Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. - The Other America

I am sitting on a cold, sunny, blue sky morning in America. Today is a day of celebration of two great African Americans: the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the inauguration of President Barak Hussein Obama for a second term of office. America has made tremendous strides in civil rights since it's founding, and in particular over the past 50 years.

On this day of celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., many people will read or listen to Rev. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. That was a brilliant and inspiring speech given on August 28, 1963 during the March on Washington.

Last week I attended a lecture by Michelle Alexander, the author of the book "The New Jim Crow." I'll post about that topic soon. In her excellent presentation, Ms. Alexander talked often about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some of these references prodded me to learn more about Dr. King during the years between 1963 and his death in 1968, a period in which his views changed in very specific ways.

Between 1963 and his murder in 1968, a number of major changes took place in the United States, and Dr. King's views and public statements also changed direction. He spoke out against the US war in Viet Nam, a stance that resulted in many people in the civil rights movement criticizing and moving away from him. He also spoke out about worsening unemployment and poverty in the Black communities across the country, and the riots that broke out in desperate communities.

On April 14, 1967, Dr. King gave a lecture at Stanford titled "The Other America" in which he addressed these issues. There is a video of that speech here. However, while researching for this post I found a version of the same speech given almost a year later, on March 14, 1968, less than 3 weeks before his assassination.  Dr. King was invited to speak by the Grosse Pointe Human Rights Committee of Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Dr. King spoke at Grosse Pointe High School while about 200 people belonging to a right wing group picketed outside. Dr. King was interrupted a few times by hecklers, but he pushed on, at one point even inviting a young man to the podium to have his say.

I find the transcript of this speech more compelling than the earlier, shorter speech at Stanford. I think it is very important to read the transcript of this speech, and consider it within the context of the turbulent late 1960's. We also need to contemplate the issues highlighted in the speech in the context of the present. I have copied a few excerpts from the speech and pasted them below (in italics), with some of my comments. But I really encourage you, dear reader, to go to the transcript and read the entire speech. It is well worth your time, and it will provoke a lot of thought.

"The Other America" 

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. - Grosse Pointe High School - March 14, 1968 

http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/mlk-gp-speech.pdf

Dr. King wanted to talk about racism, and his views on how to eliminate it in the US.


I want to discuss the race problem tonight and I want to discuss it very honestly.  I still believe that freedom is the bonus you receive for telling the truth.

Early in the speech, Dr. King presented the foundation of the basic issue he saw as the unequal divisions in our society, the "two Americas" that existed, one white, one black.


I want to use as a title for my lecture tonight, "The Other America."  And I use this title because there are literally two Americas.  Every city in our country has this kind of dualism, this schizophrenia, split at so many parts, and so every city ends up being two cities rather than one. 

All too often when there is mass unemployment in the black community, it's referred to as a social problem and when there is mass unemployment in the white community, it's referred to as a depression. 



The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country. Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth.  And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so 
much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is. 

Dr. King talked at some length about three myths often repeated by well-meaning people, that obviously bothered him, and with which he did not agree. The first was the myth of time; ending racism and solving such major social problems would take time, many generations, and we should be patient. The second myth was that these problems could not be solved by legislation, they had to be solved by changes in human behavior. And third, the myth that Negroes had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, just like every other immigrant to America did. It is worth reading the speech to understand his replies to these myths.

And then Dr. King launched into his views against the war in Viet Nam.


I want to say that if we're to move ahead and solve this problem we must re-order our national priorities.  Today we're spending almost thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight what I consider an unjust, ill-considered, evil, costly, unwinable war at Viet Nam. I wish I had time to go into the dimensions of this. But I must say that the war in Viet Nam is playing havoc with our Domestic destinies. That war has torn up the Geneva accord, it has strengthened, it has substituted.. .(at this point Dr. King was interrupted by an outburst from a young Viet Nam war veteran in the audience).

In explaining his stand against the war, Dr. King refused to draw a line through his moral convictions for political or financial reasons.


The other thing is, that I have been working too long and too hard now against segregated public accommodations to end up at this stage of my life segregating my moral concern. I must make it clear. For me justice is indivisible.  Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  

And finally, Dr. King talked about the ties between black and white America, and the necessity for people to work together to improve life for everyone.


Now let me finally say something in the realm of the spirit and then I'm going to take my seat. Let me say finally, that in the midst of the hollering and in the midst of the discourtesy tonight, we got to come to see that however much we dislike it, the destinies of white and black America are tied together. Now the races don't 
understand this apparently. But our destinies are tied together. And somehow, we must all learn to live together as brothers in this country or we're all going to perish together as fools. 


Somehow we must come to see that in this pluralistic, interrelated society we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.


So however difficult it is during this period, however difficult it is to continue to live with the agony and the continued existence of racism, however difficult it is to live amidst the constant hurt, the constant insult and the constant disrespect, I can still sing we shall overcome. We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.
...

It is January 21, 2013, and President Obama has just given his inaugural speech. The topics of our President's speech not only echo many of the topics in Dr. King's speech 45 years ago, but remind us that our work is not complete. Our President spoke about slavery, unity, economic freedom and liberation from hardship, poverty and equality, the promise of our nation that "rewards every single American," that freedom is not reserved for the lucky. He spoke about human dignity and justice, repeatedly using the phrases "We, the People," and  "all of us are created equal." He reminded us that our journey is not complete, speaking about the struggles of women and gays, the on-going issues concerning voting rights, the hopes of immigrants, and that all of our children should know that they are cared for, cherished and kept safe from harm. These are, in his words, our generation's tasks, just as they were the tasks of Dr. King's generation.

We have come a long way in America towards the dreams of equality and justice. Today we witnessed the inauguration of an African-American President, the Vice-President's oath of office administered by the first Latino Supreme Court Justice, the Inaugural poem written and recited by the first Latino and LGBT poet. The diversity of the inauguration and of the crowd of thousands gathered to bear witness is inspiring, and we should be proud of the distance we've traveled as a society. 

We are not at the end of the journey to freedom and justice. There are many issues remaining that need our attention - the attention of all of us, not just the victims of injustice. Working together, as a community of Americans, we can continue to make important strides on this road, and progress towards the true promise of America. 

   

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF GUN DEATHS?

Every day now, when I check the Slate.com database of gun deaths in the USA since the December 14, 2012 Newtown killings, I am both amazed and saddened by the growing number (today it is more than 800). Shortly after looking at these statistics, I began to wonder who the victims were. We are used to seeing news stories and numbers that are not very personal; in other words, we know little to nothing about the people being killed.

I decided to dig into the data a little bit, and I chose New Years Day 2013, January 1, as my focus. I will say up front that the New Years Day data are skewed because people are out celebrating the new year, which means a lot of alcohol is being consumed. Sure enough, the total number of gun deaths for that day was 45; most days have somewhere between 20 and 30 gun deaths.

I downloaded the Slate.com web data base the other day; it's a spreadsheet file. For each victim there is information for the city, state, gender and age. On the Slate.com interactive database, there is a web link for each victim that goes to a news story about the death. I went to every link for the January 1, 2013 deaths and added information to the spreadsheet in a Comments column.

Below is the resulting spreadsheet. Take a few minutes to look through it, then continue reading below it.

If we stick to the numbers, we see that these deaths were in 19 states across the country (CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, LA, MI, NE, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, WI). The graph below shows the victims by age group. The largest age group (the most deaths) is from 15 to 30 years old; in fact, it's mostly 15 to 24 year olds if you parse the data a bit more (most shooters are also in this age range). If you read my previous post, this matches the federal DOJ statistics.

Some of the deaths had known causes: suicide (3); killed by police (4, at least 1 of which was "suicide by police"), domestic violence (3), drug-related (2), drive-by (1), robbery (1), and "just playing around" (1). The majority of the deaths were related to arguments or fights, many at clubs or bars. Some were the result of criminal activity, like robbery or drug deals. Of the 45 deaths, 41 were men, 4 were women.

But this is still just numbers - statistics. Who were these people?

Unfortunately, the links in the Slate.com database are mostly the first news reports following each killing, and many of them have very little information because the details of the killings were not yet known. I could dig more, using an internet search engine, but that would take all of my time for many, many days. And so I am left with only a few hints, brief glimpses into lives ended by bullets.

Elzina Brown was a 59 year old school crossing guard, mother and grandmother. She came home for lunch to find her daughter, Diamond Dunn, and the daughter's boyfriend arguing about their 4-year old daughter. When the boyfriend pulled out a gun, Elzina got between him and her daughter and was shot in the chest; she died at the scene. Before running from the home, the boyfriend shot Diamond in the face; she is expected to survive, but a friend said that her face "is basically gone." Two shots from a handgun ended the life of one woman, and permanently changed the life of a family.

Aaron "ZEGOR" Zigorski was an 18-year old high school senior who took his own life using a handgun. Aaron was a star athlete, very well liked in the community, and had a bright future ahead of him. His death was a shock and surprise to family, friends and the entire community.

Belinda Espinoza, 29, shot and killed her partner, 24-year old Ana Flores, and then killed herself following a domestic argument. Based on their Facebook pages, the women were in love and engaged. Just before the argument, Belinda posted a photo of the couple kissing.




Benjamin Sky McDaniel, 19-years old, was shot and killed during an apparent drug deal. He was an avid basketball fan, was going to junior college, and wanted to be a basketball coach. A friend was also wounded at the scene.

I just checked the Slate.com site; as of January 12, 2013, 833 people have died from gunshots since December 14, 2012 (these are deaths reported in the news media). That's 833 lives ended in less than one month. Each of these people had families, dreams, ambitions, and their own story. Many of them had a Facebook page. I didn't know any of them, but their families, friends and communities did.

The argument about gun control in this country is meaningless until we come to grips with a single fact: most of the 15,000+ deaths per year by gun would not happen if guns were not so easily available. From the data compiled above, it is very apparent that most of the people shot to death are victims of anger, drunkeness or depression combined with the possession of a handgun. There are just too many guns, and it is too easy to get one.

Our national debate right now is focused on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines because of the 28 deaths related to the Newtown school shootings. But 2 days later, the same number of people were killed in America by guns, including a 3-year old who found a loaded gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. The day after that another 28 people were killed by guns in America. And so on and so on and so on.........

When will the madness end?

BASEBALL BATS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

I need to clarify something that is part of the continuing discussion about gun violence in the USA. I have heard some of the anti-regulation folks say that more people are killed with baseball bats in the USA than with guns. This is just not correct!

The following chart is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice. They accumulate data from all the police departments in the country concerning homicides. Baseball bats would fall into the "blunt objects" category.

(Source:http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm)

There is an even more important fact in this chart: handguns are a much greater problem than assault rifles (included in "Other guns"). Our national discussion at the moment is focused on assault rifles, but we really need to deal with handguns. Based on the above chart, total homicides by all guns combined ranges from about 10,000+ to almost 20,000 per year for the period of record (1975 - 2005).

And yes, people use knives, other weapons and blunt objects to kill, and these weapons combined have been as much as half the number of deaths by gun. But a gun allows someone to kill without having to be within arms length of the victim (I doubt that there are very many deaths caused by someone throwing a dagger).

As long as we're at it, let's look at 2 more graphs from the BJS.

The graph below shows homicides by the age of the killer ("offender") and the weapon used. As usual, guns are on top. What is also noticeable is the increase in gun deaths by 18 to 24 year olds starting in the late 1980's. The numbers decreased between the early '90's to the early '20's, but has since increased again (you can see the beginning of the increase in 2005).

Ready for one more? OK then; the graph below shows that teenagers are the largest group of gun killing victims. Combine this fact with info from the graphs above, and we know that teenagers with handguns are killing teenagers. Why do teenagers have guns? Where and how do they get them?

And by the way, don't assume that all of these teen-on-teen killings are gang related. As I go through gun death statistics (look for a post in the next couple of days), a significant number of teens killed by gun seem to be suicides, boyfriend-girlfriend breakup related, and accidents ("just playing around").

There is one clear fact here: guns are too accessible in our society, and handguns are by far the biggest problem. So as the government struggles with how to regulate assault rifles, we need to also pressure our government to regulate handguns even more.

And please, don't give me any of that Second Amendment crap!

GUNS IN AMERICA: WE REALLY, REALLY NEED TO HAVE A TALK

The above graphic was very recently posted on Facebook by a Facebook friend of mine. I knew this person in high school, and I don't think I've seen her since (well, maybe at the 40th reunion?). From her Facebook posts, I know that she is a very proud grandmother. I also know that she has a handgun and has had some training on it's use. I assume that she is very careful with her handgun, and probably keeps it locked up. However, I am not one bit amused by the above sign; in fact, I find it very objectionable.

I said as much in a FB comment to her post. I had a debate with myself about commenting; should I ignore it, should I unfriend her, should I confront her? In the end, I decided to post my comment, based on my decision that what we really need in this country is a heart-to-heart conversation about guns, and not just between people of the same opinion.

Guns are a very major problem in this country (USA). We are by far Number One in gun ownership per capita with 90 guns per 100 people. "On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people." (1)

The USA is also Number One in deaths by guns compared to other affluent nations. Here is a graph (2) showing gun deaths for the 34 developed countries in the OECD:

The line above all the others is the United States; it is good to see that the trend is downward since about 1980 (although another source states that the trend is again upward since 2000). There are about 312,000,000 (312 million) people in the USA, so at 6 deaths per 100,000 people, the total is just under 19,000 gun deaths per year nationwide. However, different sources have different numbers, some in the 30,000 to 40,000 range (gun deaths per year). A Bloomberg article last month predicted that gun deaths nationwide will exceed traffic fatalities by the year 2015 (3).

 I have been posting on Facebook the tally of reported gun deaths in this country since the mass killings of children and staff at the school in Newtown. As I write this on January 4, there have been 427 gun deaths in the USA in the 19 days since the Newtown killings (4). 427 gun deaths in 19 days; an average of 22.5 deaths per day. Some of these were children. Many of these were teens. All of these were people who are no longer here.

I want to talk about two important topics here: 1) the need, or lack of need, for the Second Amendment, and 2) the politics of gun ownership.

Do we need the Second Amendment? In my opinion, we do not. 

One of the basic arguments of the gun lobby and many gun owners in this country is the Second Amendment, which gives us the right to bear arms. This amendment needs to be repealed.The original intent of the amendment has always been a topic for debate because of the way the text was structured by the authors of the Constitution. It is very common, however, for gun lobbyists and die-hard gun owners to cite the amendment and quickly proclaim that we have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from our government. Seriously? When in our nation's history have citizens had to protect themselves from our government?

Guns are consumer goods. They are sold at a variety of retail stores. What other consumer good has it's own amendment to the Constitution, even dangerous consumer goods? We know that many deaths are related to automobile, tobacco, alcohol and kitchen stove use (to name but a few); however, none of these has a constitutional amendment giving citizens the right to have them (to be fair, an amendment was passed repealing an amendment that prohibited alcohol - but that's a different story). Every potentially dangerous consumer item is regulated by the government, as it should be. Regulations cover the manufacture, sale and often the use of potentially dangerous consumer items. Why are guns treated differently? If we repeal the Second Amendment, people will still have the "right to bear arms," just as we all have the right to "bear" automobiles, tobacco, alcohol, stoves and other potentially dangerous items - if we comply with the appropriate regulations (showing proof of age to buy tobacco, for example; not driving if our blood alcohol level is above a certain standard, and etc.). The only major difference I can think of between guns and other consumer goods is that certain types of guns sold in this country were specifically designed to kill people; they are military weapons, and in my opinion, these should be banned from public ownership.

Why is gun ownership so political? 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun organizations have an inordinate amount of political power in this country. The NRA is feared by many elected representatives because the organization can, and has, organize it's members and sympathizers to not re-elect representatives who have crossed them. Gun control is a discussion typically avoided in the halls of Congress for this reason. Attention is paid to gun control only when there is a tragic event, like the murder of school children in Newtown, that results in a public cry for something to be done. Typically, this topic fades away at some point after a mass shooting, and it is again "business as usual," i.e. we don't talk about gun control.

It is way, way past time to confront this topic head-on. The anger and despair once again brought to the surface by the massacre in Newtown must not settle down. We need to keep in mind that the 26 deaths by gun at the school in Newtown is not an unusual daily tally for the United States - it is the fact that these were small children in a school that makes the crime so heart breaking. What about the 3-year old who died a few days later when he shot himself in the head with a gun he found in his uncle's house? What about the 4-year old who died a few days later from a bullet to the head from a drive-by shooting as the child sat in his car seat in a driveway? We need to be outraged by every one of these deaths by gun because they can be prevented.

No other affluent nation on this planet has the kind of gun violence we have in the United States on a per capita basis. Gun regulations in many other developed countries are very strict, and the results are obvious. Studies have shown that more firearms result in more homicides, and that strict regulation prevents such deaths (5). In Israel for example, a country where terrorism is a very real danger, gun ownership is severely limited and considered a privilege, not a right. "Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year." (6).

In conclusion, I hope that the Newtown killings have struck a chord in the United States, a chord that will continue to reverberate until our elected officials make much needed and very meaningful changes to the laws of the United States. These changes should be in the form of very strict controls of gun ownership. If we do this correctly, if we have an honest and open conversation between people with different opinions, surely we can get to a better, more rational place.

Do everyone a favor; read up on this stuff (I've provided some good links below as a starting place). Talk to people, especially those who have an opinion about guns that is different from yours. Stay calm, use facts, talk about our children and grandchildren. Call or write to your elected representatives. We can do this if we really try - but it will not be easy - guaranteed.

Links:
(1)http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828 
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
(3)http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
(4)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
(5)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0
(6)http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI DEATH SPIRAL

Bombs are once again flying across the Israel-Gaza border in both directions, leaving death, injury and destruction on both sides. This same kind of action happened almost exactly 4 years ago, and I wrote about it then.

It's easy to play the blame game in this situation, and I'm not going there. As far as I'm concerned there is enough blame to go around, and playing that game is a key element of the death spiral. In my opinion, this death spiral has no end.

No end, that is, until peace-loving people in the region decide to try something very, very different. The primary players in this "something different" have to be individuals, not organizations. And it can't just be the people in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza; others in the region need to be involved. Remember, I said peace-loving people, not haters or terrorists or militants on any side. And I specifically said people, not organizations, because for the past 64 years these organizations have failed to find a resolution to the conflict.

What is needed is a Peace Spring movement, in some ways similar, and directly related to the on-going Arab Spring. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict affects everyone in the Middle East (and beyond), and so everyone in the region needs to be part of the resolution. Imagine hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the streets of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and beyond demonstrating for peace. And not just peace in general, but a lasting peace based on specific principles (see The People's Voice and the Geneva Accord for examples).  Democratic rule means that governments listen to citizens.

People power is needed to resolve this conflict because organizations such as the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Fatah, the United States, the United Nations, religious sects and others are too entrenched in their own ideologies to participate in something different. People power is messy business, and the key will be for leaders to emerge who can provide coordinated focus and direction, find bridges between conflicting ideas and opinions, and move the process forward.

If this sounds far out, it is. But business as usual is not acceptable. The people in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are locked in a death spiral, and every flare up is more dangerous because each time the weapons are larger, more sophisticated, and more deadly.

Imagine, if you can, a new Middle East, where everyone is a partner in a movement that benefits everyone. Where the rising tide lifts all boats. The people in the region, and their descendants, deserve no less.

---

WE NEED A BOLD FEDERAL ACTION FOR DISASTER RELIEF: AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

I learned from a news report last night that at least 10,000 families are homeless in the aftermath of the storm Sandy; their homes are either not inhabitable or gone. Winter weather is closing in on the east coast, in fact, a Noreaster storm is expected to hit in the next couple of days, bringing cold, rain and possibly snow. How will these storm victims be housed?

The devastation caused by "Superstorm" Hurricane Sandy, like that from Hurricane Katrina, can bring out the best in people, as evidenced by the outpouring of donations and volunteerism. Because of adequate advanced warning and forecasting about Sandy, local, state and federal agencies were able to plan for the storm and it's aftermath, although we know that nothing is perfect. As recovery efforts move forward, it is painfully obvious that very many people are desperate and suffering, and their futures look bleak. I think we need a different response.

It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a bold move that not only will help these storm victims, but will put into place a new system of disaster recovery; I'll call this the Disaster Recovery Administration. Let me explain with a couple of examples.

1. Above is a photo of a street curb in my Portland, Oregon neighborhood. One response of President Franklin Roosevelt to the Great Depression was the creation of the Work Projects Administration. This federal program put many thousands of people to work building public infrastructure throughout America. The program provided jobs for unemployed people, and built up needed public infrastructure.

2. When the United States entered World War 2, the federal government let contracts to shipyards around the country for war ships and liberty ships, like the one pictured above. Thousands of people were employed to build these ships, and some shipyards completed a new ship every 1 or 2 weeks. This massive effort helped win the war.

The Disaster Recovery Administration would be a federally-funded and administered program that would employ thousands of Americans to rebuild areas destroyed by a natural disaster (we're sitting in Portland waiting for the monster earthquake the experts say is due). Certainly the United States is capable of quickly building quality housing for 10,000 needy families in New York, New Jersey and other areas destroyed by Sandy, as well as re-building public infrastructure like roads, bridges, and utilities. Planners, engineers, architects and other professionals need to be brought in to design "hardened" infrastructure and buildings that have a chance of withstanding the next big storm, and the effects of climate change. And designs for buildings and infrastructure can be based on more sustainable designs and materials than previously.

This work would be contracted to private businesses, with care taken to include a large number of small businesses. Incentives should be given to businesses that hire veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have skills in logistics, organization, crisis management and nation building projects.  I see this as a win-win for America.

Mr. President, I believe that you have the authority to create this program. I've heard  that the damage from Sandy is estimated at $50 billion. This is a large sum, but we know that $trillions have been spent on 2 wars without a blink by Congress. Certainly you can push legislation through to enact this new program.

The time to act is now. This disaster calls for real leadership and good government, not partisan politics. It is up to you, Mr. President, to put a program like this in place, and to put it in place immediately.

Thank you.

AT WHAT POINT DOES A POLITICAL AD BECOME HATE SPEECH?

I'm going to dwell on this one for a bit. I posted a video on FaceBook by Winning our Future, the Newt Gingrich SuperPAC. The video is beyond disturbing; I think it is hate speech.

Let's start with the Winning our Future Mission Statement from their website:

WINNING OUR FUTURE MISSION STATEMENT

"It is not 'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?'"  Abraham Lincoln, 1862

At Winning Our Future, we believe our nation to be the most successful civilization by any measure in all of human history,  Therefore, she is worthy of protection from the ideologies that seek to undermine her standing as a force for good in the world.   We can escape neither our history nor our duty.  Our solemn obligation is to perpetuate the virtuous principles that have made America a beacon of hope for all who commit to ascend to her ideals.

Political leaders and their decisions can make any place prosperous and free or poor and oppressive.  Therefore, strengthening our foundation in the bedrock of freedom demands leaders who understand without apology why America is great.

We seek to disrupt the status quo in Washington DC, and displace those elected officials - without regard to political party - whose chief aim is to diminish freedom by expanding government beyond its Constitutionally limited role.  Our goal is to defeat them, their ideas and their agenda and replace them with individuals who will preserve, protect and advance America as "the last best hope on earth."

America can do better.

At Winning Our Future, we will work tirelessly to deliver the leadership this great country deserves.

Now here is a link to their video (I don't yet know if this has aired on television). You need to watch it; it is just under 3 minutes.

I used pause and start to isolate a number of images, and these need to be highlighted for this discussion. Most of these appear for a fraction of a second in order to be planted in your mind but not dwelt on.

0:48 in the section labeled World Chaos, following images of angry Arabs demonstrating, blowing things up, tearing an American flag apart with their teeth, and etc. is a quick flash of an evil skull superimposed on the face of the Statue of Liberty.

1:10 in the Energy section, long lines of cars at gas stations and other images are followed by a quick shot of blood-like oil dripping down an Obama American flag logo

The Religion section - 

1:31 an image of 2 gay men being married, 

1:31 a quick image of a fetus in a womb is followed by a photo of Obama speaking at Planned Parenthood

1:35 is an image of an American Atheist billboard questioning religion

1:38 is an image of a church superimposed with the text "Church Converted to a Mosque"

1:40 shows a large wooden cross being cut down with a chainsaw, and then a quick image of a Newsweek cover with a bloody-faced Jesus

1:57 is a relatively lengthy video clip from the Democratic national convention when there was a floor vote about having the word "god" in the platform. The camera lingers on two people who shout "NO!," one of them a woman holding a sign that reads "Arab American"

2:10 in the Health Care section, a small TV set showing Obama and Biden embracing is destroyed with a sledge hammer

The final text of the video: "A vote for Romney is a vote for America."

The disclaimer at the bottom, explaining that the video is not produced by a political campaign, is almost unreadable. 

I think a lot of the above is hate speech. It is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim. It is anti gay. It conveys the message that non-Christians are attacking Christianity. A large number of the images are very violent. The musical score is very ominous.  And all of these horrible things are because of Obama. 

I think that things have gone too far in political campaigns. Yes, this was produced by a SuperPAC, but why does that really matter? There should be some kind of boundaries set for political ads, and enforcement of these rules. 

Am I the only one disturbed by this ad? I hope not.

DON'T MESS WITH THE MITT: THE 5-POINT PLAN

THE MAN AT THE OTHER TABLE (a story)

For many years we have had a photograph of my in-laws sitting at a restaurant table. The year was 1944 and they were in their mid-20's. In the background, at a table behind the very beautiful smiling couple, is a man sitting alone. I have wondered for all these years what his story was. Recently, as I looked once more at the photo, his story came to me and I wrote it. Here it is for your enjoyment:

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BIG, STEAMING PILE OF ELEPHANT DUNG: "JOB-KILLING TAXES"

Here is a video of a recent campaign speech by Mitt Rmoney. This is one of the big Republican lies of the season, the Myth of Job-killing Taxes. According to this myth, raising taxes on small business owners (or owners of small businesses) will keep them from hiring more employees. You see, my friends, the majority of owners of small businesses are taxed on their income (this part is true), and raising the income tax rate on these folks will make them not hire more people (this is a huge crock of poop).

I am the owner of a small business. I previously owned another small consulting business for 21 years, and employed as many as 16 people at any one time. I can tell you exactly how many times my hiring decisions were influenced in any way by my income tax rate: ZERO. Hiring decisions are based on existing and projected work load, work capacity of existing staff, and sometimes on opportunities to add a new product or service.

Mathematics needs to be applied here. Let's say that for every new hire I make an additional $30,000 profit for the year (I'm making up a number here). If my income is taxed on this number at 35%, I would pay $10,500 in income tax, leaving me with $19,500 in my pocket. If I'm taxed on that profit at a rate of 40%, I would pay $12,000 in income tax, leaving me with only $18,000 in my pocket. Oh no, I better not hire anyone because I will make only 18,000 additional dollars this year instead of 19,500! Damn job-killing taxes!!!

What amazes me is that anyone believes this myth. As an owner of a small business, I'm speaking out; I hope others will do the same.

(Can we get someone to scoop up this stinking pile and get it out of here?)

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 1: MY TAKE

OK Democrats, untie the knots in your panties, stop hyperventilating, and lay off of Jim Lehrer. Obama did not lose the 2012 election.

In debate number 1, we saw a desperate Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, adopt the persona of a pit bull (sorry pit bull lovers) to try to save his campaign. He came out swinging wildly at every pitch. He came off as a rude bully.

The Democrat, Barak Obama, was cool and seemingly having trouble engaging the way we know he can. He, like Romney, also ran over the allotted times, but was polite to the moderator as he did so.

Although style is the metric most commentators are focused on, the meaningful difference was substance: Romney dished out falsehoods and outright lies, Obama laid out facts and mostly truths. (Note: I tend to overlook the occasional blurring of fact in these events; after all, can anyone REALLY remember every single number and date and name, etc.?) The majority of media outlets I've looked at have done the fact- checking and have said that Romney was not being factual regarding a large number of his talking points.

Another point: who was this Mitt Romney? Certainly not the same one we've seen campaigning for way too many months. This is the classic shaking of the etch-a-sketch, and a new figure is drawn. Obama many times pointed out that this Romney was denying the programs and ideas and statements of the previous Mitt incarnation.

In the end, it comes down to this primary point: there is a basic difference between the Republican and Democratic view of government. This was very evident in the debate. Viewers need to get past the theatrics and listen to the words. It is a huge and growing divide in this country, a divide that cuts to the very core of who we are and who we will become as a nation. Maybe we won't survive as united states - remember the Soviet Union?

Finally - lay off of Jim Lehrer. I think he did an OK job with the difficult structure imposed on him by the Committee, and against a relentless bully. Should he have yelled at Mr. Romney to "shut the fuck up!?" Did he have a cut-off switch for Romney's microphone (no)? Both candidates, as I said before, ran over their time limits - typical for every debate of this sort. But there were numerous times when Obama acquiesced to the moderators insistence that they move on; Romney shouted him down at every attempt.

So bottom line: what's important is whether or not the debate changed the minds of voters and tipped the election in a different direction. It might have, but then again, maybe not - time will tell.

And so we wait for the next engagement.

A TIME FOR HATE

Once again it's time to hate: the United States of America, Israel, the Jews, the western democracies, anyone and everyone who isn't we the most righteous (pick one or all of the above).

You know what? Someone insulted bicyclists yesterday, so let's go burn down all the car dealerships. Someone made disparaging remarks about democrats, so let's go beat the crap out of anyone wearing red. Someone said that fish and chips actually have French fries, so let's go trash Paris. Yeah! We're righteous!

The time to hate seems to be any time, for any stupid reason. If I started a riot every time someone said anything anti-semitic, well, there would never be a calm moment in the world. The President of Iran says nasty horrible things about Jews all the time, in public, reported in the press. Let's go TP that mother-f**ker's house!

I'm really sick and tired of all this hate. I'm also really sick and tired of a small minority of people hijacking the spotlight and good will of the majority (keep in mind that there are a bit more than 2 billion people of the Muslim faith worldwide). The people using violence to carry out this most recent hate tantrum are criminals and should be treated as such. I'm glad to see high level officials and clergy in the countries where this hate is being demonstrated make statements about the unacceptably of this behavior. But it also bothers me to see them doing political posturing at the same time.

So, let's keep our cool and our perspective and continue to build friendships with people who aren't just like us. And please, no more hate.

APPLE vs SAMSUNG: REALLY?

$219,000,000,000 and counting.  That is the value of the smartphone and tablet market for which Apple and Samsung seem locked in a duel to the death. Apple is suing Samsung for patent infringement. Samsung is doing the same to Apple. It is now in a court in San Jose, California. Some of the issues: Apple has a patent on the rounded-corner, rectangular shape of smart-phones. Samsung has patents on some of the transmission technology in smart-phones. Each side is spending many many millions of dollars on lawyers.

Apple claims that the Samsung smart-phones are illegal knockoffs of the iPhone. Well, in our household, we just happen to have one of each kind, and here they are:

   The one on the left is my Samsung Infuse; on the right is my wife's iPhone 3. Yep, they look exactly the same; the Samsung is a direct copy of the iPhone. Not.

What about the way they operate? The Samsung uses the Android OS (operating system), while the iPhone uses the Apple OS. I've tried both, and they are not the same. Sure, there are similarities, but there are many similarities between a Chevy and a Toyota.

We also each have an iPad; mine is the original (iPad 1), hers is the latest (iPad (iPad 3)).  We have not tried the Samsung tablets, but I imagine there are also many similarities.

So what's the deal here? Obviously, it is all about market share and profit. Data for the second quarter of 2012 show that Samsung has 33% of the global market of smart-phones, while Apple has 17%.  Apple has 62% of the global market for tablet computers, while Samsung has only 9%. And the value of these markets? That number with all the zeros at the beginning of this post: 219 billion dollars. Neither company can be satisfied with the numerous billions of dollars it makes every year - each needs more.

I would prefer if Samsung and Apple put more of their billions into supporting the products already in the hands of consumers, as well as pushing their industry into a more sustainable direction. Do we (the consumers) really need a new version of the iPhone every 6 months? Really? Do we really need to be hooked into an industry that tells us that the product we hold in our hand is obsolete almost as soon as we unpack it? What is the true cost of all these gadgets?

One true cost is the earth's climate. Here in Oregon, the battle lines have been drawn between the companies that want to export Montana coal to China through Columbia River ports, and the groups that oppose coal exports on the basis of impacts to local communities and to the climate. The irony I find is that all the smart-phones, tablets, and laptops used to post/tweet/facebook/email about this topic use gadgets made in China and other Asian countries that want our coal to power the factories making these devices. Would the demand for coal go away if we all stop buying these gadgets? (Probably not, but it's an interesting point to ponder for this discussion.)

So Apple and Samsung, good luck to you both. Unfortunately, the real loser in this will be the consumers. All the bull crap about free markets and competition flies out the window when billions of dollars are at stake. Neither of these monster corporations will lose as much as we consumers will.

---

THE MITT ROMNEY INSULT AND RACISM TOUR

During the run-up to the Republican nomination, when Americans were witness to one of the strangest circuses of modern times, I thought Mitt Romney was at least sane and intelligent, compared to the rest of the Republican clowns. I was wrong.

Romney is on a trip overseas to demonstrate his capabilities in foreign policy and relationships. Romney has succeeded - in pissing off almost everyone with insults and racist remarks.

Great Britain:
The Insult - the Brits had problems with their preparations for the Olympics that concerned the erstwhile POTUS. That did not play well in the host country.
The Racism -"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special," a second Romney adviser told the newspaper. "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have." (Source: ABC News)  In other words, a black President can't understand the secret code of white people. By the way, if you watched the opening ceremony of the Olympics, you surely noticed that the thousands of British people who participated were a very diverse mix - it didn't look like Anglo-Saxonville to me. 


Israel:
The Insult and The Racism - a double play! The Mittster pissed of Palestinians when he talked about the economic differences between Israel and the Palestinian Territories as being partially based on cultural differences. Saeb Erekat of the Palestinian Authority said of Romney's comments: “It seems to me this man (Romney) lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people,” Erekat said. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.” (Source: ABC News)  At best, Romney's remarks were insensitive and simplistic; at worst, they convey a racist or cultural superior attitude. 

Poland: let's see if Mitt can pull off a triple-play! 

I guess I'm not in the mood to cut Romney any slack on this stuff. The level of rancor and racism in this country is high, and we need to call it out every time. 

Mitt Romney, the Presumptive Republican Nominee, appears to be not only insensitive and not very smart, but also has racial and cultural superiority issues.

Oy.

THE GUN LOBBY AND GUN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE WRONG!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States.

I'll take a different tack here than most; if the Second Amendment really means that we all have the right to have firearms designed to kill people, then the Constitution needs to be changed. Period. 

Fact: the latest massacre, in Aurora, Colorado, was perpetrated by a person who had legal firearms. He had in his possession four weapons that he had purchased from local gun shops in the past 60 days, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition. His arsenal included: 1) a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle with a drum magazine capable of holding 100 rounds that can fire 50-60 rounds per minute; 2) two Glock .40 caliber pistols, probably with 15 round clips; and 3) a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun that holds up to 7 rounds. The Colt rifle is the civilian version of the M-16 used by the U.S. military. The Glock pistols are popular among police. Both of these weapons are designed for one purpose: killing people. I'm not a hunter, but I assume that the shotgun is a hunting weapon. 

Does the Second Amendment really mean that we all have the right to own weapons designed to kill people? If it does, and I think it does not, then it needs to be changed. There is not one reason for any civilian to own a weapon designed to kill people. There is not one reason for it to be legal to sell these weapons to civilians. In other words, only the police and military should own these weapons (and if civilians didn't have any, then the cops wouldn't need them, either). 

Fact: we have had many mass shootings in this country; it has become all too common. Here's a graphic being used by many media outlets today:

This is nuts! What kind of country do we live in? Is this what the Second Amendment is all about? 

I know people who hunt and fish. They do this for enjoyment and for food. I don't have a problem with this. And by the way, they don't use M-16's. 

Can we prevent people from killing others with hunting weapons? No. Can we reduce the number of lethal weapons in our communities designed to kill people? Yes, and we should. It would take tough laws, made by tough law-makers who understand that it is OK to go against the NRA and other gun lobby groups. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have many people like that in Congress. 

This is nuts. 

THE DIRT ON THE STREET - THE FUTILITY OF STREET SWEEPING IN PORTLAND, OREGON

The City's street cleaning program removes dirt and debris from City streets to provide a healthy, safe, and attractive environment for the citizens of Portland. Regular removal of leaves and debris is necessary to prevent stormwater drains from clogging, which can result in street flooding. Street cleaning protects water quality and minimizes the burden on the sewer system from surface debris. 

The above introduction is on the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation street cleaning web page.  I agree that clean streets are a good thing, and that the City should regularly clean them for the benefits listed. The only problem is that the City of Portland street cleaning program doesn't do any of the above. 

The method used to clean the streets is street sweeping machines; you've seen the vehicles with the large rotating brushes going down the street. The street sweeper recently went through our neighborhood; this is done 1 or 2 times per year.  


Here's a photo I took near my house soon after the sweeper went through.

Look closely and you will see the track made by the sweeper; it went around the parked cars.
 
Further into the web page cited above, the City states that 97% of the dirt and debris on the street is within 40 inches (3.3. ft) of the curb. A car typically takes up the area about 6 ft from the curb. So in other words, except when it can get to within 3 ft of the curb, the sweeper only gets about 3% of the dirt. On our block, there are typically no empty parking spaces, so the sweeper misses most of the street dirt. 


I wondered how much dirt and debris the sweeper leaves behind, and on the 4th of July, I had an opportunity to figure it out. On that morning, there were only 2 cars parked on our side of the street for the entire block. So I went our with a square-end shovel and push broom and did the street sweeping myself (I actually try to do this at least once a year). 

What I found was a layer of dirt against the curb, a lot of which had weeds growing in it. There was also debris: cigarette butts, scraps of paper and plastic, bits of metal; you get the idea. And also, a lot of oil and grease stains on the pavement - I couldn't sweep those. 

I shoveled and swept the area within about 3 ft of the curb on one side of the entire block - you remember that this 3 ft is where 97% of the street dirt is found. I piled all of it into a yellow plastic recycling bin. 

I then measured the size of the bin and did some calculations; I had 1.78 cubic feet, or 0.07 cubic yards, of dirt and debris.  The length of the one side of the street I cleaned was 250 ft, or 0.05 mile. 


A standard dump truck holds about 5 cubic yards (cy) of dirt; that is about 75 of my yellow bins full of dirt. One dump truck at 5 cy would hold about 72 of my bins full of street debris. Or, if we consider both sides of the street, a dump truck would hold about 36 blocks worth of street dirt. The City of Portland has 4,700 miles of paved streets. Using the length of my block, 36 blocks would be 1.7 miles. Do the math, and you get a total of 2,765 dump truck loads.


2,765. That is the number of dump trucks full of street dirt that the City street cleaning program leaves behind every time they clean the streets, based on the assumptions of my small exercise and calculations. 

But wait - what about posting "no parking" signs so that the streets can be properly cleaned? In many cities, street sweeping is scheduled for specific days and people know not to park on those streets. Can't we do that in Portland? Apparently not. The second half of the City web site cited above lists numerous reasons (excuses) why the City of Portland can't do that.  And of course, as the City web site states: "Any attempt to provide a schedule online or through the mail would almost certainly result in a frustrated public because too many factors beyond our control always result in delays to our street sweeping schedule." We certainly don't want a frustrated public! 

Read the opening statement of this post again (go ahead, scroll up, I'll wait). Based on my small study, the statement is not true; the City does not really remove dirt and debris from the streets, they leave 97% of it. For me, this begs the question of "why bother?" Why continue a program that does nothing? Either do it correctly, or don't do it at all. 

We are very green in the City of Portland. We strive mightily to protect the water quality in our rivers and streams, to save the salmon, to improve our quality of life and the environment. We all pay stormwater fees, including the off-site stormwater fee that "pays for the construction, operation and maintenance of facilities that manage stormwater runoff from city streets." Part of the above is to deal with the water quality of stormwater runoff from streets. Effective street cleaning is one of the easiest and best ways to deal with water quality from street runoff - remove the contaminants before they go down the drain! 

Now, some of you might be wondering "what did he do with the yellow bin full of street sweepings?" I phoned the street cleaning department at the City of Portland and explained to a very helpful person what I had done. I said that I didn't want to put the sweepings into my green can (non-Portlanders; that's the can we put yard debris and food waste into that is picked up weekly for composting), and he said that was correct because "you don't know what's in it." "Oh, I do know what's in it," I replied. He asked for my address, I left the yellow bin out by the curb, and the next morning it was empty - a city crew picked it up for proper (hopefully) disposal. 

Should the City of Portland sell their street sweepers, re-assign most of the staff, and instead distribute shovels and brooms to every property owner? I think not. I think that the City needs to evaluate their street cleaning program and change to a program that actually meets the intended goals.