Who Are These Guys?

As the two freed American journalists stepped off of the chartered jet, they were

greeted by a chorus of cheers and tears. Anxious family members wrapped their arms around

them, and the joy could be felt from Burbank to Pyongyang. Among the crowd was former

Vice President Al Gore; and eventually descending the airplane staircase, former President

Bill Clinton. Gore eventually addressed those gathered with Clinton standing next to him,

and I couldn't help but think of the famous line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,

"Who are these guys?"

Clinton and Gore standing next to each other immediately made me think of the

image of Bush and Cheney and the picture of them on inauguration day. In Clinton and Gore

you felt a sense of adults in charge. The image of Bush standing next to Cheney made one

wonder who was in charge (remember Cheney and the CIA).

Ask yourself what the response would have been if North Korea had seized these

journalists on Bush's watch. Imagine the conversation in the Oval Office between Bush and

Cheney. (Time magazine reports that Cheney would often arrange to be the last person

Bush would talk to when decisions had to be made, particularly about policy standards.)

Now imagine President Clinton and Vice President Gore or President Obama and Vice

President Biden discussing the plight of the journalists. If you were a member of their

families, which duo would you prefer?

In the eight years of the Clinton administration, this nation prospered both

domestically and internationally. Clinton passed a tax increase on the richest 1% of

Americans (without a single Republican vote and with Gore breaking the tie in the Senate),

which set the stage for eight years of prosperity. Internationally, Clinton was very much

an integral part of the diplomatic effort to bring peace to Northern Ireland, re-start talks

between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the ending of the slaughter in Bosnia/

Herzegovina without losing one American life in the peacekeeping effort. Clinton used

American troops to restore Jean Betrand Aristide back into office in Haiti as he tried to

shore up a fragile democratic process; and even when his effort failed in Somalia, the

Secretary of Defense who presided over that fiasco, Les Aspin, was summarily sacked.

Watching Clinton and Gore standing next to the joyous families of the freed

journalists was a stark moment of contrast between them and the two men who succeeded

them. There is no need to re-hash the disastrous Bush/Cheney years. There was a two

trillion dollars tax cut for the rich, an illegal and immoral war, and an economic disaster;

and internationally, the destruction of the American brand in the eyes of the world.

Back to the Oval Office and Bush/Cheney on the captured journalists. Can you

imagine the rhetoric that would have emanated from them? You would have been able

to hear the "sabre-rattling" from here to Beijing. The North Korean "axis of evil" would

have been warned, threatened, and attacked if they did not release the Americans. A

carrier battle group would have been sent to the area. There would be rumors of a special

ops rescue mission or a possible military response. We all could write the speeches that

they would give.

For five months the Obama Administration worked a quiet diplomacy. Hillary

Clinton let it be known that the U.S. would push for U.N. sanctions against North Korea,

while at the same time pushing for six party talks to resume. North Korea was not

presented with ultimatums; rather, Clinton sought international support to put pressure

on them including pressure from China. In the end, North Korea indicated that it would

release the journalists if Bill Clinton would come and get them. Obama didn't hesitate

to ask, and Clinton agreed in like manner. The United States got two freed citizens; and

our image is further enhanced in the international community as a country that puts

diplomacy first. Clinton spent three hours with North Korean President Kim Il Sung;

and he will provide vital intelligence about Kim Jong Il's health, mental state, and

willingness to talk further. Pyongyang is a little less isolated today than it was yesterday.

Once again I ask you to contrast this with what would have been the result if Bush/Cheney

were still in charge.

One could not help to be moved by the tears and hugs and smiles in that hanger

in Burbank. You couldn't help but smile and feel good as Lucy Ling addressed the reporters

with Clinton and Gore standing behind her. As the Congress moves to it's summer recess,

the Obama Administration gets a big boost with the freeing of the Americans, and will get

another shot of momentum when Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed by the Senate. Obama

promised a new day when he ran for office. He promised that he would talk to anyone

interested in a dialogue, and he appointed his chief rival and critic to oversee that diplomatic

effort. What a contrast to the previous years. President George Bush could stand under a

"Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier, while Clinton and Gore stand behind

joyous families of the two freed Americans that were so glad to be home. The contrast is

both dramatic and illustrative, and is what led me to exclaim "Who are these guys?"

What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to

lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Recess...Yea!!!

Congress moves into it's August recess this week with the last piece of business

in the Senate being two-fold, voting on the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme

Court and voting for two billion additional dollars for the "cash for clunkers" program. The

first is a foregone conclusion; the second should be.

Sotomayor will get at least 65 votes, as at least five Republicans will vote for her.

In her nomination hearings she said all the right things and didn't commit any blunders.

The hearings were a farce, of course, because she was coached on how not to answer; and

Senators were more interested in scoring points than they were in really exploring her

judicial record. With six Catholics on the Court now, it would have been informative for

some Senator to explore her relationship with the Catholic Church. Does she agree with

the Church that abortion is a grave evil? Does she agree with the Church that birth control

is immoral? Does she believe that homosexuality is intrinsically evil; and does she believe

that marriage should be just between a man and a woman? Other questions could have been

asked about stem cell research and cloning. These are not trivial issues and they can say

a lot about her own values. Does she believe in heaven and hell? Would she put her soul

in eternal danger and go against the Church?

None of those questions were asked nor were lots of others that should have been.

In fact, there are a chorus of voices calling on the Senate to end these hearings and just vote

on the nominee up or down after he or she is nominated. It's a Kabuki dance now with

everyone playing their roles and there is no benefit for the American people at all.

As for the second item, the "cash for clunkers" program is a huge success. The

one billion dollars appropriated was thought to be enough to take the program through

November, and instead it didn't last a week. Ford is reporting a sales increase for July

that is better than one year ago. The clunkers program put them over the top. Old gas

guzzlers are being traded in for more fuel efficient cars. Ford reported the the Explorer

was the most frequently traded-in model, and the compact Ford Focus was the most

popular new purchase. Think about all those Explorers and Expeditions off the road and

replaced by the Focus. Not only is this selling new cars and reducing inventory, it will

result in less gasoline being used and slightly less dependence on foreign oil. It is an

extraordinary phenomenon to observe. The Senate is asked to add two billion dollars more

this week to extend the program. If they fail, they should not return to Washington after

the recess. This is one idea that is innovative and successful and deserves to be continued.

Think about the impact of one million Explorers, Expeditions, Navigators, and other gas

guzzlers off the road replaced by the Focus, Prius, Corolla, and other compacts. It boosts

the economy, reduces fuel demand, and decreases the pollution as new cars are more

efficient than clunkers.

Now since we have seen this simple idea work so well, let me propose a couple

more simple ideas that would also work as well. First, eliminate the age requirement to

receive Medicare. By eliminating one line of text in the law, all Americans, all of them,

would immediately have health coverage. Employers would no longer have to pay to cover

employees. The savings could be passed along in the form of higher wages which would

stimulate the economy, increase tax revenues, improve the fiscal health of state and local

governments, and guarantee health coverage to 100% of all Americans. No new bureaucracy

would be needed. President Obama's priority of reducing healthcare costs would be realized

because Medicare has very low overhead, and a low percentage of annual cost increases.

With it's buying power, Medicare would force big Pharma to reduce the price of prescription

drugs. Second, how about forgiving all student loans for anyone in college or who graduated?

The average American college student is graduating with loan debts of $25,000 to $50,000,

and some much higher; and the percentage is growing. They are graduating with the

equivalent of a first mortgage hanging over them before they can even get a job (if they can

find one). Many of these loans were taken out by their parents. Forgive those too! It would

be better than a tax cut. It would increase disposable income and increase consumer

spending at a time when the economy needs it. It would reward those who borrowed for

education; and it would return more to the treasury than it cost in the long run. (If we can

bail out AIG, Goldman Sachs, et al. to the tune of almost one trillion dollars, why not bail

out American families and students?) Finally, I propose a "cash for domiciles" program.

Anyone who has lived in their home for the last five years, have made consistent mortgage

payments, and agrees to live in the home for another five years at least, has the mortgage

reduced so that it requires no more than 20% of gross income to make the mortgage

payment. This is so simple, and would do more for the economy than ten stimulus plans.

It would end most foreclosures. It would stop huge numbers of foreclosed properties from

being dumped on the market, forcing prices down. It would preserve neighborhoods. It

would increase property tax revenue for local government. It would encourage people

to fix up their homes; and this increased spending in a variety of industries from appliances

to furniture to solar panels would benefit state and federal governments.

Taken together, my three simple proposals would guarantee healthcare coverage

for all at less cost, college graduates and their parents would benefit with more money in

their pockets than any tax cut could give them, and people would be able to stay in their

homes, thereby increasing tax revenues and bolstering the economy. Unemployment will

drop as more people are needed to work in the healthcare industry, construction industry,

manufacturing and other service industries. Consumer spending would increase; and since

2/3 of the economy is generated by consumer spending, the nation as a whole would begin

to recover.

As Congress goes on it's recess, ask yourself why these simple ideas can't pass or

even be proposed. Ask yourself why "cash for clunkers" works so well. Ask yourself what

it is about this country that makes it easier to spend billions on wars and bailing out Wall

Street, while Main Street is left to fend for itself. Ask why we still have hearings for our

Supreme Court nominees, when they are an insult to any rational person seeking true

knowledge of a nominee's positions on the issues.

If you have any answers, please let me know. Maybe it is time for recess to be

over, and for someone to get to work providing simple solutions to simple problems.

What do you think? Please send your comments and rebuttals to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

RIPPLES

The Gospel for today, Sunday July 26th, was from St. John's Gospel;and it tells

the story of the feeding of the 5000. I just found out today that Father Floyd Lotito, OFM,

had passed away and this Gospel is perfect for inspiring thoughts about Floyd and his life.

If you have ever seen a mountain lake early in the morning, the water is perfectly

smooth. It looks like glass. If you toss a stone into that water, the ripples caused will

eventually reach the other side of the lake. In our lives we create ripples. The ripples effect

all who encounter us and not always in a positive way. The goal of life is to evaluate the

ripples we cause and determine their value. If we don't like the effect we are having, we can

change and go in a new direction.

Father Floyd Lotito, OFM, made not just ripples, but waves, throughout his life.

He washed over his community of Franciscans, his family and friends, and the people he

served as a priest; a friar and a person. Floyd took over the St. Anthony's dining room

(the miracle on Jones St.) from Father Alfred Boedekker, OFM. Floyd imbued St. Anthonys

with his spirit and innate kindness. Floyd greeted everyone he met as "brother or sister".

At first I thought it was quaint (it was language St. Francis used). As I got to know him, I

realized that it wasn't quaint, it was true. He believed all people were his brothers and

sisters; and he treated them as members of his family.

Floyd loved his fellow friars. He loved community. He lived a life in the spirit of

St. Francis, and he showed obvious affection for all his fellow Franciscans. Floyd encouraged

his community to embrace St. Anthonys and to become a part of it. His arms were always

open; and St. Anthonys became a living sacrament of Francis and Jesus and God, and Floyd

loved that spirit.

For over thirty years Floyd helped direct St. Anthonys; and it must have been so

hard to watch the needy grow and grow. What started out as an attempt to serve a mostly

male clientele from the city's skid row, turned into a multifaceted foundation that fed more

and more men, women, and children (35 million and counting); as well as providing clothing,

furniture, medical care, drug rehabilitation, protection from domestic violence, and so much

more. Floyd oversaw an explosion of services necessitated by an explosion of need. I once

asked him if he got depressed when he saw so many people in need coming through his doors.

Did he get angry that in the richest nation on earth (a Christian nation some say) that so

many people needed the help of St. Anthony's? He smiled and said I didn't understand. The

people he served "evangelized" him. The men, women, and children he greeted each day

showed him the face of God. He pointed out that they had so little, struggled each day for

food and shelter, were treated as second class citizens; and yet each day in the dining room

they would greet him with smiles, tell him how grateful they were, and wish him a good day.

Floyd was inspired by their humanity and the love they showed for each other. Floyd was

challenged to rise up above petty grievances or inconveniences, and had an appreciation for

life he says he never would have had had it not been for the people who came to the dining

room each day. They were his brothers and sisters.

Each year Floyd would hold the "Blessing of the Animals". He was inspired by

St. Francis' love of animals. Every year people brought dogs and cats, hamsters and guinea

pigs, and birds and snakes to St. Boniface to be blessed. It was noisy and messy and chaotic;

but it was typical Floyd. In the midst of the cacophony of animals and their owners, adults

and children, Floyd had a huge smile on his face and loved every minute.

One year, Floyd took his vacation by going to the island of Molokai and saying

Mass; and ministering to the lepers who lived on the island made famous by St. Damien.

A community that had been exiled to this island by those who were afraid and appalled

by them. Floyd would light up when talking about how they "allowed" him to be a part

of their community. He would tell stories about his time there, and the love and affection

he felt from them and for them. They were his brothers and sisters.

For eighteen years I sat with Floyd on Thanksgiving. We would talk about what

we should be thankful for and how grateful he was for all who made St. Anthonys possible

because St. Anthonys allowed him to serve his brothers and sisters. We would talk about

the needy, and how as a nation we had to care less about war and weapons, and more about

love and caring for each other. I brought my children to experience Floyd and the miracle

of Jones St. We left each year with our feet barely touching the ground. He had washed

over us all and reminded us about what was truly important, and to be grateful for the love

and affection we showed with each other.

Floyd Lotito created ripples amongst the weak and the powerful, the rich and

the poor, his fellow friars, and his friends. Jesus said "...I come to bring you life and life

to it's fullest", and Floyd Lotito lived a "full life" in every sense of the word. He took a vow

of poverty, but left a legacy of riches that may never be totally calculated.

In St. Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 25, people are standing in line to get into heaven.

Jesus reminds them that He was naked, hungry, sick, and in prison; and those who helped

were welcomed into paradise, and those who turned away were themselves turned away.

"When did we see you naked or hungry or sick or in prison?" they asked. "Whatever you

did for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did for me." Floyd lived out Matthew 25

his entire life. He is being escorted into Paradise by the angels and prophets. He listened

as he heard God say "...well done my good and faithful servant". I will miss him and his

ripples so much. Please send your comments to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Patriotism: The Last Resort of Scoundrels

The dictionary defines patriotism as a love of country and the desire to defend it.

A patriot wishes the country to prosper and succeed. A patriotic American hopes for a nation

with a strong economy providing jobs and economic security; that same American would want

to live in a nation without fear and with hope for the future. I don't think I am telling you

anything you don't already know; but some Americans need a reminder about what true

patriotism means.

Recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican from Kentucky)

stated in an interview that he had secured an agreement with the three Republican senators

who are on the Budget Committee and are currently negotiating with Democrats over

Healthcare Reform. Those three senators have promised Senator McConnell that if no

other Republicans like the legislation, they will not support it so that the Democrats cannot

claim the bill has "bi-partisan" support.

There actually is a great deal of agreement on both sides of the aisle about the

problem. Forty-seven million Americans have no health insurance. Fourteen thousand

Americans lose their health insurance every day. Health insurance premiums will double

in the next few years. More and more employers are not offering health insurance to their

workers; and those that do offer it demand that their employees not ask for a raise in order

to pay for their coverage. Medicare cannot sustain it's rate of growth and could bankrupt

the nation.

For months, as many as eight Congressional Committees have been working on a

healthcare bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will soon pass a bill. Everyone

is waiting for what the Senate will do. So many trial balloons are being floated that the Senate

resembles the house in the movie "Up". Compromises are being struck and a basic structure

is beginning to emerge. The bill must not add to the deficit. It must cut costs and reduce

the cost growth rate. It must not tax middle class Americans, and it must have a public option

or President Obama says he will not sign it. If crafted correctly, this legislation would provide

97% of Americans with health insurance. It would reduce costs (the V.A. and Medicare have

the lowest rate of cost inflation in the country) and help the nation get it's fiscal house in

order, as well as improve the quality of life for Americans who would no longer have to fear

losing their healthcare or being economically devastated by an illness in the family. It would

be good for the country.

Despite all of the above, even if they get compromises that they think improve

the bill, these three Republicans have been coerced into promising that they won't sign on

to whatever is produced for purely partisan and political reasons. I am willing to bet that

they consider themselves patriotic. Their party wears their patriotism on their collective

sleeve. They use the term "patriotism" as a code word for those who think like them, and

to cast their opponents as a group of turncoats and traitors who don't love their country

at all. These Republican "patriots" are publicly stating that they will oppose any bill that

is produced so that they can gain politically against the Democrats. This is their definition

of both patriotism and leadership. Senator McConnell is so worried about the politics,

that he arm-twisted three senators into agreeing to oppose a bill that they will have helped

to design.

It should also be pointed out that the Republicans have not offered an alternative

to fix the problem. They seem to be trying to keep things as they are now; even though

"everyone" agrees that the system cannot sustain itself, nor can the country economically

survive unless some reform is instituted.

When you hear the Republican leadership wail and whine about government

control of healthcare or how badly small businesses will be hurt, when you see the ads

telling you how you won't be able to go to your doctor anymore or some bureaucrat will

be making healthcare decisions for you and your family, when you hear them decry the cost

and tell you that the good capitalist free market can not handle competition between a

government plan and the private insurance companies; remember those three senators

who have promised to vote against a bill they helped to craft because the Republican Party

wants to play politics with an issue of economic national security. Then ask yourself if

they have ever read the definition of patriotism. What do you think? I welcome your

comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

I Don't Got To Know No Stinkin' Polls

The "Hotline" is a political publication published daily in Washington, D.C. It is

a must-read for political insiders. It carries the latest news and punditry, and keeps track of

the Congressional, Gubernatorial, and Presidential races. It is a must-read for anyone in

the political business. It is published by the National Journal which leans regressive. For

a couple of weeks now, the constant theme of the "Hotline" has been the eroding of

President Obama's popularity, which means his legislative proposals are in trouble. They

trumpet how the honeymoon is over. Obama must now change his style. He has overreached.

His coalition is falling apart. The authors now point to this erosion as something the GOP

will benefit from; and in fact, credit the GOP message as eating away at popular and

congressional support for the President and his programs. If all of that is not bad enough

for Obama supporters, the authors go on to predict that the GOP will do well in the 2010

midterm elections and regain seats lost.

Their conclusions are passing strange because they publish polls as well as news

and punditry. Now polls may not be as vague or uncertain as some would like to claim;

but they do give us a quick snapshot of what the state of play is politically right now.

Politicians notoriously play down polls they don't like and trumpet those they do.

One should always be wary of polls with a small sample size or a large margin of error.

However, the science of polling is such that daily tracking polls by reputable companies

are reasonably accurate. Based on its interpretation of polling numbers, the "Hotline"

comes to the conclusion that the President is in trouble. Now, this would not be a big deal

if an insider political, regressive leaning publication opined on the President's performance.

However, the corporate media has decided that this is a good story line; and they are

repeating the same mantra. The President's support is eroding, Americans are responding

to the GOP message, healthcare reform is doomed, the President has overreached; and

it's all going to hell in a handbasket. Oh yes, and this will weaken the President and

Democrats in 2010; and now many Democratic members of Congress are getting happy

feet and are worried that Obama might cost them their jobs, so they are running for cover.

Republican leaders and their regressive pundit friends are on all the news shows

proclaiming the new accepted wisdom. Their attacks are working. The "Hotline" says

they are recruiting great candidates as their message of too much government spending,

deficits, lower taxes, and economic devastation resounds across the hustings.

What makes all this odd is that the authors don't seem to read some of the material

they publish. The "Hotline" polls of last week seem to tell a different story. CBS News'

poll says of the President's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, that

Americans by a two to one margin favor her nomination. A Research 2000 poll says that

President Obama's favorability rating is 61%. That number is "down" from 64% in early

July. (All these numbers are within the margin of error, by the way.) When Obama was

elected, the nation felt the country was going in the wrong direction by a 17-50% margin.

The latest polling has these numbers almost reversed, with 43% saying the country is going

in the right direction and 50% disagreeing. This improvement is despite continuing

terrible economic news, rising unemployment, and a drumbeat of criticism of Obama and

his response. The Gallup tracking poll for July has the President's favorability rating

holding between 57% and 59%. None of these numbers suggest a big movement away

from the President.

If voters were abandoning the President, if Americans were truly not happy with

his performance, if the new message of the Republicans was getting traction; then the

numbers for the GOP should be full of good news. What is the reality? The Research 2000

poll reports that only 22% of Americans have a favorable view of Senator Mitch McConnell,

the Republican Senate Minority leader. The Republican leader in the House, Representative

John Boehner (8th district of Ohio) is clearly benefitting from Obama fatigue. His

favorability rating has risen from 14% to 16%. GOP chair Michael Steele was seen skipping

to work when he saw that 22% of Americans like his party. This is a huge step up from

the 20% who liked the GOP at the beginning of July. Despite all the doom and gloom,

Nancy Pelosi looks at numbers that make her the second most popular politician in the

nation; and Congressional Democrats are enjoying a more than two to one favorability

rating over their Republican colleagues.

So, I am confused. The President's popularity is still high. There has not been

erosion on the "right track/wrong track" question. Republicans are still dramatically

unpopular; and their top Congressional leader in the House is less popular than Dick Cheney.

What's happening is an example of the corporate media's need for a horse race,

a fight, a conflict to attract viewers. The corporate media pundits don't have anything to

say without a fight. The media companies are also scared to death that healthcare reform,

energy reform, new financial oversight, and regulation could possibly pass with a strong

and popular Obama. Corporate America is fighting every one of Obama's proposals and

spending millions to influence Congressional and public opinion; and corporate America

owns the media.

The Republican brand has not improved at all. Americans do not trust the

Republicans on subjects from the economy to foreign policy. The Republican leadership

has offered no new ideas at all. Their answer to energy reform is more coal and more oil,

more nuclear power, and no new environmental regulation. Their proposals on healthcare

are to leave the private insurers alone to continue business as usual. On the economy, they

were quite willing to bail out Wall Street, but have proposed nothing to help out Main

Street. Their principle message is that Obama is spending too much money and hasn't

created enough jobs fast enough. The American people still like the President, want a

public option to healthcare, agree with the passage of a new energy bill passed in the

House (without virtually one Republican vote), support increased money for community

colleges and job training; and they have patience to give the President time. Given the

situation he inherited, and given the Republican fingerprints all over this economic disaster;

the American public still trusts the President to fix things, and the polls show that to be true.

Now, if only those who have the sky falling on the President would read them. What do you

think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

To Serve and Protect?

At one point in my life I thought I might want to be a police officer. I liked the idea

of protecting people and fighting the bad guys and contributing something positive to society.

I also thought that instant respect came with putting on that uniform. As I grew older, I

watched the police in Berkeley and at San Francisco State in the City. The Alameda County

Sheriffs were known as the "blue meanies", and were quick with billy clubs and tear gas.

They even tear gassed a hospital. I watched the police in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama;

and of course, the "police riot" in Chicago in 1968, and my view of law enforcement changed.

They were brutes and bullies used by the powers-that-be to control society and defend the

status quo. Every time another department put an American flag on their uniforms, or on

their cars and motorcycles; I knew they had no understanding what the flag actually stood for.

Two friends of mine became San Francisco police officers. In fact, lots of friends

of mine or acquaintances, graduates of St. Ignatius, Sacred Heart, Riordan, and other city

schools, became police officers. I knew them; and while many did fit the typical stereotype,

many did not. The two friends I knew were partners. For more than a year, I would meet

them in the Tower Market parking lot around midnight, and ride with them for three or

four hours. I went in with them on calls, and I saw what their world was like. It was 7.5

hours of boredom, and maybe half an hour of fear and adrenaline. One night, they were

called to back up another unit. About four or five African-Americans were up against a wall.

My friend got out and evaluated the situation; and when he returned to the car, I asked him

what was going on. They quoted a section of the penal code that I was not familiar with.

When I asked them to explain, they said the suspects were under arrest for "...failure to bow

and scrape". I could tell my friends were embarrassed and did not like what they saw, but

they felt there was nothing they could do about it.

All of this is background or preface to a discussion over the arrest of Professor

Henry Louis Gates in his Cambridge, Massachusetts home by a Cambridge police sergeant.

It is a story that has taken on significance because of the racial overtones associated with it,

and because the President of the United States has weighed in and declared that the

Cambridge police acted "stupidly".

I have seen police officers at their best and at their worst. I covered the L.A. riots

after the Rodney King decision. Ground zero was the intersection of Florence and Normandy

in South Central Los Angeles. The police were four to a car, with shotguns sticking out of

every window. They were scared and really had no control for more than three days.

(National Guard troops had to be sent in to restore order.) In San Francisco, massive

demonstrations shut down much of the city at the start of the first Gulf War. The SFPD

engaged in running street battles with those who wanted to shut down the Federal Building

and the City in general. In Los Angeles, the black population of South Central L.A. truly

hated the L.A. cops and vice versa. In San Francisco, the "police vs. demonstrators" was

more of a game. I knew demonstrators and cops; and each had some sympathy for the other,

but had parts to play.

I don't know all the facts in the Gates case. I have listened to Gates and to the

officer involved. My unscientific analysis says they were both wrong. Cambridge police

got a call of a possible burglary in progress. Gates was locked out and forced his front door

open and got in. Someone saw him and called the police. The Sergeant showed up and saw

the forced front door, and found Gates inside. Gates says he presented ID to prove who

he was and that this was indeed his home. The Sergeant asked him to step outside. (The

Sergeant says there was a report of two men breaking in. He didn't know if there was

someone else in the house, or if Professor Gates even knew if they could still be in the

house.) Professor Gates admits he verbally challenged the officer, demanding to know if

he was being asked to step outside because he was a black man. The officer continued to

press for the Professor to step outside, and the Professor got more agitated, asking if the

officer knew who he was, and telling the Sergeant that he shouldn't mess with him. The

Sergeant eventually arrests Gates for disorderly conduct and takes him away in handcuffs.

Charges were later dropped.

Professor Gates and many other African-Americans and Latinos say this is a classic

example of racial profiling. A black man in a rich neighborhood (near Harvard) is

immediately suspect. A minority in a predominantly white neighborhood must be up to

no good. In New Jersey, a court case proved that State Police were stopping luxury cars

with African-American drivers, under the assumption that they were drug dealers, because

how else could they afford the cars. In Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and many other

American cities, studies have shown that police disproportionately stop and hold more

African-American and Latino males than they do white males. There are too many instances

of minorities being killed by police in a shootout, only to discover later that the suspect was

unarmed. None of this is new to anyone in this country. Racial profiling is real and has

tragic consequences.

However, in this case it would appear that Professor Gates is as much in the wrong

as is the police Sergeant. Being asked to step outside was not an unreasonable request; in

that the Sergeant did not know who might be in the house (a danger to both the officer and

Professor Gates), and he didn't know what Professor Gates was up to either. Men might

have to "break into their own house" because they have been locked out or thrown out in

a domestic dispute, and are "breaking" back in to do harm to their partner. Gates should

have stepped outside. He acted stupidly. For his part, it should have been clear to the

Sergeant, fairly quickly, what the situation was; and when confronted by Gates he could

have stepped outside, taken a look around to see if there were any other points of illegal

entry, and re-connected with the Professor. Even if he didn't want to do that, once he had

cuffed the Professor and then checked out the house, he should have released Gates and

never, ever should have arrested him and taken him to the police station, subjected him

to mug shots (which the public has now seen), and held him. The officers actions were

overkill; and very few police I know would have done that. Did the Sergeant get into his

feelings because of Gates' attitude and confrontational behavior? Did he arrest Gates

because he was offended when accused of being a racist? Why was Gates so upset? Was

the Sergeant's request outrageous or impermissible? Why was Gates so offended and why

did he act like such a prissy diva?

There is plenty of blame to go around on this one. That it raises the issue of profiling

and law enforcement is good because the practice still exists (most of our anti-terrorism

practices are based almost exclusively on racial profiling). Anything that gets Americans

talking about race is a good thing. We are a nation that based its' laws and practices upon

the principle of white supremacy for most of our history. The legacy of that philosophy is

still resonating in this country today (think of the swim club in Pennsylvania which kicked

the black and hispanic kids out because they "would change the nature and complexion of

the club if allowed entrance"). However, Gates was as much at fault as was the Sergeant.

Tempers flared, egos got involved; and the result was embarrassing for both of them.

Over the years, I have developed respect for police officers because I know many,

and they are good, caring people. I have respect for minorities in this nation because they

have had to fight for a respect that I have never struggled to attain. I am glad we are talking

about this; but in this particular case there appears to be no villain, only two male egos

too big for one house in Cambridge to handle. What do you think? I welcome your

comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Get Rid of the Xbox?

President Obama addressed the NAACP convention in New York on it's 100th

anniversary. He spoke about the direct connection between the civil rights movement and

his election to be President of the United States. He also talked about parents and children.

He urged parents to throw out the Xbox and encourage their children to read and study.

Parents should instill high expectations in their children, telling them that they can accomplish

anything they set their minds to achieving. Education, the President proclaimed, is the key

to success and the future of this nation.

As I listened to the President, I found myself nodding in agreement to most of

his points; but it was the Xbox comment that set me off. The comment almost seems

to cast the President as a 21st Century Luddite. As I listened to him, other voices started

to resonate in my mind's ear. There were those who didn't want children to watch television

at all. It was going to rot their brains and wreck civilization as we know it. (OK, I admit

"Dancing My Ass Off", "Jon and Kate", "Survivor", and Fox News do give some credence to

that argument, but...) Others didn't want children to watch Elvis or "Sesame Street" or

cartoons, rock videos, MTV, or Nickelodeon. Still other parents didn't want children

listening to any Rock or the Beatles or Rap music, because any one of these could lead

children down the road to perdition. Some parents and parent's groups still try to ban

books they don't want their children to read including "The Catcher In the Rye",

"Huckleberry Finn", "Slaughterhouse Five", and "Fahrenheit 451". If we shut off the TV,

take away their iPods, throw out all the video games, and control what they read; our

children will turn out like we want them to, and grow up to be productive citizens. As I

listened to all of this, all I can think about is a song about houses made out of "ticky-tacky"

and little boxes which all look the same.

I have watched more television and listened to more radio than almost anyone

I know. On Saturday mornings I turned on cartoons at 7am, and watched everything from

"Bugs Bunny" to "Yogi Bear" to "Spaceghost" until at least noon. Show's like "Mayor Art",

"Captain Satellite", "Jack's Place", "Captain Fortune", and "Marshall J" were must-see

shows in my day.

My children watched "Sesame Street", "The Electric Company", "Zoom", and numerous

Nickelodeon programs as they were growing up. (OK, I let them watch "Barney"; and that

might have been a mistake.) We bought music videos about "Ole King Cole" and all kinds of

other songs which they loved. At the same time, they would watch the news and opinion

shows with me, and I would ask them what they think. They knew what CNN was when

their contemporaries were still finding their way to "Sesame Street". When video games

appeared on the scene, they played everything fro Mario Brothers to GAME BOY to

PlayStation to Xbox. None of this ever gave me a reason to be concerned about their

intellectual development.

At the same time that they watched TV and played games, their mother would

read to them every night while they sat and ate dinner. She picked books she hoped would

interest them; and one of their favorites was "Cheaper By the Dozen". They also watched

as their mother devoured a book almost every week, and I would pour through newspapers

and magazines. We talked about politics and issues in front of them, and we took them

with us each year to the polling place when we voted. My children scoffed at the notion of

a scary movie until my wife rented "Jaws" and we watched it together. They discovered

"Narnia" and all nine volumes; and eventually were captivated by "The Lord of the Rings"

and "Harry Potter". We did not like it when our children started listening to Rap and

Hip-Hop music. I didn't like the language; while my wife didn't like the misogyny that

she heard. We could have banned it, I guess; but it would not have stopped them from

listening to it, and maybe even making it more attractive. I would listen to a song in the

car with them; and then turn off the radio to ask them if they agreed with the language or

how women were referenced to, or if they thought getting high or drunk was a good thing

for people to do.

This was not a household of few rules with parents who were trying to be "friends"

with their children. There were clear limits about behavior and actions. They were to

respect their elders and be well-behaved in public and in theaters or restaurants.

At the end of the day, despite TV and videos and Xboxes and computers, my

children and millions of others are wonderful, goal-oriented, informed, compassionate

human beings. They didn't need to be sheltered from the world; but rather have grown up

inundated by their world, and given the tools to make their way through that which is

valuable and that which is a waste of their time. (Yes, I know I come off as a proud parent

because I am; and I love them very much.)

The President's message to parents should be one which encourages all forms of

interaction with their children. Parents need to read to their children, talk to them, play

with them, go to back-to-school nights, study with them, and build their self-esteem. The

problem is not the Xbox. The problem is a society where both parents have to work to make

ends meet. Parents have to stay in jobs that they may hate, or which consume way too much

time because they need the health insurance their employer supplies. Parents have to work

on weekends, and take less and less vacation because they are afraid of losing their jobs if

they are gone too long.

As a society we have lost a quality of life that would enable parents to spend more

time with their children. We have abandoned our commitment to quality public education,

at the same time that we cut money for libraries and the arts. Arts and music programs

have been reduced along with most other extra-curricular activities that we took for granted.

The President wants the Xbox turned off and thrown out. I understand what he

meant to say, but his message needs to be clearer. A nation that produces good jobs, great

education, effective healthcare, and a public square which has music, art, books, and

assorted community activities that bring us together; is a nation in which our children will

thrive and grow up with high expectations for their lives. A nation that really cares about

children will have clean air and water. My children can watch TV, listen to the music they

wish, go to movies, and play computer and video games; but they also know they are loved

and we expect them to lead good and productive lives. If we really care about our children,

the greatest gift we can give them is hope. They need to be able to believe that their lives

will be better than the past. Without hope, our children will opt for short-term fixes and

pleasures that won't benefit them in the long run. President Obama needs to press for

an agenda of hope. A child with loving parents and hope can play an Xbox or anything else,

and will still grow up well. Isn't that what we all want for our children? What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com