his foreign policy and his failure to improve the economy.

In December, university students forced him to stop his speech by shouting "death to the dictator." Iran's Parliament has severely criticized him. In recent municipal elections, candidates backed by Ahmadinejad received only 4 percent of the vote.

The conservatives who rule Iran are also badly fractured. The radical faction led by Ahmadinejad is bitterly opposed to the more moderate, pragmatic faction led by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who advocates accommodation with the West.

The recent arrests should be seen partly as a reaction to these events. Unable to address Iran's mountain of social, economical and political problems, the hard-liners are trying to create a new crisis with the West in order to distract attention from their problems.

Possibly, this scenario demonstrates that American Administrators have much in common with those they emphasize are part of an "axis of evil." The need to divert attention dominates policy among world leaders. A desire to subvert the masses moves many decision-makers, just as it drives many a punitory parent. When authority figures wish to govern, not of, by or for the people but for the love of power, they subtly and successfully suppress the sensible among us.

Engineer, and Author David Brin may have said it best, "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power." Control is a costly endeavor. Perhaps, the price is too high for the average reasonable American, or possibly those who no longer view protest as wise, do not realize the expense is not only imprudent, it is counterproductive and detrimental to our own "Homeland Security."

Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures, and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

But Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations . . .

Thus, Washington's policy of "helping" the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired. It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West . . .

The Bush administration should put an end to its misguided policy and immediately declare which organizations and public figures have received funds from the $75 million. This will make it clear that the scholars, journalists and other figures who travel to Iran have nothing to do with Bush's policy on Iran.

We can hope that one day soon, Americans will find the courage to clarify what is more insidious. The principles that currently guide American democracy are not egalitarian. In this nation, appeasement and punishment dominate the dictums. The Administration, the elites, the influential do not speak for the people; nor do they engage in diplomatic relations that might bring persons of the world together as one.

If the United States government continues to aggressively assault our "enemies' as an abusive parent might if they perceive the "stranger" as a threat, then we can expect to be attacked. Should the powers-that-be in the States invoke embargos, again the risk is, this reactive behavior will incite attack. "Appeasement" will not bring bliss. Gifts given to lessen the weight of guilt will not gratify or garner good graces. We cannot buy love; nor can we grow fondness when engaged in a feud.

Thus far, "we" the people have seen what occurs when "our' government does not act in best interests of the people here or abroad. The Iranians who seek to enrich society are correct. A democratic system cannot be instigated from the outside. Fairness grows from within. Equanimity must evolve naturally if it is to be real, effective, and everlasting.

Might Americans work to cultivate the principles we espouse and yet have never established before we attempt to shift the paradigm elsewhere. Let us find a way to make democracy doable here at home. Perchance, diplomacy will build a bridge. If only Americans talked among themselves and to each other. We must speak to "strangers." Perhaps we will discover similarities. "We" the people cannot allow ourselves to be treated as children. We must acknowledge the people who claim to protect us are our abusers. The power-elite have the authority "we," the little people give them. America, it is time to stand up. Let us not fear the foreigner. With eyes wide open, let us consider those that cause us great harm live in our house.

Democracy Described and Defined . . .

Bush's Comments In Israel Fuel Anger, By Michael Abramowitz. Washington Post. Friday, May 16, 2008; Page A08

Domestic Violence Statistics. An Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection. U.S. Department of Justice.

Neville Chamberlain on Appeasement (1939) The History Guide.

Democrats outraged by Bush "appeasement" remark, By Steve Holland. Reuters. May 15, 2008

The Treaty of Versailles and the Impact on Germany. By Walter S. Zapotoczny. 2005

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack, By Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter. Times Online. February 25, 2007

The follies of Bush's Iran policy, By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi. International Herald Tribune. May 30, 2007

The Populist Movement; A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, By Lawrence Goodwyn. Oxford University Press. 1978

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 17, 2008 at 09:00 PM in Aggression, Americana, Communities, Communities and Communication , Defiant Diplomacy, Politics, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Floridians Consider Taxes, Budget Cuts, and Effects the Everglade State




copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

On April 15, as Floridians rush to file tax forms few think of more than the burden. The cost of living in the Sunshine State is high. Levies are higher. Each year, the toll these expenditures take on the lives of individuals and families increases. Many citizens in this Southern State cry, "We need some relief!" Representative have heard the call and responded. Yet, the reaction may not be as thoughtful as it first appears to be.

Floridians may wish to consider the plea Democratic Party Chair, Congresswoman, Karen L. Thurman presents. The Congresswoman discusses a stark reality. Change may come at the expense of the common people. A reduction in dollars and cents spent does not always equate to a savings.

Many in The Orange State are grateful. Representatives in the State reviewed the budget and then expressed a belief cuts must be made. Prompted by much public angst, the Conservatives may claim the people want the Legislature to be more restrained. Few would argue that this is true. What is equally valid is the fact that few would wish to compromise the safety, security, or sanity of the poorest people, and those who are physically most dependent on others. If the impoverished are in need, incidental costs amass and local communities pay the ultimate price.

Our children, and their education, are vital. The progeny are our future. Parents are also not persons we would wish to hurt. Throughout our lives Moms and Dads, now elderly protected us. Now, we must help provide for their safety and security, just as they did for us. Without the person who cared for us in our younger years, we would not be as profound and emotionally prosperous as we are.

The police and fire men and women also help ensure our safety and security. Floridians, please ask yourself, can you afford to chance that these public servants may not be there when you need them most?

Granted, in this moment a resident of Florida may not be able to see into the future. Today, he or she may think himself or herself healthy. However, all living creatures must consider that cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and pneumonia does not knock on the door and ask for an invitation to enter a body. These catastrophic illnesses creep up on a being silently, too often suddenly. When people are fit, they need to ponder the possibility that has become more probable in many American households. Insurers have cut coverage. Co-pays are more exorbitant. Businesses have eliminated Health Care benefits. As the economy worsens and profits are negligible, this trend is likely to increase. Floridians need to consider what might occur in hospitals as the cost of care soars .

There is much to contemplate as Floridians assess the quality of life and the proposed budget cuts. I invite readers to respond to the impending crisis. Planned budget cuts may not be the blessing citizens in the Everglade State thought they would be. It is possible to remove allocations that do not serve the common folk well. Floridians, please, let us look before we leap. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Please, ponder the profound impacts these changes may bring, rather than rely on clichés.

Seemingly, simple solutions rarely address the specifics that are all too real in the lives of residents. The thoughts of the Congresswoman, Karen L. Thurman may help the people in Florida to make an informed decision.

Help if you choose. Click on any of the links if you wish to act in the interest of those you love, Mom, Dad, son, daughter, spouse, and you . .

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 "If a state had its priorities straight, balancing a budget on the backs of the working poor, the elderly and the disabled would be the last option. This year in Florida, it's the first option... the Republican-led House and Senate [have] completed mutually heartless, stupid budgets..." - Palm Beach Post Editorial, 4/15/08

Dear Florida Democrats,

Today is tax day in America, which means that we've all got money on the mind, even more than usual. Times are tough. Florida families are being squeezed, either directly or indirectly, by skyrocketing gas prices, rising health care costs, the continued housing crisis and, of course, the subprime mortgage disaster.

Moreover, the Republicans' reckless policy of raising property taxes on middle class families to pay for special interest tax loopholes has been devastating. You won't ever hear them admit to raising taxes, but it's true. They've increased the required local effort - local property taxes - time and again.

Now the Republican politicians in Tallahassee want to squeeze the people of Florida even more - including the most vulnerable among us. I'm always amazed by how heartless and self-serving Republicans in power are, but the proposed state budgets from the House and Senate mark a new low.

It's not over yet, however. As the "leaders" of the Republican-controlled Legislature negotiate the final budget, we must send them a strong and clear message: Get your priorities straight - NOW.

Click below to use our automated online tool to send a message to Republican Senate President Ken Pruitt, possible future Senate President Jeff Atwater, Speaker Marco Rubio and Speaker-Designate Ray Sansom today.

http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts

What do the Republicans want? I'll tell you:

The Republicans want to reduce per student spending in K-12 education for the first time in almost 40 years. They want to eliminate Everglades clean-up efforts. Though child abuse rises as the economy dives, they're going after more than 70 child-protection jobs.

The Republicans also want to gut the highway patrol and reduce public safety. They want to lay off almost 2,000 corrections officers, despite prisons being stretched to the limit already. They want to cut a third of the state's probation officers - the law enforcement specialists whose job it is to keep convicted sexual predators away from your children.

Republicans want to reduce hospice care for seniors and decimate county health departments and Area Health Education Centers, where Florida's poorest in rural areas and underserved urban communities often go for their medical care. They want thousands of inner-city school kids in Miami to see their doctors less often.

The Republicans want to end hospital care for 20,000 people with catastrophic illnesses and reduce access to anti-rejection drugs for Floridians who have received life-saving organ transplants.

The Republicans don't have to do this. Florida has a rainy day fund, and there are plenty of corporate tax loopholes that can be closed. Democrats in the Legislature are fighting tooth and nail against the Republicans' terrible decisions, but they need your help.

Click below to send a message to the Republicans in charge. Write them about a personal story, and tell them to stop their recklessness before it hurts more Floridians.

http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts

They've spared nothing - except their special interest buddies.

Speaker Rubio secretly inserted language into the House budget to allow a friend's company to bid for a multi-million dollar state contract. While the Republicans want to slash financial aid and increase tuition for college students, Sen. Mike Haridopolos is accepting $75,000 a year to lecture part-time - on top of the $150,000 in state money he took to write a book that was never published.

Atwater, who thinks he should be Senate President, tried to kick bail bondsmen some cash, until he was caught red-handed by Democratic Sen. Arthenia Joyner. Meanwhile, President Pruitt is allowing Atwater to take $7000 a month to train his future chief of staff - an unprecedented waste of taxpayer money.

Democrats proposed an alternative budget, and of course, the Republicans rejected it. But that doesn't mean we should back down. Someday we'll have a Legislature that works for the people again. Until then, we have to speak up loudly. Please take a few minutes today and write the Legislature before it's too late.

Thank you for your commitment.

Sincerely,

Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman
Chair, Florida Democratic Party

P.S. This Republican recession is a mess, and the Republican Legislature's budget plans are going to make it even worse - if we don't act now. Send a message today:
http://www.fladems.com/stopthecuts

Floridians who care thank those who also choose to do more than stress, then slice, and dice the necessary expenditures, those that ensure that inhabitants of the Sunshine State are safe, sane, and remain stable.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 15, 2008 at 08:00 AM in Communities, Congress, Economics, Florida | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Are African-Americans Black Enough or Anglo Americans Too White?

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

This year, perhaps more than any time in the past, Americans are reminded of race relations each and every day. On televisions, on the radio, airwaves are filled with talk of the current Presidential campaign. For the first time in this nation's history, a viable Presidential hopeful is not a white. Barack Obama is a Black man; he is profound and has purpose. Early on, Anglo Americans, and even some people of color, wondered if Obama authentically represented African-Americans. Countless inquired of Obama's experience, not in Congress, but in the ghettos of this country. The prominent periodical, Time Magazine, published a cover story titled, "Is Obama Black Enough? As Sociologists assess, there is reason to believe another question is apt, "Are Caucasians white enough, or are they too white to understand the Black experience?"

The Black experience is as all other occurrences. Each is unique to the individual. Nevertheless, in a society where clear delineations are evident, we can observe, life as an African-American is not as easy. Circumstances common among Blacks are unthinkable to Caucasians. Anglos rarely appreciate persons of color are not truly different, only the conditions they live under vary.

While white Americans are happy to acknowledge that the Black man or woman they work with, as a singular person, is wonderful, Caucasians are quick to avow, that the individual they know is not like the rest of "those" people. Pinkish people do not understand. Hence . . .

Whites Underestimate the Costs of Being Black
Columbus, Ohio – How much do white Americans think it “costs” to be black in our society, given the problems associated with racial bias and prejudice?

The answer, it appears, is not much.

When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.

In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.

The results suggest most white Americans don't truly comprehend the persisting racial disparities in our country, said Philip Mazzocco, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University's Mansfield campus.

“The costs of being black in our society are very well documented,” Mazzocco said. “Blacks have significantly lower income and wealth, higher levels of poverty, and even shorter life spans, among many other disparities, compared to whites.”

For example, white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years.
“When whites say they would need $1 million to give up TV, but less than $10,000 to become black, that suggests they don't really understand the extent to which African Americans, as a group, are disadvantaged,” Mazzocco said.

What Anglos do understand are the generalizations they hold dear. Black persons are different than whites, and they are, in large part because a society that favors people of pinkish paler hues has created a cast system that bars African-Americans from achieving as they might.

Incomes are lower, access to adequate educational facilities are few. Health Care coverage is out of reach for those with limited opportunity and wealth. Discrimination against those whose color differs from the main is ample. In the abstract, Anglo Americans grasp that those placed lower on the socio-economic ladder suffer. White Americans know they would not wish to live as a Black American does.

[I]n one study, whites were told to imagine that they were about to be born as a random white person in America, but they were being offered a cash gift to be born as a random black person. Once again, white participants requested relatively small sums to make a life-long race-change. In addition, some were given a list of some of the costs of being black in America, such as the racial wealth disparity. The result was that whites in this latter scenario requested significantly higher amounts than those in the previous studies – about $500,000.

Finally, some participants were given a similar scenario except all references to blacks, whites, and America were taken out. They were asked to imagine they were born into the fictional country of Atria, and were born either into the “majority” or “minority” population. They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by blacks in America). In this case, white participants in the study said they should be paid an average of $1 million to be born as a minority member in Atria.
“When you take it out of the black-white context, white Americans seem to fully appreciate the costs associated with the kinds of disparities that African Americans actually face in the United States,” Mazzocco said. “In this case, they asked for a million dollars, similar to what they want for giving up television.”

Mazzocco said blatant prejudice was not the reason for the findings. Results showed that whites who scored higher on a measure of racial prejudice did not answer significantly differently than others in the study.

Often those who are out of touch with what is true for another are not knowingly bigoted. As children, we learn to believe as we do. Most Americans are oblivious, no matter how well informed they, we might be.

However, if we are honest with ourselves, people know what is philosophically true for them personally, may not be valid. We are each similar, yet, never the same. A human desire to categorize places us in jeopardy. When we define others, or ourselves as Black or white we cripple our communities, as evident through statistical data. The numbers speak volumes, so too do people if we bother to ask them of their values.

Social Scientists surveyed those of disparate groups, and discovered what we could know intellectually. Those who physically do and do not resemble us share our values. Although experiences may be divergent, we need only think of our siblings to realize the adage "All men are created equal," does not mean every being is identical in appearance; nevertheless, essentially we are related. My blue eyed-sister is not as I am. She sees the world through her own lens. A brown-eyed brother cannot think, say, do, feel, or be as me. Still, we are akin. Biologically persons may be similar. They are never the same; nor are there stark contrasts.

Every human values principles that honor all men, women, and children unvaryingly. Innately, two-legged creatures crave caring connections. We all want to have the rights reverence affords, just as our brethren do. Every person is made of blood, sweat, and tears. Humans have inherent worth. Shared ignorance does not allow people to act on our deepest beliefs. the essence of our beauty is not just skin deep. It is part of our being whether we are Black or white.

Researchers remind us, in November 2007, it is time to "Redefine What It Means to Be Black in America." The Social and Demographic division of Pew Research Center, in conjunction with National Public Radio surveyed a large group of Americans, a large portion of those who participated were Black. This fact alone sets this report apart from earlier examinations which most relied on data from white Americans. The review titled, Blacks See Growing Values Gap Between Poor and Middle Class, Optimism about Black Progress Declines, we discover the times and trends are changing, or perhaps our awareness of what is has been altered. Many African-Americans do not identify themselves with the accepted definition of Black.

A Single Race?
Another revelatory finding in the Pew poll is that 37 percent of African Americans now agree that it is no longer appropriate to think of black people as a single race. A little more than half of the black people polled, 53 percent, agreed that it is right to view blacks as a single race. And the people most likely to say blacks are no longer a single race are young black people, ages 18-29.

Forty-four percent of those young black people say there is no one black race anymore, as compared to 35 percent of the 30- to 49-year-old black population, and 34 percent of the black people over age 65.

The split in the black race comes down to a matter of values, according to the poll. In response to the question, "Have the values of middle-class and poor blacks become more similar or more different?" 61 percent of black Americans said "more different." White Americans agreed, with 54 percent saying there is a growing values gap between the black middle class and the black poor; 45 percent of Hispanics agreed, too.

At the same time, 72 percent of whites, 54 percent of blacks, and 60 percent of Hispanics agree that in the last 10 years, "values held by black people and the values held by white people (have) become more similar."

While the ethos may appear equivalent, upon closer examination a variance among respondents emerges. In nationwide telephone interviews, with a representative sample of 3,086 adults, conducted from September 5-October 6, 2007, we learn what an "over-sampled" total of 1007 African Americans, 388 Hispanics, and 1671 Anglos believe.

Big gaps in perception between blacks and whites emerge on many topics. For example, blacks believe that anti-black discrimination is still pervasive in everyday life; whites disagree. And blacks have far less confidence than whites in the basic fairness of the criminal justice system.

Over the past two decades, blacks have lost some confidence in the effectiveness of leaders within their community, including national black political figures, the clergy, and the NAACP. A sizable majority of blacks still see all of these groups as either very or somewhat effective, but the number saying "very" effective has declined since 1986.

These statements may correlate to what is real for too many African-Americans. Income Gap Between Blacks, Whites Expands. The Brookings Institute in cooperation with National Public Radio revealed in a recent report, while Black Americans can no longer be thought of as a distinct group, if they ever were, as a whole, people of color have not benefited from a "free and open" society, as Caucasians have. Anglos remain oblivious. Intolerant attitudes inform whites. The same bigoted perspectives hinder an ability to relate, and recognize how different the Black experience is.

Again, in November 2007, Americans were given an opportunity to assess the clash bias has created. In a culture, founded on the principles of equality, Americans prefer to practice prejudiced policies. In the United States, people whose skin is dark are not afforded the opportunities bestowed upon their counterparts, Caucasian Americans.

Economic Mobility of Black and White Families

In brief, trends show that median family incomes have risen for both black and white families, but less so for black families. Moreover, the intergenerational analysis reveals a significant difference in the extent to which parents are able to pass their economic advantages onto their children. Whereas children of white middle-income parents tend to exceed their parents in income, a majority of black children of middle-income parents fall below their parents in income and economic status. These findings are provided in more detail below.

Median family income for both black and white families has increased over the last 30 years, but income gaps still persist.
Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline among black men. However, median family incomes for both racial groups increased, because of large increases in women's incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white women.

The lack of income growth for black men combined with low marriage rates in the black population has had a negative impact on trends in family income for black families.

There was no progress in reducing the gap in family income between blacks and whites. In 2004, median family income of blacks ages 30 to 39 was only 58 percent that of white families in the same age group ($35,000 for blacks compared to $60,000 for whites).

Black children grow up in families with much lower income than white children.

White children are more likely to surpass parents' income than black children at a similar point in the income distribution.
Overall, approximately two out of three blacks (63 percent) exceed their parents' income after the data are adjusted for inflation, similar to the percentage for whites.

However, a majority of blacks born to middle-income parents grow up to have less income than their parents. Only 31 percent of black children born to parents in the middle of the income distribution have family income greater than their parents, compared to 68 percent of white children from the same income bracket. . . .

White children are more likely to move up the ladder while black children are more likely to fall down.
Startlingly, almost half (45 percent) of black children whose parents were solidly middle class end up falling to the bottom of the income distribution, compared to only 16 percent of white children. Achieving middle-income status does not appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it protects white children.

Black children from poor families have poorer prospects than white children from such families. More than half (54 percent) of black children born to parents in the bottom quintile stay in the bottom, compared to 31 percent of white children.

Perhaps, the way in which the Black population experiences income inequity and discrimination, accounts for the lack of confidence in African-American leaders among the population, or did until very recently. In the Fall of 2007, before the first caucus in Iowa or the initial primary ballots in New Hampshire were cast, people of color in the United States expressed a glimmer of hope. While many people whose skin cast a brownish-purple hue were devoted to the Clinton campaign, they recognized that Barack Obama shed a powerful light on the issue of color. Again, the Pew Research Center, Social and Demographic Trends division concluded . . .

The most newsworthy African American figure in politics today - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama - draws broadly (though not intensely felt) favorable ratings from both blacks and whites. But blacks are more inclined to say that his race will detract from his chances to be elected president; whites are more inclined to say his relative inexperience will hurt his chances.

Three-quarters of blacks (76%) say that Obama is a good influence on the black community. Even greater numbers say this about Oprah Winfrey (87%) and Bill Cosby (85%), who are the most highly regarded by blacks from among 14 black newsmakers tested in this survey. By contrast, just 17% of blacks say that rap artist 50 Cent is a good influence.

Months prior to these results a conversation ensued that may have helped to alter a long accepted perception. The son of a white woman from Kansas, whose father was native to Kenya, Barack Obama was asked, "How important is race in defining yourself?" Perhaps, esteemed Senator, and Presidential candidate, Obama spoke for many African-Americans, most of whom understand their bloodline may be mixed. He might have also addressed what Anglo Americans understand, if not consciously. No matter the color of our skin, few of us are purebred. While people may presume to know who we are based on a preconceived notion, we are all more than our appearance. [If only as a society, we acted on this veracity.]

Obama: I think all of us in America and particularly African-Americans have to think about race at some point in our lives. The way I like to think about it, I am rooted in the African-American community, but I'm not defined by it. I am comfortable in my racial identity and recognize that I'm part of a very specific set of experiences in this country, but that's not the core of who I am. Another way of saying is that's not all I am . . .

One of the things that helped me to resolve a lot of these issues is the realization that the African-American community, which I'm now very much feel a part of, is itself a hybrid community. It's African. It's European. It's Native American. So it's much more difficult to define what the essential African-American experience is, at least more difficult than what popular culture would allow.

What I also realized is that the American experience is, by definition, a hybrid experience. I mean, you know one of the strengths of this country is that we have these people coming from, you know, all four corners of the globe converging, and sometimes in conflict, living side by side, and over time coming together to create this tapestry that is incredibly strong.

And so, in that sense, I feel that my background ironically, because it's unusual, is quintessentially American.

Americans of any race know that their ancestry is likely mixed. Whites are not pedigrees; nor are Blacks. Yet, pinkish people feel they can or must delineate when they define a dark complexioned person. Too often, in the United States, an African-American is described by their visible lineage, set apart because of the color of their skin. Yet, what of whites? How do we classify a paler person who may be part Irish, Italian, German, or English?

Apparently, a year ago, in February 2007, 60 Minutes Host Steve Kroft thought he knew what it meant to be Anglo or to be raised among white people. Mister Kroft made repeated references to the candidate's Caucasian mother, and Obama's childhood history. He said, "You spent most of your life in a white household." "I mean, you grew up white." "You were raised in a white household?" These statements were presented as though they were significant. The presumption was, in a white home people think, say, do, feel, and are different than those in a Black family. The evidence says this is not so. Yet, the myth remains firm. Hence, the journalist offered an observation, odd as it may be to some.

Kroft: [A]t some point, you decided that you were black?

The answer might have informed Black and white alike. The response may have encouraged African-Americans to be more vocal by the time they were surveyed nine months later. Possibly, the response had no influence. After centuries of racial discrimination, Black person may just be sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Whatever the reason for the realizations that emerged in the Pew Research report, finally, there is an incentive to believe. Hope is alive. A Black American, or many African-Americans, together, can change the persistent culture.

Presidential aspirant, Senator Obama spoke a truth that rattled a rigid reality. Stereotypes are exactly that. They need not characterize any of us, nor do we, as a nation need to endorse what divides us. Barack Obama explained . . .

Well, I'm not sure I decided it. I think if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. And when you're a child, in particular that is how you begin to identify yourself. At least that's what I felt comfortable identifying myself as . . .

[T]here is racial prejudice in our society that we do continue to carry the historical legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. We've never fully addressed that. It manifests itself in much higher rates of poverty and violence and lack of educational achievement in minority communities. But I know in my heart that there is a core decency to the American people, and that decency can be tapped.

I think America is at the point now where if a white person has the time to get to know who you are, that they are willing on average to look beyond race and judge you as an individual. That doesn't mean that they've stopped making snap judgments. It doesn't mean that before I was Barack Obama, and I was just Barack Obama, that if I got into an elevator, a woman might not clutch her purse a little tighter. Or if I'm walking down the street, that you might not hear some clicks of doors locking, right. I mean, there's still a host of stereotypes that I think a lot of people are operating under. But I think if they have time to get to know you, they will judge you as they would judge anybody else, and I think that's enormous progress.

We've made progress. Yes, things are better. But better is not good enough. And we've still got a long way to go.

Indeed, America has much to do as a nation if we are to heal what has harmed us as a people. If this country is to be truly healthy and authentically honorable, we must act as equals. To allow Black Americans to suffer at the hands of "compassionate" Caucasians, to deny the similarities, and amplify the differences does not bode well. A man, woman, or child must be judged by the quality of his character, not the color of his skin. Let us have the courage of our convictions. It is time to create a culture of community.
Once you label me, you negate me
~ Soren Kierkegaard [Danish Philosopher]

Sources and Stereotypes . . .

"Is Obama Black Enough? By Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates. Time Magazine. February 1, 2007

Whites Underestimate the Costs of Being Black. Researchers, Phil Mazzocco, Timothy Brock, Gregory Brock, and Kristina Olson. Article By Jeff Grabmeier. Ohio State University. June 25, 2007

Philip Mazzocco.

"Redefine What It Means to Be Black in America." National Public Radio. November 13, 2007

Blacks See Growing Values Gap Between Poor and Middle Class, Optimism about Black Progress Declines. The Social and Demographic Division. Pew Research Center. November 13, 2007

Transcript Excerpt: Sen. Barack Obama. CBS News. February 11, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 18, 2008 at 01:45 PM in American Dream, Americana, Being Black in America, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Civil Rights, Communities, Economics, Education, Effects of Poverty , Income Inequity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Only Barrier to Communication; My Emotions and Me

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

We each experience many obstructions everyday of our lives. There are physical fences we cannot or will not climb. A roadblock might impede our progress on the thoroughfare. Distance does us in. Many do not wish to venture beyond familiar neighborhoods. Proximity can limit our travel. Time is an interesting concept. Although, man created seconds, minutes, hours, and days, few of us seem able to separate ourselves from this obstacle.

As difficult as it might be to ford the river or sea, nothing compares with the challenge we feel when we know there is a need discuss subjects that cause us to feel defensive. Delicate topics are taboo too. Conversations of all sorts are difficult. Personal or professional, what we say aloud and what we do not can cause palms to sweat, hands to clam, pulses to race, and a person to pace. The heart is easily torn to pieces. The head hurts at the thought of what might be a threat. Communication can cleave, or calm; it can be the greatest bridge or the barrier that destroys a connection.

As I approach a theme that is ubiquitous, I realize Communication is the least understood construct in our lives. I could attempt to discuss what we do easily and yet struggle with from a singular perspective, that of an educator, a parent, a sibling, an employee, or a supervisor; however, I fear what I frequently experience. If I endeavor to illustrate what occurs when, or how, from a particular perspective people will do what they typically do; they will isolate an incident, and intentionally or not ignore the essence of this discussion, emotions.

As I approach a theme that is ubiquitous, I realize Communication is the least understood construct in our lives. I could attempt to discuss what we do easily and yet struggle with from a singular perspective, that of an educator, a parent, a sibling, an employee, or a supervisor; however, I fear what I frequently experience. If I endeavor to illustrate what occurs when, or how, from a particular perspective people will do what they typically do; they will isolate an incident, and intentionally or not ignore the essence of this discussion, emotions.

Personally, I do not presume to know what any individual must do to ensure that in their life, communications will be effective. Nor do I believe that any expert in linguistics can carve a path for you to pursue. As I share a tale or two, I trust you dear reader will relate as humans do, from your own life experience. Perchance that is the essential. We encounter, exchange, empathize, and grow. Life is an evolution with no singular solution. Lets us stroll down this path together, and discover the knowledge available to each of us. If we dare to dive more deeply than we do when we just talk, oh what treasures we might find. Let us look at the barriers to communication and examine ways to build bridges.

When we survey the research, we find the obscure and the obvious. Broad statements, outlines that obfuscate or abstract are available. Perhaps, we can fill in the blanks or read between the lines. Some of the script seems basic, easy to comprehend.

Barriers to Communication

Physical (time, environment, comfort, needs, physical medium)

Cultural (ethnic, religious, and social differences)

Perceptional (viewing what is said from your own mindset)

Motivational (mental inertia)

Experiential (lack of similar experience)

Emotional (personal feelings at the moment)

Linguistic (different languages or vocabulary)

Non-verbal (non-word messages)

Competition (noise, doing other things besides listening)

Words (we assign a meaning to a word often because of culture -- note the difference in the meaning of "police" (contrast [affluent neighborhoods] or any inner city perspective) or "boy" (contrast white male with black male perspectives)

Context (high / low)

Purpose

Mode (differences in way a message is sent)

Gestures (misunderstood gestures are a major barrier see discussion on non-verbal language)

Variations in language - accent, dialect

Slang - jargon - colloquialism

Different forms or reasons for verbal interaction

Dueling - seeing who can get the upper hand (playing the dozens)

Repartee conversation - taking short turns rather than monologue

Ritual conversation - standard replies with little meaning to words themselves (i.e. most US greetings)

Self-disclosure.

That last element is the one that tugs at heart. It is the hardest for many to accept or act on. Yet, in my life open discourse is essential if we wish to cultivate enjoyment. Communication, when effective brings closeness, counter to what our fears cause us to believe.

I see you shake your head and say, no that is not so. You might think, "How can I reveal of what lies deep within me." People will not understand. They may ridicule, rebuff, or resent my beliefs. 'Tis true; they might in the moment. At first blush, people can be reactive. However, think of a time when you did not tell someone your deepest secret. Did that not weigh heavily or your heart. Often, we snub ourselves more severely than others might.

In our communication with self, we do exactly what we think others will do if they knew. We shun us. We deny our feelings. The passion that pulses through our veins is veiled, just as it is in the dry list I presented earlier in this essay. It seems safer to hide the emotions. Thus, we travel on and justify, rationalize, reason, intellectualize, make excuses, blame . . . human beings mask the essence of a message in order to relieve the pain. Then they speak of external barriers?

I cannot speak to my boss; she is a b****! He is a b******! We do not speak the same language. In his culture . . . He could not possibly comprehend. She is unfamiliar with the language; she will not hear what I say. He is a man; how could he understand. You know how women are. No, tell me. I have yet to encounter any two that are alike.

I have to wait so that I may speak to him face-to-face. However, the time never comes. Thus, you wait and wait for the perfect opportunity. It never seems to come. After awhile, you decide it is just too late. Then you conclude, it is just too late. Too much has happened since. I guess I will have to suffer in silence.

Communication can cause such anguish. It can also bring great pleasure. The two are not separate; nor are they equal. They are the sum total of our unique being. Our background and experiences cause us to feel as we do, hear as we might, understand in the manner that makes sense to us. We may be critical, cordial, compassionate, or cruel; yet, no matter what our intent, another will perceive our words and deeds through their own filter.

Woes may be similar, worries akin. You, as I may be apprehensive when confronted with what I perceive is a need to say aloud what I think might be difficult. I hesitate. I vacillate. I hem and hah. I fear what I might mouth. In my desire to foil a fight, perhaps I create one?

When faced with a dilemma I recall the words my Mom uttered, "If you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all." Perchance, that would be best; however, it is my experience, what is not stated does far more damage than what be expressed poorly.

If someone comes to me and complains, if they accuse me of doing what was detrimental, do I become defensive. Might I attack, react, reason, or rationalize. Whatever I choose I must understand, mere words are not enough to communicate the flood that is within me. Nor will my statements be all that the other sees, hears, or grasps. There is far more to an interaction than the superficial sense we have of what was said or done.

Intellectually, I understand the inventory of barriers. First, there must be a physical proximity before a dialogue can begin. Yet, how often do you sit with your boss and never say a word when you object to a proposition. The lack of talk suggests as much as constant chatter. Yet, silence reveals no more than the sound of words.

Men, women, and children often reside in the same house and rarely share more than a meal. Many of us know our spouse or siblings as well as we do others, those outside the home. Some sleep next to a life partner each evening; they hug, kiss, and become intimately intertwined, bodily interlaced. However, one or both may loathe their lover. If they have a story to tell, they will not share it with their supposed soul mate.

When there is a need to speak with an associate, an acquaintance, a parent, a pupil, a physician, a personal trainer, a person that represents a professional organization some people feel safe. An emotional or physical distance can be grand. At times, individuals feel freer when with those that do not have the emotional power to hurt them. A cordon for some is a conduit for others.

For a few, electronic communication is the medium of choice. Numerous persons feel free to be when they chat in cyberspace. Apparently, Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought. We look for love in all sorts of places. The desire to connect to another human intimately runs deep. What we will do for love and what we will say in pursuit of our passion can have an enormous effect on communication. When we feel spurned, some of us may say or not express something more profound. When we are free to be, protected by the net that surrounds an electronic neighborhood, we may let it all fly. How many of us have received a computer-generated correspondence that bit more than a byte.

While all sorts of online exchanges can be misunderstood, social scientists say that faceless strangers are especially likely to run into problems. "Through that initial phone call, people become real," says Susan Barnes, a professor of communication at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. Simply foregoing common pleasantries can make a message come across as rude-especially if communicators don't know each other. A rushed e-mail may give the impression that the exchange is unimportant. And, because first impressions set the tone for subsequent interaction, Barnes says, the exchange can quickly go downhill.

Nadler says the missing element in electronic communication is rapport, that in-sync state that's easier to establish in person or by phone. Facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice-all these social cues are missing in e-mail (and smiley-face "emoticons" can do only so much to replace them). But because messages travel almost instantly, people act as if they're in a face-to-face conversation, says David Falcone, a psychology professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. Because of this illusion of proximity, we're duped into thinking we can communicate about touchy subjects, such as disagreements or criticisms, and that the tone of our writing will be perceived correctly.

Furthermore, says Nadler, just because we can send a message anytime doesn't mean someone is there to receive it. Yet people often fear a delayed reply is a potential blow-off.

And when we feel slighted, we are more apt to throw a fit via e-mail than we would by phone. "The anonymity of e-mail leads to rudeness," says Barnes, adding we may not feel accountable, especially if we've never actually spoken to the other person. Even if we mean well, the lack of second-by-second feedback, by which we constantly adjust our words in conversation, can cause us to go on blithely composing messages that will rub the recipient the wrong way.

Nose to nose is not much better for communication. Granted, common language can be a problem. Conventionally we understand different dialects hamper our ability to communicate well. I, as others might offer infinite and general scenarios to demonstrate how language can inhibit effective exchanges. However, I suspect if you study the dynamics in each you may realize the verbal and nonverbal communication does not cause the problems. Again, emotions, expectations, inferences, incite disagreements. The fire in our heart, in our head ignites the flames

With no common history and little interaction outside the workplace, the intersection of the two groups -- which is occurring more frequently as Korean business and the Hispanic population boom -- has been fraught with tension and cultural misunderstandings.

Ricardo Garcia, 34, complains he wasn't paid fully by a Korean contractor. Fermin Soto, a 42-year-old immigrant from Mexico, said he had similar problems with a different contractor, adding that the Korean builder spoke down to Hispanic workers.

The stories have made Ronald Tobar, who hasn't worked for a Korean employer, wary.

"I'm a little afraid of working for them," said Tobar, a native of Guatemala. "I hear they are aggressive and strict and give the worst jobs to Hispanics."

Such perceptions exacerbate tensions between the groups, said Daniel Choi, a lawyer for the Virginia Justice Center, a legal advocacy group for immigrants that mainly represents Hispanics. Many of the workplace problems Choi encounters while working on behalf of Hispanic immigrants against Korean employees are grievances like unpaid wages that have nothing to do with race or culture. Yet, perceptions of ethnic and racial biases often complicate matters.

When Thomas Yoon helped open the Super H Mart store in Fairfax in 2001, he noticed that some older Koreans, raised in the Confucian Korean culture where relationships are dictated by hierarchy and age, were offended that their Hispanic co-workers were tapping them on the shoulder to get their attention. To the Koreans, the gesture was disrespectful. To the Hispanic workers, the shoulder tap was simply a means of communication and signaled familiarity and comfort among the workers.

While the difference in language and culture contributes to misunderstanding, I suspect what causes a greater riff is the economic disparity. Money moves many a heart and a mouth.

A gesture meant to state, "I like you," may actually connote disdain. If it seems as though we condescend when in the company of one that thinks them better, or less, that message is felt. We need not express ourselves aloud. People hear the unspoken. Vernacular is victim to much misinterpretation. Yet, dialect is nothing on balance; a division in dollars can be quite the deal.

Love, money, and power all rolled into one can cause conflict in any liaison. Often, when people speak of relationships between men and women we hear such tales of deep distress. In another of the many available lists presented to enlighten, I read gender is a barrier to communication. The author cited . . .

Gender barriers
There are distinct differences between the speech patterns in a man and those in a woman. A woman speaks between 22,000 and 25,000 words a day whereas a man speaks between 7,000 and 10,000. In childhood, girls speak earlier than boys and at the age of three, have a vocabulary twice that of boys.

The reason for this lies in the wiring of a man's and woman's brains. When a man talks, his speech is located in the left side of the brain but in no specific area. When a woman talks, the speech is located in both hemispheres and in two specific locations.

This means that a man talks in a linear, logical and compartmentalised way, features of left-brain thinking; whereas a woman talks more freely mixing logic and emotion, features of both sides of the brain. It also explains why women talk for much longer than men each day.

Ah, that is the excuse used to explain emotional differences. I marvel at what for me is a deeply held myth. Men have less words; the male mind is not wired as a woman's might be. There is much evidence to support humans are acculturated into the habits they acquire. Brains are pliable and porous. From the first, we are taught. What we learn when we were so very young we believe is natural. It is our nature to be stoic or expressive. Boys and girls believe before they are able to grasp there are other options.

In our society, boys are typically told they are hard-wired, hard-hearted, all that they are not. Male adults model the behavior, for they too were taught. Men are persuaded to believe they are not demonstrative; they must not trust in order to survive. William Pollack, Ph.D. author of Real Boys explains. He understands as I have all my life; boys feel very deeply and have much to say. They are "trained" from birth to speak less.

Pollack's message was a consistent one: The "boy code" imposes a "gender straitjacket" on boys, often leaving them without the experience or the tools to express their emotions safely. . . .

It's a series of outmoded, unspoken, unwritten rules of conduct by which, for generations, we have brought up boys. According to the code, boys must be tough, stoic, not dependent on others, inexpressive people who are not allowed to share their pain.

Boys feel great pressure to emulate the code's ideal boy. Since they always fall short of this impossible ideal, they become frustrated, depressed, and angry.

Once more, we see the effect of emotions concealed. Emotions cloaked or presented as daggers are the barriers to communication in my mind.

I ponder what for me is most profound. What we hide from others [and too often from ourselves] hinders a healthy relationship. With others and self. Personally, I am haunted by the unspoken. Ultimately, I conclude that I must speak, but how.

How do I share what works on my mind? I fear rejection, resentment, rebellion, a reprimand; yet, I understand that my words to him or her may feel as any of these. It matters not whether I speak with my ward, my protégé, my mentor, or my muse. Communication is fragile. Talk is not cheap; it is priceless, so valuable, and yet so vague.

If, as I begin to express myself, I see pain in his eyes, I heart the hurt in his voice, do I apologize for the harm I never intended to cause yet did? Whether it be in a personal or professional encounter, words can wield as weapons. Much sorrow is evoked when we offer the most innocent observation.

A person presumes to know what I meant when I say, "please," "if you would," "might I suggest," and perhaps they are correct. However, more frequently than not, what each of us hear has more to do with our history than that of the speaker.

As I broach a conversation, I must wonder; yet rarely do we. Will a wounded soul, and perchance we all are invisibly injured, be able to hear my words, or even let me come close enough to share my deepest anguish? Will I, the truly impaired individual be able to separate myself from a need to defend myself, when I am so very offended?

Will one so strong and healthy, in appearance, be open to foreboding words of his or her failure to achieve. As a parent, a sibling, a supervisor, a mentor do I dare mention an error on the part of my muse. Should I mention the pain I feel when she says I am mistaken or the hurt in my heart when he tells me my every action annoys him? Do I speak to an associate about their behavior, or my reaction to their demeanor? In what way do I approach a child, a neighbor, or my closest friend? There is much I conceal, so many secrets, suppositions, and then there are the suggestions others offer, what might I consider if I hope to communicate effectively.

Last week, in my employ, I was given an assignment. I was commanded, ordered, directed, told, invited, welcomed, or asked to pen a tome. The topic would be "barriers to communication." Internally I know to my core, I revel in this theme. For years, I understood, what I wish to do in my life is write and broadly publish volumes of discussions on relationships. The ways in which we interact fascinates me. Misinterpretations boggle my mind. An exchange of ideas, while on the surface is a simple notion. However, I think there is no endeavor more complex.

I studied this subject extensively over the years; yet, when this request was made, I felt a tinge of resentment. I wanted to pursue personal prose, those that interest me. Well, that must not be true, for indeed this discipline moves me as no other. Yet, on this occasion I had no enthusiasm for in the work.

Nevertheless, I started the research, and discovered the reasons I was less than intrigued. Numerous sources furnished a simple analysis. Almost all the references addressed the issue as it pertains to a persons' professional life or the authors spoke in general. How could they not? They do not know us.

You dear reader, are likely familiar with the conventional wisdom. What are the barriers and how might we break these. The words read more than a decade ago resounded in my head. Stephen Covey, in Seven Principles of Highly Effective Families wrote of how we are not different at work than we are at home. Judy H. Wright, Parent Educator and Family Coach, also recalls her reveries of Doctor Covey writings.

Respect for Myself Respect for the Other Person

I have a right to my feelings. He has a right to his feelings.

One of the hardest lessons we have to learn as humans is you can not force others to do as you wish and you must make choices based on this. The only thing we truly have control over is our own inner thoughts and outer actions. We can provide information, influence, and suggestions to our loved ones and associates, but the desire to change [or do] must be within the individual. Accountability and responsibility involves claiming our own power and using our wisdom to create different results in life.

Perhaps, that is what worked within me. Correctly or not I felt as though I was "expected' to address communication in a manner contrary to my passion. It seemed, for whatever reason, I was meant to share techniques and these would guide readers. I understand that people prefer to peruse outlines. When asked to look deeper or contemplate the motivations and myths within, frequently men, women, and children state, "And your point is," as though there is a central focus or a guidebook to assist us in the complexity of communication.

I struggle with such simplicity. I fear a tome titled "Communication Made Easy." Perhaps billions would willingly purchase a copy of "Communication For Dummies." They might read with glee as though they found the answer; however, I cannot author that volume.

Change the way in which you communicate; it is simple, straightforward, and can be accomplished if only you know the steps. Allow for accessibility. Be sensitive to false perceptions, those of others, for clearly we are each correct in our ideals. Consider language and gender differences, even if these only deter communication because we believe they will. Certainly, address your own interpersonal preferences and change these if they hinder communication, not that you might recognize the difference between your learned habit and what you believe to be your nature. Nonetheless, break down those barriers. Yikes!

After I found numerous references that offer an index of solutions, I thought to myself, 'Fine, surface, as these sources are, so too will be my essay. I will do the project quickly. I can supplant and expand on a reference or two. Then I will have time to work on personal projects as I desire to do.' The composition need not be glorious. I have other interests to pursue.

Again, I remind myself I want to publish prose that discuss the delicate dilemma, how might we best communicate.

I recalled the thousands of workers I have seen in my lifetime. They all place personal priorities above the menial and meaningless assigned responsibilities. Even when engaged in a profession they love, people gravitate to the personal. Why would I be different?

We cannot always complete each tasks with equal vigor. Not every essay need be a masterpiece, nor will this one be. I decided, I would pen this treatise without delay or enthusiasm. [Remembering of course, I love, and wish to write volumes on the topic of communication.]

Just as I was about to begin my labor, the telephone rang. I received an electronic communication. Other occupational concerns took precedence. Then, the daily doings necessary to survive got in my way. Family situations that needed by full attention mounted. There were ample distractions. However, honestly, I knew, I did not wish to work on this tome. I began to examine why I did not feel as I do when I plunge into a blank page with intention.

I am told that many do not write or paint for as they gaze upon a blank page or canvas they feel great anxiety. I rarely experience such a sense of doom or gloom when in front of an empty space, for I feel no voids. I observe no vacant expanse. For me, emotions, raw and exposed, threaten my ability to communicate, to complete tasks, to commence, or to accomplish what I wish to achieve.

I realized at least a decade ago, what we experience in our professional lives, closely parallels what occurs in our private lives. We are not one way at work and another way home. You or I may wish to believe that we are profound in our profession and a failure domestically. Perchance we excel in our familial endeavors and flounder in each employ. Each of us, at times may muse we are different in various aspects of our life. Yet, in truth, what guides us in one circumstance, leads us to travel down each and every avenue. Our perceptions are extremely powerful.

Consider the thoughts that occurred to you as you read the various words I used to describe how this project was presented to me. Some of the terms may have made you cringe. Those that implied this "assignment" was forced upon me establish that this is an unwelcome endeavor. I loathe compulsory chores.

Bear in mind the topic that evoked this essay was not my creation; however, it is my life mission. Nevertheless, if doing this article is not my idea, then, I can resent the "request."

Most humans prefer to feel as though they have freedom of choice. I definitely do. Thus, an assignment feels as an obligation, a duty, a job, a task, and certainly not a personal preference. If the idea was not mine, even though, in honesty, it is, I might feel put upon.

My own reaction to a glorious action, an invitation to do, as I deeply desire, can and will change the dynamic of further communication between myself and my "supervisor.' The barrier, in this incident is as in every other conversation; the way in which I choose to interpret the intention of another affects the entire dialogue.

Might we also examine how the message was delivered? Did my 'superior' suggest I compose an essay on \ how we hear what we do and why. Did he present the notion of such an examination as a possibility or was this exercise required, a mandatory pursuit. In truth, it would not have mattered what "the man" said or how. The manner in which my "boss" spoke would not have influenced my reaction as much as the mere fact that he is titled, the "person in charge." I am but a subordinate.

In actuality, I am not above or below anyone. None of us are. Nor does anyone have the power to demand that we think, say, do, feel, or be, as they desire. For each of us, our background, experiences, the effect of these and our emotions are the greatest barriers to communication.

We hear what we judge was said. Every one of us truly thinks that what we believe to be so is valid and perhaps, it is, for us, in that moment. However, were we to open our minds, hearts, eyes, and souls we might discover another reality. Author, Dr. Steven Covey shared a story that may help to explain what occurs in every aspect of our lives.

These are deep problems, painful problems -- problems that quick fix approaches can't solve.
A few years ago, my wife Sandra and I were struggling with this kind of concern.

One of our sons was having a very difficult time in school. He was doing poorly academically; he didn't even know how to follow the instructions on the tests, let alone do well in them. Socially he was immature, often embarrassing those closest to him. Athletically, he was small, skinny, and uncoordinated -- swinging
his baseball bat, for example, almost before the ball was even pitched. Others would laugh at him. Sandra and I were consumed with a desire to help him. We felt that if "success" were important in any area of life, it was supremely important in our role as parents.

So, we worked on our attitudes and behavior toward him and we tried to work on his. We attempted to psyche him up using positive mental attitude techniques. "Come on, son! You can do it! We know you can. Put your hands a little higher on the bat and keep your eye on the ball. Don't swing till it gets close to you." And if he did a little better, we would go to great lengths to reinforce him. "That's good, son, keep it up."

When others laughed, we reprimanded them. "Leave him alone. Get off his back. He's just learning." And our son would cry, and insist that he'd never be any good, and that he didn't like baseball anyway Nothing we did seemed to help, and we were really worried.

We could see the effect this was having on his self-esteem. We tried to be encouraging, helpful, and positive, but after repeated failure, we finally drew back and tried to look at the situation on a different level. At this time in my professional role, I was involved in leadership development work with various
clients throughout the country.

In that capacity, I was preparing bimonthly programs on the subject of communication and perception for IBM's Executive Development Program participants. As I researched and prepared these presentations, I became particularly interested in how perceptions are formed, how they behave. This led me to a study of expectancy theory, and
self-fulfilling prophecies, or the "Pygmalion effect," and to a realization of how deeply imbedded our perceptions are.

It taught me that we must look at the lens through which we see the world, as well as at the world, we see, and that the lens itself shapes how we interpret the world. As Sandra and I talked about the concepts I was teaching at IBM and about our own situation, we
began to realize that what we were doing to help our son was not in harmony with the way we really saw him. When we honestly examined our deepest feelings, we realized that our perception was that
he was basically inadequate, somehow "behind."

No matter how much we worked on our attitude and behavior, our efforts were ineffective because, despite our actions and our words, what we really communicated to him was, "You aren't capable. You have to be protected."
We began to realize that if we wanted to change the situation, we first had to change ourselves.
And to change ourselves effectively, we first had to change our perceptions.

Perceptions are punitive. Often we punish others or ourselves unjustly. After, I read Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman, I understood. Those that judge us most harshly, are far more critical of themselves. Ultimately, the victim becomes the abuser. The violence may not be physical. It may be verbal, emotional, intellectual, each perhaps, far more traumatic than bumps and bruises to the body. We criticize ourselves just as we were criticized.

When you were young, which of these did you feel more often:

No matter what I do, my parents love me.

I can't seem to please my parents, no matter what I do.

My parents don't really notice me.
The answers to such questions reveal more than about our childhood: they also tend to predict how we act in our closest relationships as adults.

Our childhood shapes our brain in many ways - and so determines our most basic ways of reacting to others - for better and for worse. If we felt well-loved in childhood, we tend to be secure in our relationships - but if not, then we're more prone to chronic problems.

The primary paradox is that we trust what we believe to be true. We are so certain that what we understand is accurate, that we cannot imagine how wrong we are. Perchance, that too is, in large part is the puzzle.

As children, impressionable and desirous of knowledge, many of us were told we were mistaken, in error, at fault. What we heard is that our essence was flawed. Parents, Moms, Dads, school Principals, teachers, people we truly admired certainly must know. These esteemed individuals can see to our core. Thus, they have the wisdom to describe us as we are. As we age, what was said to us is what we say to ourselves. Sadly, rarely do we realize, those revered individuals never stated what we heard, nonetheless, we internalize the identity we adopted so very long ago. Indeed, neurological studies demonstrate the brain, chemically etches our patterns and our beliefs.

As the week went on and this project hung over my head as a weight, I waited for the load to fall down upon me. Auspiciously, it did. However, not in the way I expected.

A very close friend, one that I have known for decades shared a secret he held forever. He never told another human being. Yet, what remained hidden revealed itself in an ugly letter. This kind and gentle man discovered that, a pain he caused in his youth, was known to another. This other person held her hurt, just as he harbored his.

Each was deeply scarred. No words were ever spoken. Interpretations became truth. Insinuations and implications grew in intensity. The mind filled in for what was never spoken of. Each of these individuals now five and six decades old, is wounded in ways one would never imagine to look at them.

While both have a semblance of success, the circumstances, never communicated, has hindered their growth. They have achieved financially, although that was not enough to compensate for the horror they felt and hide. His and her accomplishments were inadequate; they did not fill the void left by the unmentionable. The health of each, physically, mentally, emotionally, and possibly intellectually suffered. Neither felt worthy of awards or accolades.

She blames him. He placed the onus on himself. Perhaps, deep down she thinks she was responsible for the trauma. We cannot know for sure. She refuses to engage in a significant exchange. He shutters. How might he ever repent. The hidden hurt now exposed; yet still not discussed scars the hearts more deeply.

A life, two lives ended long ago because there were barriers to communication. It matters not what the blockades were; nor is it important that we know the specifics of what happened oh so very long ago. The details, indeed, might allow us to feel separate or superior. "That would never happen to me." What occurs often, in the lives of every human being is we, I, do not communicate when we must. When we do, frequently we are defensive.

As a species, we're not very skilled at talking about tough topics.

Sure, we can gather our courage and blurt out what's been bothering us for weeks, months, or even years. We get it out, unload, and move on, leaving hurt feelings and the seeds of another misunderstanding in our wake.

Part of the problem, Harvard researchers say, is that we approach such confrontations thinking that we not only understand our own point of view, but we also believe we know for sure what the other person did, said, and thought on the subject. And we think our view is right.

But in fact, they say, we're usually wrong, which explains why these kinds of talks often go so badly.

"When we get into difficult interpersonal conflicts, it's not very natural for us to see the conflict from the other person's point of view," said Douglas Stone, associate director of the Harvard Negotiation Project. "But it's a skill that is crucial to learn."

empathy, I believe is the best educator. I cannot ever truly know whom you are within. When I enter into a conversation, a negotiation, a conciliation, or a concession with a close mind, certain that you are less than I, then, communication will be but a dream. If we are to remove the force that keeps us separate we must listen, place ourselves where we have never been, in the heart, mind, and soul of another.

In fact, the way most of us broach difficult topics dooms the conversation from the start, they say. Openings such as "I think we should discuss why you've been so inconsiderate lately," immediately put the other person on the defensive and leads to an "I have not been inconsiderate" response rather than a talk about why he or she has been getting in at 1 a.m. and waking you up by playing the stereo.

Instead of venting your opinion, the researchers say, you should do at least as much learning about the other person's point of view as you do talking about your own. Perhaps the person is playing music so late because he or she works two jobs to make ends meet and this is the only time available to study for a history of music course.

Without asking, you'll never know.

"Go in and remember to inquire as much as you tell your story," said Bruce Patton, the Negotiation Project's deputy director.

The greatest barrier to communication is I. You, he, and she are as I. Too often, we talk and do not listen. We hear what we plan to say. The words of a friend, a family member, and a fellow worker are frequently background noise to our own thoughts. What escapes from the lips of our neighbor falls to the ground. We are consumed with emotions; thus, rarely do we communicate completely with compassion.

I invite you to look at yourself, the way in which you interact with others at home or at work. Do you invite discussion? Might you embrace an opportunity to learn, to discover, or to authentically connect, or do you prefer to be in control.

Please consider we can never imagine what is within another. Why they did as they did. Please trust, if you are hurt, so too are they. I know it is hard to accept that he or she did not mean to demean, destroy, or diminish your worth. Sadly, they, as you have emotions, raw, and exposed to the elements.

If you wish to end the madness, remove the line of defense, the molehill in your mind and heart that is now a mountain. The barrier to communication is the one, or many, you, I, we create.

Intelligence is Emotional; Empathy is the Best Educator . . .

Difficult Conversations. By Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen

Barriers to Communication Lakeside High School.

Seven Barriers to Great Communication. By Eric Garner, M.D. Copyright, ManageTrainLearn.com .

The Pitfalls of Email. By Marina Krakovsky. Psychology Today. March 22, 2006

The Final Showdown Between In-Person and Cyberspace Relationships, By John Suler. The Psychology of Cyberspace.

Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought. Science Daily. February 23, 2005

Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. By Stephen R. Covey.

Making Sense of Our Lives. By Daniel Goleman. May 9, 2007

'That Is Not What I Meant At All': Negotiation Project researchers ease difficult everyday conversations. By Alvin Powell. Harvard Gazette.

Assuming Personal Responsibility in Relationships By Judy H. Wright

Interview: William Pollack--on decoding boys. NEA Today. Find Articles September 1999

Koreans, Hispanics Work for Harmony, Cultures Can Clash In On-the-Job Mix. By Cecilia Kang. Washington Post.?Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page A01

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM in Communities, Communities and Communication , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack