Get this! A well-regarded Florida high school student was expelled from her school last week. Why? Because she conducted a scientific experiment outside the school that bore an unexpected result.
Kiera Wilmot, a junior at Bartow High School in the Florida town of the same name, committed the unforgiveable error of mixing some household chemicals in a plastic bottle outside the school, well away from the building. The chemical cocktail created a minor explosion, but caused no injury or damage. A reprimand would probably have been appropriate; she most likely would have understood the gravity of the situation and learned from it.
Yet despite her exemplary record of conduct and high academic standing, school officials have deemed Ms. Wilmot a criminal! Not only has she been expelled from her school, but she's being charged with a felony.
The principal actually declared that she knew that the cited student intended no harm, but that she had violated the school's code of conduct. After all, "rules are rules."
I guess the All-Hallowed Principal's Manual doesn't contain a clause anywhere pertaining to common sense.
Update: As of May 24th, criminal charges against Ms. Wilmot have been dropped, most likely due at least in part to an on-line campaign in her behalf. At least 200,000 signatures were generated. The school still hasn't allowed her to return, but according to local reports, her parents are appealing to school officials.
So at least in this one instance, an inquisitive student's curiosity won't be criminalized. Nevertheless, this should be considered an appropriate time for school officials to be reconsidering zero-tolerance policies at their institutions. Not only do they cast a pall over the whole educational environment, but they discourage students from exercising initiative and curiosity. Besides, the slammers in many localities are already overloaded with petty, non-violent offenders.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare
Deaths of innocents are devastating, whether those who die are in Boston, New York, Pakistan, or Yemen.
What happened at the Boston Marathon last week was horrifying. Were it not for the heroism of first responders and medical professionals, as well as bystanders, the death toll would have likely been much higher. Legions of workaday folks, without missing a beat, reflexively transformed into angels of mercy, while potentially placing themselves in harm's way.
In the wake of tragedy, the community came together. So did the nation in a great display of empathy. It's a solid testament to our national character.
But can we extend that empathy across the globe? Consider this: Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer, recently testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing focused on the use of attack drones overseas. Mr. al-Muslimi was once an exchange student, living with a family in the U.S. Since then, he's assumed a role as a de-facto good-will ambassador between Yemen and the U.S. with much success.
Sadly, recent ongoing U.S. drone attacks on Yemen seem to have undone his good work. Mr. al-Muslimi described his shock at such attacks on his native land --- in particular one on his native village --- and emphasized that the good will he so carefully cultivated is now history. In fact, he's quite concerned that he may not even be welcomed if he was to return. Here's what he said at the hearing:
The drone strikes tore through my heart, much as
the tragic bombings in Boston tore your hearts
and also mine.
He went on to say that the target of the strike was known to many in the village; Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him. Mr. al-Muslimi further stated:
The drone strikes are the face of America to many
Yemenis. .... (This allows the Yemen-based Al
Qaeda affiliate) to convince more individuals that
America is at war with them.
And Yemen is not the only nation being subjected to U.S. drone warfare. Parts of Pakistan and Somalia are among others. Because U.S. troops are not at risk, it's easy for us to "file and forget" reports of such missions. We're often reminded that drones are capable of making "surgical strikes" on their intended targets; yet in reality, many innocents --- including children --- are often killed or gravely injured. Defenders of the use of drones often gracelessly refer to such tragic consequences as "collateral damage".
It should also be noted that the surviving brother accused of the Boston massacre, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, stated that he and his brother were driven to act by their anger toward the United States for having waged war against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this rationale in no way justifies their monstrous deed, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that another "Dzhokhar" or "Tamerlan" from Yemen or Pakistan might be inspired to exact a bloody revenge on the U.S. with a similar act.
The Obama administration has been accelerating the drone program. For example, in 2012 there were 46 drone attacks in Yemen alone. Under Bush's watch, there was only one. The President journeyed to Boston soon after the tragedy to offer comfort and solace to the grieving families of those who died, as well as to the injured. I'm sure that everything he said and did came from the heart.
But he needs to realize that those who've suffered as a result of drone warfare have experienced that same heartache and sense of loss as the people of Boston. He must make that connection!
What happened at the Boston Marathon last week was horrifying. Were it not for the heroism of first responders and medical professionals, as well as bystanders, the death toll would have likely been much higher. Legions of workaday folks, without missing a beat, reflexively transformed into angels of mercy, while potentially placing themselves in harm's way.
In the wake of tragedy, the community came together. So did the nation in a great display of empathy. It's a solid testament to our national character.
But can we extend that empathy across the globe? Consider this: Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer, recently testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing focused on the use of attack drones overseas. Mr. al-Muslimi was once an exchange student, living with a family in the U.S. Since then, he's assumed a role as a de-facto good-will ambassador between Yemen and the U.S. with much success.
Sadly, recent ongoing U.S. drone attacks on Yemen seem to have undone his good work. Mr. al-Muslimi described his shock at such attacks on his native land --- in particular one on his native village --- and emphasized that the good will he so carefully cultivated is now history. In fact, he's quite concerned that he may not even be welcomed if he was to return. Here's what he said at the hearing:
The drone strikes tore through my heart, much as
the tragic bombings in Boston tore your hearts
and also mine.
He went on to say that the target of the strike was known to many in the village; Yemeni officials could easily have arrested him. Mr. al-Muslimi further stated:
The drone strikes are the face of America to many
Yemenis. .... (This allows the Yemen-based Al
Qaeda affiliate) to convince more individuals that
America is at war with them.
And Yemen is not the only nation being subjected to U.S. drone warfare. Parts of Pakistan and Somalia are among others. Because U.S. troops are not at risk, it's easy for us to "file and forget" reports of such missions. We're often reminded that drones are capable of making "surgical strikes" on their intended targets; yet in reality, many innocents --- including children --- are often killed or gravely injured. Defenders of the use of drones often gracelessly refer to such tragic consequences as "collateral damage".
It should also be noted that the surviving brother accused of the Boston massacre, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, stated that he and his brother were driven to act by their anger toward the United States for having waged war against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. While this rationale in no way justifies their monstrous deed, it's probably not unreasonable to assume that another "Dzhokhar" or "Tamerlan" from Yemen or Pakistan might be inspired to exact a bloody revenge on the U.S. with a similar act.
The Obama administration has been accelerating the drone program. For example, in 2012 there were 46 drone attacks in Yemen alone. Under Bush's watch, there was only one. The President journeyed to Boston soon after the tragedy to offer comfort and solace to the grieving families of those who died, as well as to the injured. I'm sure that everything he said and did came from the heart.
But he needs to realize that those who've suffered as a result of drone warfare have experienced that same heartache and sense of loss as the people of Boston. He must make that connection!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Universal Health Care Across the Pond: Conservative Leaders Never Mess With It.
I find it very telling that throughout the industrialized world, universal health care is considered to be part of the national fabric; except here in the U.S.A. Even the most conservative of leaders generally honor and respect the principle of health care for all. No one would ever consider tampering with it.
For instance, replacing universal health care was proposed in the British Tory Party's 1979 manifesto. Nevertheless, when Margaret Thatcher stood for election that same year, she declared her unswerving support for maintaining the National Health Service as it was. Whatever the Iron Lady's personal sentiments may have been, she was keenly aware of the potential blowback resulting from any attempt to dismantle it.
Likewise, Germany's conservative prime minister, Angela Merkel realizes that any attempt to dismantle her nation's stellar system of health care would be tantamount to political hari-kari. Even former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy knows what would have happened had he tried to interfere. His fellow citizens would have kicked his bootie clear across the Adriatic Sea --- causing him to land splat in the center of the Croatian city of Zagreb --- and finding himself in sudden need of a crash course in Serbo-Croatian!
A few years back, a U.S. health care expert and scholar named Donald Light offered an enlightening assessment of Britain's National Health Service, declaring it totally in synch with the most hallowed of free market principles. Its advocates believed that it maximized everyone's ability to exercise individual freedom and responsibility by enabling people to take care of themselves and be productive.*
Hmm! Individual responsibility! One of the Republicans' favorite talking points!
Any thoughts?
* Source: Donald Light; Universal Health Care: Lessons from the British Experience; American Journal of Public Health: January, 2003, p. 25-30. ----> Well worth the read! Available free online.
For instance, replacing universal health care was proposed in the British Tory Party's 1979 manifesto. Nevertheless, when Margaret Thatcher stood for election that same year, she declared her unswerving support for maintaining the National Health Service as it was. Whatever the Iron Lady's personal sentiments may have been, she was keenly aware of the potential blowback resulting from any attempt to dismantle it.
Likewise, Germany's conservative prime minister, Angela Merkel realizes that any attempt to dismantle her nation's stellar system of health care would be tantamount to political hari-kari. Even former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy knows what would have happened had he tried to interfere. His fellow citizens would have kicked his bootie clear across the Adriatic Sea --- causing him to land splat in the center of the Croatian city of Zagreb --- and finding himself in sudden need of a crash course in Serbo-Croatian!
A few years back, a U.S. health care expert and scholar named Donald Light offered an enlightening assessment of Britain's National Health Service, declaring it totally in synch with the most hallowed of free market principles. Its advocates believed that it maximized everyone's ability to exercise individual freedom and responsibility by enabling people to take care of themselves and be productive.*
Hmm! Individual responsibility! One of the Republicans' favorite talking points!
Any thoughts?
* Source: Donald Light; Universal Health Care: Lessons from the British Experience; American Journal of Public Health: January, 2003, p. 25-30. ----> Well worth the read! Available free online.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Grover Norquist is Still Alive and Well and Living in the Halls of Congress
Earlier today, President Obama introduced his latest budget proposal to Congress. It contains provisions for program cuts and revenue increases. In some quarters, I suppose that the Obama budget would be considered an attempt to compromise, but to most Republicans in Congress, compromise seems to be an alien concept.
House Speaker John Boehner, in behalf of his Republican cohorts, still insists that tax increases are off the table. Among GOP senators, there may at least be some talking points, but no sincere attempt at compromise. For instance, Lindsey Graham (R. - SC) has suggested a willingness to discuss elimination of tax loopholes, but only in return for flattening the overall tax rates.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States already has among the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product among its 34 member nations. (The OECD was founded in 1961 in the interest of promoting economic progress and world trade). Here's a link with the lowdown:
OECD: Tax Revenue as a % of GDP.
Consider this as well: None of the other 33 member nations possess a massive military-industrial complex, which consumes a quarter of the United States' budget. Yet too many Republicans in both houses seem unwilling to give an inch in the realm of raising desperately needed tax revenue, even if vital social programs have to be gutted.
I guess they really do hate government.
House Speaker John Boehner, in behalf of his Republican cohorts, still insists that tax increases are off the table. Among GOP senators, there may at least be some talking points, but no sincere attempt at compromise. For instance, Lindsey Graham (R. - SC) has suggested a willingness to discuss elimination of tax loopholes, but only in return for flattening the overall tax rates.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States already has among the lowest tax revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product among its 34 member nations. (The OECD was founded in 1961 in the interest of promoting economic progress and world trade). Here's a link with the lowdown:
OECD: Tax Revenue as a % of GDP.
Consider this as well: None of the other 33 member nations possess a massive military-industrial complex, which consumes a quarter of the United States' budget. Yet too many Republicans in both houses seem unwilling to give an inch in the realm of raising desperately needed tax revenue, even if vital social programs have to be gutted.
I guess they really do hate government.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The "City on a Hill" is a Gated Fortress
Over time, that "City on a Hill" seems to have endured a whole slew of incarnations --- with one constant: its portrayal as an ideal, a pinnacle of triumph. Its earliest known reference appears to have been a biblical citation (Matthew 5:14).
Centuries later, a Puritan, John Winthrop, cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world": perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism. Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.
Since then, that "City on a Hill", has become a place most of us can only dream about. As the late, lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say, "Why do they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
Speaking of the '80s, here's how income gains have been distributed nationwide since then. Specifically, between 1979 and 2007, gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%: not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses. On the other hand, the top 1% has reveled in a 281% income jump.
Just as a basis for comparison, here's the way it pans out:
-Lowest 20% (of households): 16%
-Middle 20% : 25%
-Top 20% : 95%
-Top 1%(within that top 20%): 281%!
(Source: Congressional Budget Office)
Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%, with no concern for the consequences: the likelihood that millions of people, right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as vital programs get scuttled.
It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of our nation's paymasters. Believe me, I'd like to be proven wrong. In any event, we need to keep trying to facilitate change, even if like Don Quixote, we're just tilting at windmills.
In the meantime, that "City on the Hill" has been locked and latched!
Centuries later, a Puritan, John Winthrop, cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world": perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism. Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.
Since then, that "City on a Hill", has become a place most of us can only dream about. As the late, lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say, "Why do they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
Speaking of the '80s, here's how income gains have been distributed nationwide since then. Specifically, between 1979 and 2007, gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%: not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses. On the other hand, the top 1% has reveled in a 281% income jump.
Just as a basis for comparison, here's the way it pans out:
-Lowest 20% (of households): 16%
-Middle 20% : 25%
-Top 20% : 95%
-Top 1%(within that top 20%): 281%!
(Source: Congressional Budget Office)
Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%, with no concern for the consequences: the likelihood that millions of people, right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as vital programs get scuttled.
It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of our nation's paymasters. Believe me, I'd like to be proven wrong. In any event, we need to keep trying to facilitate change, even if like Don Quixote, we're just tilting at windmills.
In the meantime, that "City on the Hill" has been locked and latched!
Monday, March 11, 2013
It's Great That They're Communicating, BUT ....
Yes, it's comforting to know that Obama and members of Congress have begun a dialog regarding the sequester. It would be nice to reach an agreement before we begin experiencing the direst consequences of a prolonged impasse.
Still, it's kind of discomforting to hear reports that the Obama administration is apparently proposing cuts to vital social programs as items up for discussion --- much to the chagrin of many fellow Democrats. I guess they're being offered in the spirit of compromise.
Yet I find myself asking: "Where was this will to negotiate and compromise back in 2011?" A lot of pundits claim that there's ample blame to go around in reference to the sequester; after all, both parties signed off on it.
True, but it seems to me that the Democrats cosigned under duress. If my memory serves me, congressional Republicans insisted that they would not authorize a normally routine action: raising the national debt ceiling. They got their way by throwing a collective tantrum. When a li'l kiddo throws a tantrum, there are several options available: 1) Some "quiet time", 2) issuing a pacifier, or maybe 3) a well-placed "potch" on the fanny. Or 4) caving!
Well, it seems as if Obama and the Dems chose Option 4. (Admittedly, Option 3 would have been a tad awkward).
In fact, House Speaker, His Orangeness John Boehner, was ecstatic. He was quoted, declaring, "I'm very happy! I got 98% of what I wanted!" Yet now, the Democrats are being expected to compromise?
Don't get me wrong, the bipartisan dinners and other outreach efforts are fine. I also realize that many Republicans in Congress are concerned about being "primaried" from the right, so they feel as if they're beholden to the Tea Party line, even if it's against their better judgment.
But if the Republicans can't get a handle on their internal squabbles, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. On the other hand, the Democrats ought to realize that the progressives in their midst have policy priorities in synch with majority sentiments. Every national, issue-oriented poll confirms this.
If the Dems don't start asserting themselves, many of their supporters, especially young and minority voters might decide to go "missing in action" in 2014. That seems to be what happened in 2010.
Let's not go for an encore.
Still, it's kind of discomforting to hear reports that the Obama administration is apparently proposing cuts to vital social programs as items up for discussion --- much to the chagrin of many fellow Democrats. I guess they're being offered in the spirit of compromise.
Yet I find myself asking: "Where was this will to negotiate and compromise back in 2011?" A lot of pundits claim that there's ample blame to go around in reference to the sequester; after all, both parties signed off on it.
True, but it seems to me that the Democrats cosigned under duress. If my memory serves me, congressional Republicans insisted that they would not authorize a normally routine action: raising the national debt ceiling. They got their way by throwing a collective tantrum. When a li'l kiddo throws a tantrum, there are several options available: 1) Some "quiet time", 2) issuing a pacifier, or maybe 3) a well-placed "potch" on the fanny. Or 4) caving!
Well, it seems as if Obama and the Dems chose Option 4. (Admittedly, Option 3 would have been a tad awkward).
In fact, House Speaker, His Orangeness John Boehner, was ecstatic. He was quoted, declaring, "I'm very happy! I got 98% of what I wanted!" Yet now, the Democrats are being expected to compromise?
Don't get me wrong, the bipartisan dinners and other outreach efforts are fine. I also realize that many Republicans in Congress are concerned about being "primaried" from the right, so they feel as if they're beholden to the Tea Party line, even if it's against their better judgment.
But if the Republicans can't get a handle on their internal squabbles, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. On the other hand, the Democrats ought to realize that the progressives in their midst have policy priorities in synch with majority sentiments. Every national, issue-oriented poll confirms this.
If the Dems don't start asserting themselves, many of their supporters, especially young and minority voters might decide to go "missing in action" in 2014. That seems to be what happened in 2010.
Let's not go for an encore.
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Grownups' Answer to the Sequester
As I write, a mandate imposing draconian budget cuts, also known as the sequester, has just kicked in. Air travel is expected to be affected within a few days; air traffic controllers and TSA security personnel will be cut back to four-day-a-week work schedules. Major delays are expected.
Unless Congress changes course, vital programs and services are likely to be severely affected over the next few months. Essential services such as police and fire protection, education and disaster relief will not be spared. Nor will vital programs such as Head Start and WIC, (the latter which emphasizes health and nutrition counseling for women, infants, and children). Conservatives who try to trivialize the consequences of such cuts never consider the human costs. ("Oh, tut-tut", they stutter dismissively, "It's only a piddling bit of each program's overall budget that's getting cut." Well uh, those piddling bits translate to denied opportunities for many folks --- especially kids --- who'd just like to have the chance to enrich their own lives as well as those of their communities' --- and break the cycle of poverty and despair). That translates to potential "human capital" that's lost to all of us; we could all be the poorer because of that.
What really boggles the mind is that the sequester could be repealed in the bat of an eyelash if only majorities in both houses of Congress had the will to do it. But instead, congressional Republicans have cynically passed the buck to President Obama by giving him the opportunity to "rationally target" the cuts, presenting him with a scalpel to replace the meat cleaver. In other words, they want him to "own" the sequester.
The reality is that an assortment of revenue increases mandating that corporations and Wall Street poobahs pay their fair share of taxes (partially by closing loopholes and cutting subsidies) could largely cover the $85 billion a year in cuts mandated by the sequester. But Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner, speaking in behalf of their Republican colleagues and their collective tantrum, are insisting that revenue proposals are off the table. It's all about spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts! We gave you your nasty ol' tax increase, they say. (Last time I checked, that "tax increase" was simply a partial restoration of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest households).
When a child throws a tantrum, a little quiet time generally works. But when an entire party stages a collective tantrum, the only real solution is to show the nation who the congressional grownups are. The members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus seem to be prominent among the adults in the room.
Although it gets precious little exposure in the mainstream media, the Caucus has crafted a measure called "The Balancing Act". As the title implies, it has proposed a combination of revenue increases and budget cuts, but with a focus on humane priorities. Here's the link: The CPC's Balancing Act .
For starters, this measure would repeal the sequester, replacing it with seemingly common-sense reforms that would help reduce the deficit over the long-term, but do so without mortgaging the future of generations to come.
Here are some of the other highlights:
--- Meaningful taxes on Wall Street speculators, particularly
hedge fund managers.
--- Closure of loopholes for private jets and yachts.
--- Elimination of incentives for "off-shoring" of both jobs and
corporate profits (the latter specifically for tax avoidance)
--- The end of corporate subsidies, especially for oil and
agriculture.
And on the military side of the ledger:
--- Reduction of compensation for private defense contractors
to that of civilian Pentagon employees.
--- Elimination of Cold-War era weapons programs.
--- Adjustment of procurement priorities to 21st Century
needs.
On the investment side of the ledger, the Balancing Act specifies increased funding for education at all levels as well as improvements in our decaying infrastructure. In other words, more jobs! Other vital social programs would apparently at least be spared from the meat-axe. So would programs benefitting veterans.
If this budget proposal was to ever receive a respectable level of coverage in the dominant media --- enough to result in popular awareness --- then maybe, just maybe, Congress could be pressured to act on it.
In the meantime, the recurring congressional tantrums really ought to be addressed. Pacifiers, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)