Author: Betsy L Angert

I am a being that believes . . . "thinking is the best way to travel!"

Identity Theft, All Servicemen and Woman Are Affected ©

There is much talk in the news of lost or stolen veteran files.  The mainstream media began flooding the airwaves with justifiable concerns for identity theft in May.  At the time, citizens were told only veterans were affected.  This week we learn millions of active duty soldiers are also impacted.

This initial report was released on May 22.  The robbery occurred on May 3, 2006.  A Veterans Affairs employee’s home was burglarized.  Among the items taken was a computer disk.  Supposedly, pertinent and personal records of millions of military veterans were imprinted on the compact disk.  Now we know that was not true, there was more.

Much of what was revealed in May was inaccurate. Information was withheld and incomplete. No reason was given for the delay in reporting.  Apparently, officials were hoping for a speedy recovery; however, that did not happen.

A reprimand was promised, though, the practice of taking files home had been going on for years.  According to George J. Opfer, the Veterans Affairs Department Inspector General, the employee involved “routinely took such data home to work on it, and had been doing so since 2003.”

The story entered the public’s sphere and seemed to again disappear.  I trust those not affected were not worried, all would be resolved satisfactorily.  Those uncertain whether their files were among the stolen, likely sat, awaiting any special event.  Perhaps, the bill Senator Tom Harkin proposed will help, until then wonder and worry are daily deeds. Comfortably, most of America went on without regard for the breath and scope of this situation.

Then it occurred.  For me it came in an electronic mailing, for others the news came quietly.  Last weekend, on a day of relaxation and little news, Veterans Affairs Secretary, Jim Nicholson said, the May disclosure was incomplete.  

Nicholson offered this correction, “up to 50,000 Navy and National Guard personnel were among the 26.5 million veterans whose names, birthdates, and Social Security numbers were stolen on May 3.”  Their personal files are now available, somewhere to sources that are still unknown.

Days later, the public discovered, this too proved inaccurate.  On June 6, 2006, the agency reluctantly announced

In fact, names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of as many as 1.1 million active-duty personnel from all the armed forces, along with 430,000 members of the National Guard, and 645,000 members of the Reserves, may have been included.

The number of stolen records first reported was erroneous.  The pilfering was greater than what was initially revealed.  The correction was also wrong.  Apparently, millions of active and inactive military personnel are effected by an agency’s policy and the practices of  single employee.  The affect on their lives may be physically and emotionally devastating.

Military men and women fighting on the fields in distant lands, have little means for monitoring their records.  ‘No worries,’ they are told.  Rest assured “The VA remains committed to providing updates on this incident as new information is learned,” or so says Secretary Nicholson.  

I feel certain I am not alone in wondering, how do our soldiers or we trust an agency, or an administration, that lies and has done so on multiple occasions?

Joe Davis, a spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars, ponders the same.  Outraged by this latest revelation, Davis declared the Veterans Affairs agency must be more transparent.  He proclaimed “this debacle” as troubling, to say the least.  

Men and women in battle, separate from their families and any sense of stability, now discover their personal information has been confiscated and compromised by persons unknown.  Officials living in safety, with thanks to these soldiers, reassure the troops all will be well.  How can that be?

With disgust Veteran Davis offered, “This confirms the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW’s] worst fear from day one, that the loss of data encompasses every single person who did wear the uniform and does wear the uniform today.”

Davis is not alone in expressing his concerns or contempt.  Five veterans groups filed a lawsuit this Tuesday, June 6, 2006.  They are demanding full disclosure.  The veterans insist that the Veterans Affairs agency reveal which military personnel are effected by the theft.  They want damages to be paid in the amount of $1,000 per person.  These complainants are requesting a court order prohibiting any Veterans Affairs employees from using sensitive data until independent experts determine proper safeguards have been put in place.

A representative for the veterans stated, the “VA arrogantly compounded its disregard for veterans’ privacy rights by recklessly failing to make even the most rudimentary effort to safeguard this trove of the personally identifiable information from unauthorized disclosure.”

This situation is dire.  The lives of soldiers are threatened in the fields and now, on the home front.  For many of us, this is merely a story, separate from our selves.  For the troops, active and discharged, this is their life.  There is more to fear than mortars.  This reported event, a burglary, in the suburbs of America has hurt many a soldier.  These wounds are less visible; however, no less painful.

I wish to extend my thanks to Paul Rieckhoff and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.  Were it not for their service and active commitment to sharing, much would be lost and no, I am not speaking specifically of physical battles.  I offer an email I received.  This message caused me to take note of this ever-expanding story.


June 7, 2006

Statement from Paul Rieckhoff on the
Theft of Active-Duty Troops’ Personal Data

NEW YORK – The executive director of the nation’s largest organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan released the following statement today on the newly disclosed theft of millions of active-duty Troops’ personal information.

“We’ve known for weeks that millions of veterans have had their personal information stolen, so why has the VA hidden the fact that millions of active-duty service members have also had their information compromised,” asked Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq War veteran and the executive director of IAVA, the nation’s largest organization representing veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. (www.iava.org)

“In a time of war, our men and women in uniform don’t have the time or ability to monitor their credit and protect themselves from fraud. Therefore the VA must fully disclose what information was lost, and how it plans to protect those members of the military who are now vulnerable to identity theft fraud,” Rieckhoff said. “We need immediate action from the President to demonstrate a real commitment to those Troops and Veterans who selflessly answered the call to serve.”

“It is an unfortunate irony that the agency tasked with protecting our veterans is now responsible for having put so many of them, and also so many active Troops, at risk,” Rieckhoff said. “The agency must now redeem itself by releasing a comprehensive plan to both protect those who’ve had their information stolen, and also ensure that such a breach in security never happens again.”

I concur.  Why is this massive identity theft not more than a moment in the news?  Why was the information not released in a timely manner; nor was the disclosure complete or accurate?  Why is an investigation not moving more rapidly, and pray tell, what are we doing to protect those that protect us?  I can only assume.  Conjecture is your option, dear reader.  I offer reports.  Please share your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs.  Our discussion can only help to clear the air.

The Truth About Veterans Affairs . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Marines Kill Iraqis. Men Murder Indianapolis Family. Human Nature ©


I woke up one morning last week to further reports of killing. I wrote of Haditha earlier that week.  In that treatise, I mentioned the April 26, 2006 slaughter in Hamandiya, Iraq.  I was aware of the allegations made against Marines for a March melee.  On this morning, as I glanced at the periodicals, I saw reports stating the Camp Pendleton soldiers accused of that crime were cleared.  Details were scant.  Nevertheless, their reactive behavior was deemed righteous.  Apparently, the actions these soldiers took were in accordance with military procedures.  Hooray for the “good guys.”  I only wish I was clear; who are the men, women, and children in the white hats?
We recognize the bad guys, or at least the media, the Administration, and society-at-large says we do.  The dreadful, the ghastly, and the horrific are the criminals.  They are those that kill in cold blood.  Terrorists are these.  Saddam Hussein is also, or so we are told.  The innocent Marines that slaughter young children, elderly men, pregnant women, and unarmed persons in their homes are not wrongdoers.  At least some of them are not.  Desmond Turner is a truly terrible man.  His associate James Stewart may also be.

Last week in Indianapolis, Turner, with possible accomplice, 30-year-old James Stewart entered a neighborhood home and murdered three generations of one family, seven innocent people.  The crime was described as heinous.  The reason for the reactive behavior of this man was said to be unknown.  Hum, might I reflect.  I do not see the difference between killings.  Whether soldiers are killing the innocents or civilians are doing the deed, defenseless people are dying.

Granted the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been placed in a situation where they feel their very existence is threatened.  Simple survival is a challenge.  Persons living in the States are presumed to be safe and sane.  However, life for them is not always, as it would seem.  Poverty poses some awful challenges.  Even those with money can be placed in precarious situations.  Crises are abounding, even in the heartlands.

What for me is the issue is man’s inhumanity to man.  Today we live in a world where aggression is acceptable.  It is posed as animal instinct.  It is the nature of man and beast.  Fight or take flight.  Thus, we see, hear, and read of hostility everywhere.  George W. Bush, the President of the most powerful nation in the world boasts, “Bring it on!”  He declares, we want him/them, “Dead or alive.”  Granted, belatedly he apologized for his signature statement.  However, the request for forgiveness was bestowed years after the fact and though offered contritely, it seemed less than sincere.  

Mr. Bush our fair leader stated, were it not for the First Lady, King George II would not have uttered the apology; he had no idea there was a problem with his pronouncement.  Sadly, few of us do.  Bush does The as a bunch of us do; he acts without thinking.  Is that too, the nature of the beast?

We blurt out whatever words we want, whether they yield as weapons or are expressions of kindness.  We deceive, destroy, and devastate others and ourselves, physically and mentally.  We kill!  We rarely think, until after the fact.  Humans are a bundle of emotions; however, they have the ability to rationalize, post-problematic aggressions.  Some presume; fauna do not have the capacity to reason or reflect.  Wo/man does.  It is often said, our ability to rationalize is makes us different; man is more highly evolved than other mammals.  Yet, I have not read of, seen, or heard of an animal engage in self-destructive behavior.

Mr. Bush claims, “I speak plainly [sometimes.]”  Many Americans considered this a likable quality; they voted for this bumbler because he was as they are, “human”.  This can be good; however, often it is not.

When the all-too human Bush returned from the White House after first voicing his terrorizing machismo remarks, his wife Laura greeted him inquiring, why would you say such things.  Baby Bush quipped, “Well, it was just an expression that came out.  I didn’t rehearse it.  It just was there when they asked me my opinion.”  That is our Emperor, the man we turn to for guidance, Good Ole Shoot-From-The-Hip GW.  Sadly, we as individuals follow his lead too often.

Admittedly, at times, the Bush opinion, is scripted, practiced, and prepared.  It needs to be, for as the President said, he has learned.  “You gotta be mindful of the consequences of the words.”  With all the recently revealed Iraqi war woes, King George II is being more “mindful” of the words he uses.  

Our Commander-and-Chief, the President discussed what appears to be a series of atrocities among the Marines.  He addressed concerns for the men in uniform.  However, King George II assured us that Marines are “honorable” men and women.  They respect “the law.”  Commander Bush presented his defense for the troops.  The King rationalized what is knowingly wrong; Mr. Bush spoke in support of [legitimate] killing.

The President continued to declare the war, the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as justifiable.  He proclaims these were necessary.  For this President battle often is.  Bush believes that there is evil in the Middle East.  To ensure that it does not come to our country, we must annihilate all [suspected] terrorists abroad.  

In contrast, the new Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki thought the massacres unacceptable.  This leader did not address the initial war, which brought him to power.  He could not expect to argue what has provided him with a revered position.  He is human; power, war, and turbulence are fine, as long as they serve him.  Mr. Maliki charged American forces have regularly attacked Iraqi civilians.  He said the abuses would be taken into account when determining the necessary departure of American forces.  Maliki, as most of the world is resigned to warfare.  It is only when individuals might be involved that he becomes inflamed.

Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld has few complaints.  As log as he can retain his post and send innocents off to kill other harmless souls, he has no reason to complain.  When asked of Mr. Maliki’s assertions, he declined to respond.  Rumsfeld said he had not yet read them.  Would it have mattered if he had?  He also refused to discuss the specifics of the Haditha deaths, though supposedly he had read reports of these many months earlier.  Rumsfeld stated he did not want to interfere in the ongoing investigations.  Does anyone?  Will anyone ever answer the real questions?  Why is war ever an option?  When is killing ever acceptable?

If we attack, seeking vengeance, are we honoring the commandments we pretend to support?  When we covet oil, power, or seek a worldwide democracy are we respecting our neighbors?  When we murder, rape, steal pride, and possessions, how can we claim to be honorable?

The pious man that speaks for God might know.  Mr. Bush knows his commandments, as do his equally religious Cabinet rangers.  Yet, he and his Defense Department order the youth of America violate these.  They train the young to execute and they do.

This military is not the only organization that sanctions the violent exercises, parents, guardians, and society-at-large endorse these.  We all accept cruelty in our homes.  Persons living in Western cultures turn on their television sets and ask that the games begin.  As ancient Romans in an amphitheatre, we cheer on the strong, the brutal, the snide, the rude, and the crude.  Blood races through our veins and it spills out onto carpets and fields.  Movie theatres are filled with the same fervor and red gooey substance flows on the screens.  Acts of viciousness invade video monitors.  So much of society is bathing in blood.  The Western world is a gory and gruesome one.

Psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. state that “One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games.”  The professionals continue to discuss research findings on sadism, “The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants.”

“Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations,” said Dr. Anderson.  “In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts.  Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise.”

People accept this.  Most know of similar studies.  However, people say fighting is characteristic of humans; it is natural. Some people are overjoyed as they witness aggression.  The adrenalin is high as we engage in it.  Insensitive to the slayings and subjugation, we laugh as we watch these.  Then, on occasion we speak in horror of the same.  Silly humans, “tricks are for kids.” apparently, even the eldest among us are children.  Few of us have aged enough to stop the play, the war games, the bullying, teasing, and the slaughter that accompanies these.

Instead, we do as humans do.  We rationalize, justify, criticize, and blame others for our actions.  Humankind, with their neo-cortex denies the strength of the amygdala, the emotional sentinel, and intellectualizes why s/he is right and all others are wrong.  

We are witnessing this among the military and even many of the “newsmakers vetted with the troops.  These individuals claim the playing fields are no longer fair.  Guerillas are everywhere.

We call those that fight for religious reasons, financial freedoms, or sovereignty guerrillas, for they do not follow the rules of engagement.  The insurgents dress in civilian clothing.  It is impossible to discern who is friend and who is foe.

Each time I hear this explanation, posed as a complaint, I think about the history of America.  I recall reading that the revolutionaries were successful in battle because, unlike the British in their starched and vibrant uniforms, the colonists wore casual wear.  A Tory soldier was unable to identify a warrior from an innocent colonist.

Our founding fathers, those forever-faithful men of reason, were once the group intent on overthrowing the government.  Yet, those guerrillas are now celebrated.  They were the first Americans and what made this country great.  Who are we?

I am told, today, in all our martial garb and glory, we identify ourselves as humanitarians.  Our servicemen and women are honorable.  The President of the United States has told us so.

Mr. Bush said the Marine Corps are taught core values as part of their training.  General Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant assured us this is so.  He said, “We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force.  We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful.”  

Apparently, the law provides a wide berth.  Principles, morals, and ethics must state slaughter is acceptable within certain parameters.  These limitations are too obscure for me.  Still, I am not the authority on war and never will be.  I think combat is never an option, though for the majority of the world, it is.  Clearly, Americans think it was or at least they thought so years ago.

Americans see themselves as those that promote the Democracy we love, even if it means provoking others.  The United Sates is the worlds “greatest” superpower.  We have weapons in abundance.  We have wealth.  Wisdom is all that we as a nation lack.  America entered a region uninvited.  The Administration of this country decided to attack another country unilaterally, with little reason or support.  They lied.  They never built a broad coalition; they trusted their personal desires and ignored the truth.

The Bush Bandits committed themselves to a protracted war without a plan.  Actually, they dedicated the lives of devoted soldiers to a winless wager.  Neoconservatives gambled and they lost.  Three thousand soldiers perished.  Tens of thousands of civilian took their last breath and still the battles rage on.

Soldiers are stressed; of this, I have no doubt.  Thus, they think, `just kill them all.’  Corporal James Crossan said, “Several members of the unit were young and inexperienced and may have snapped after seeing one of their colleagues killed by the bomb.”  Platoons have learned to loathe any one that does not look like them.  “I think they were blinded by hate … and they just lost control,” Corporal Crossan said.  It comes with combat.  Much does.

Murders, massacres, butchery, and carnage, these are all a part of war.  I do not understand it.  I cannot comprehend the need for aggression of any sort.

I can only accept the soldiers involved in the March massacre were absolved of guilt.  The investigation into the massacre at Haditha continues.  The April 26 at Hamandiya incident is being debated.  Yet, few admit what we as a people have created.  Society will punish Desmond Turner and James Stewart willingly.  A court martial may find a Marine or two guilty.  Civilian courts may judge these soldiers, as the military system will.  I know not.  I am left to wonder how on a planet where war is pervasive and violence is promoted, how do we justify the difference?  How do brutalities committed by individuals out of uniform differ from those committed by persons wearing official attire?  Moreover, why is there a need for either?

A personal note if you will . . . As I read of and observe those in other animal kingdoms, I am struck by their compassion.  Mammals kill only when their survival is threatened.  On occasion, they maim accidentally, often during what they think is play.  I have yet to discover a self-destructive streak in any mammal, but man.  I am forever fascinated by what we attribute to nature and natural instincts.  Animals do not kill for the sake of killing; nor do they slaughter in mass.  Why is it that the rational brain justifies the unjustifiable?  Someone please tell me!

References for War, Warriors, Wounded, Weapons, and Why?

Middle East Bureau Chief, NBC News. May 30, 2006

* Family Slain In Indianapolis Bloodbath CBS News June 2, 2006
* Indianapolis Slay Suspect Surrenders CBS News June 3, 2006

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

"The Center for Union Facts" Fuels Fiction ©


Days ago, it called to me from the next room.  What had been white noise was now blaring.  I could not believe my ears.  However, I just sat there.  I did not jump from my chair and go to the next room so that I might see and hear the disturbance.  I was in a state of shock.  I rarely watch the television; I listen to it.  I do not have the tube in the room where I work.  Nevertheless, this anti-union commercial caught my attention.  

The set was turned to Cable News Network.  This seemed contrary to what I would expect; nevertheless, I heard it.  At the time, I dismissed this intrusion as an event, one in isolation.  Then this morning, while preparing breakfast, and in a room with a view of the small screen it played again.

My thoughts were many.  Why was this maligning message being presented?  Who was responsible for this slander?  Moreover, how much did this production cost?  Forget the money spent to fabricate this ditty; airtime is extremely expensive!  Apparently, union busting is no longer a tasteless practice; it is a respected art.  This frightens me.  Philosophically and politically, I honor, the words proclaimed in Aesop’s Fables, The Bundle of Sticks, “Union gives strength.”
I suspected and yet, needed to know with certainty, are CNN employees’ union members?  I telephoned the corporate offices and I was told, “No, they are not.”  I was not surprised.  Were this network unionized workers would protest the propaganda.  Administrators would not air such a scathing commercial, for fear of what they might create.  Those that secretly support a union will not speak.  They might lose their jobs.  

I researched further.  I know that a very good friend of mine, a Progressive, is anti-union.  For Jill, the amount of each paycheck matters.  She notices the immediate loss of nominal fees and does not think the benefits she receives from a union membership are worth much.  Jill has no inkling of how unions have affected her daily life for the better.  Nor does she consider how they have influenced her future.  She knows that in this job, she is not a member and that makes her happy.

My friend does not realize that unions have helped those in all avenues of life.  Thanks to unions, laws were passed and people were and are treated more humanely.  Jill does not recall a time when people would labor at their jobs for 10 to 12 hours a day.  She does not recollect the introduction of benefits.  In Jill’s lifetime, staying in bed when ill, was always been an option.  Time could be made to attend to personal affairs.  

In Jill’s lifetime, employers did not exploit children as they once did.  Times were never very hard, though in recent years they are becoming harder again.  Jill, as many, is comfortable with what is and cannot imagine what was or will be if there are no unions.  

Granted, a union can become as bureaucratic as a big business.  Members must assert their needs and wants.  They must participate if they want to ensure that decisions are to their liking.  That is doable and wiser than working in a world without unions.  Without unions, we would not have the power and pleasures we have now, or so I believe.  Yet, after this viewing I realize unions are being threatened as never before.  Forces more powerful than me are working to destroy the strength that union provides.

According to the Center for Media & Democracy, this novel advertisement is the work of “The Center for Union Facts.”  

“[It] is a secretive front group for individuals and industries opposed to union activities.  It is part of lobbyist Rick Berman’s family of front groups including the Employment Policies Institute.

The domain name www.unionfacts.com was registered to Berman & Co. in May 2005.

In May 2006, the Center for Union Facts launched its first TV ad campaign.  The 30-second spot, running on Fox News and local markets, has “actors posing as workers” saying “sarcastically what they ‘love’ about unions,” like paying dues, union leaders’ “fat-cat lifestyles,” and discrimination against minorities.  The ad campaign cost $3 million, which was raised “from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won’t identify.” [1]

Another TV ad will be filmed in June.  Labor and economics professor Harley Shaiken said the effort “to create an antiunion atmosphere” more generally, as opposed to business-funded ads against a particular union organizing drive or strike, “is a new wrinkle.”  An AFL-CIO spokesperson called the ad’s accusations “unfounded and outrageous.”

Mr. Richard B. (Rick) Berman is a former labor lawyer and restaurant industry executive.  For years, Berman was a lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, and tobacco industries.  At present, he heads several advocacy groups, including the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Employment Policies Institute.  Mr. Berman serves as the General Counsel for the American Beverage Institute.  Through his “fronts,” Mr. Berman has constructed many similar advocacy-ad campaigns.  

Rick Berman has been known to work against organizations critical of animal-rights.  He actively opposed the American With Disability Act.  Berman fought with Greenpeace.  

Mr. Berman promoted the use of a dangerous pesticide on apples.  The benevolent Berman wrote of how consumption caused no real harm.  At the time, Mr. Berman was working with or for Uniroyal, the maker of this chemical.  Later, the Environmental Protection Agency banned this insect repellent due to the high risk of cancer.

In 1993, benefactor Berman made a $25,000 contribution to Kennesaw State College.  The esteemed Newt Gingrich teaches at this University.  The gift came with a stipulation.  In exchange for the donation, Gingrich was required to impart ideas supported by the Employment Policies Institute.  The class was titled “Renewing American Civilization.”  Surely, these contrived concepts would create a Renaissance in America.

However, there were conflicts, questions were raised.  The issue was brought it to the attention of the House Ethics Committee.  After an investigation it was determined Berman’s “bequest” was solicited by GOPAC, “a new national organization dedicated exclusively to electing Republicans to state and local offices.”  The Ethic board discerned Berman recruited many large contributions for this organization.  Ethics, for Rick Berman are malleable.

All these incidents aside for Berman the beat goes on.  Berman and Company subsidizes several “advocacy groups.”  These associations seemingly present “factual and objective” information while serving their own interests.  These coalitions are typically well funded; their backers have the means to effectively manipulate a message.  Millions are poured into their productions.

The Wall Street Journal wrote of the anti-union ads in a recent article, Anti-Union Group Takes Message to the Airwaves.  In this essay they explain,

To fund the antiunion campaign, including the newspaper ads and one radio spot, Union Facts raised $3 million from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won’t identify.  The group says it paid $150,000 to run the commercial for roughly a week on Fox News and various local stations earlier this month and will run it again through the summer.  The group plans to start filming another TV ad by early June.

Labor and Economics Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Harley Shaiken, spoke to the subject as well.  He said “To create an antiunion atmosphere more generally, that is a new wrinkle.”  The Professor thinks the crusade is, in part, a response to the growing number of union sponsored television trailers.  

In recent years, unions have worked to gain public support for issues of concern.  When a particular union felt a candidate or a campaign might threaten wages or job security, they were there.

In the past, an advocacy group might go after a particular union; since Berman, unions as a whole are the enemy.  Berman and his benefactors want you to know, Unions are not good, at least they are not good for Berman and his bunch.

Given the power, employers will exploit their resources and employees.  Any entity that opposes them is their enemy.  These commercials illustrate that.  Other exemplars are numerous. Consider Wal-Mart, a non-union employer.  Only those in management receive a living wage.  Employees at this superstore cannot afford to shop, even at Wal-Mart.  If these archetypes are insufficient, observe your own experiences.  Do your employers care more for the people they employ or their profits?

With wages low and premiums high, few Wal-Mart workers can afford adequate, if any health care.  Medicare is often the provider for this corporation’s employees.  Less than half of the laborers at Wal-Mart are able to participate in the employers health plan.  

While the national average of workers covered by employer health insurance is 67 percent; only about 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are covered by the company’s health care plan.

Wal-Mart workers want you to know their stories; they share them publicly at Wake-Up Wal-Mart.com.  The laborers acknowledge that the prices seem too good to be true; they want us all to know why.  

If this archetype is insufficient, observe your own experiences.  Do your employers care more for the people they employ or their profits?

With unions, wages will be reasonable.  The hours you are required to work will honor your health.  Ergonomics will be considered in your work place.  Safety will be more than a suggestion.  Benefits will be there when you need them.  What could be better?  A few more dollars in your paycheck might be nice; however, will that dough do the job when you are really in trouble.

A United Force of Resources to Work For You . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Bud Buys Rolling Rock; Latrobe Lives Lost ©


More often than not, life is personal.  Journalist, authors, and bloggers write of politics, economics, education, and the law; however, their interest is individual.  They, as people personally respond to a particular policy, position, or practice.  Writers also respond to people.  In this writing, I am.  Days ago I received an email from a friend, she wrote in desperation.  This woman sent out a mass mailing apologizing for the practice and stressing the situation is dire.

Mary [not her real name] wrote,

I know this is a mass email, but at this point, I will try anything to help save the jobs of not only my husband but also the other 249 families.  Please help and thanks for your support.

 Mary enclosed a link to the petition Keep Rolling Rock in Latrobe
I clicked on the link and began to read a well-composed and pleading letter.

To:  August A. Busch IV

Mr. August A. Busch IV, ??We, the people of Latrobe and surrounding communities, as well as Rolling Rock drinkers everywhere ask that Rolling Rock be kept in Latrobe Pennsylvania.  Your company and name have always been associated with strong family tradition.  You are quoted as saying, “We have an ideal opportunity to grow this historic brand.  This beer is not like others and its consumer following is equally distinctive.”  We ask you not ruin this beers rich history by moving it out of its birthplace.

You [Mr. Busch] would be stripping the city of everything it has known for over a century.  The brewery and everything it represents coincide with Latrobe; Latrobe is Rolling Rock, Rolling Rock is Latrobe.  We the people are not upset or bothered by the purchase; we hope you can help grow this great brand.  We do, however, ask that you keep Rolling Rock in its hometown.  If expansion is necessary, so be it.  But please, for the sake of a city and all Rolling Rock fans, we ask that you keep Rolling Rocks base in its mother city, and keep our family alive.

Sincerely, The Undersigned

At the time of this writing, there are a total of 11866 Signatures.

I am penning this quickly and asking you to reach out.  This for me illustrates how a big business, in this case a brewery, can purchase a smaller company, for all the right reasons, profitability, name recognition, reputation, a loyal following, because they are a force to be reckon with; yet, they forget all that made this company strong, the people.  

Mary, my acquaintance wrote to me of her situation.  Her husband, John, has worked for the company for over twenty-six years.  John is a hard worker; he cares and has for all these years.  He took so much pride in what was “his place” of work and the product.  According to Mary and to an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review all of this was done in the dark of night.  No one had any idea of what was happening.  Lives were overturned with little care.

Please read the article and the sad stories residents of Latrobe and employees of Rolling Rock share.  They are painful; yet important.
Bud buys Rolling Rock; Latrobe Brewing’s future uncertain

The city is as Mary and John are, shocked and distraught.  Anheuser-Busch, leader in the U.S. beer industry, bought the Rolling Rock brand, the recipe, and the right to brew the beverage.  However, they had no interest in the facilities or the people that these breweries employed.

Those that know me well might wonder why I would write a communiqué on Rolling Rock beer and its production facilities.  In my entire life, I have never had a drink of alcohol.  Until two months ago, I never heard of Rolling Rock beer, though I recall the moment I did.  I was at a party, and when a young man saw that Rolling Rock was available, he decided he could stay all night. A month later, I had a similar experience.

You might wonder, dear reader how I could have not known of John’s employer.  I know Mary.  I knew that she lived in Latrobe; we spoke of her husband, their long and happy marriage, their five children and more.  Yet, we never spoke of Rolling Rock or the specifics of John’s job.  I was certain that he enjoyed his work and workplace; nothing more needed to be said, until now.  

Now, I ask as Latrobe families do.  Please help; and sign the petition.  You may also wish to speak with your bartender and friends to join you in a boycott non-Latrobe Rolling Rock.  Extend your hand, hold your beer high, and hope that those that have infused the formula into these bottles for the last sixty-seven years brewed this blend.

References For Your Review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Marines Kill Innocent Iraqi Family. Verdict "Not Guilty"? ©


That was an odd observation, or so I thought at the time.  The words of a close friend, a psychiatrist, and a veteran haunted me so deeply that now, days later, I cannot shake them.  In discussing the recent revelation, Marine soldiers brutally slaughtered innocent Iraqi families in their home; my companion said he thought  these men should go free.  He stated that were he among the psychiatrists to testify in the case, he would recommend they be acquitted.  I was stunned.  I had heard the news.

According to MSNBC News,

A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.

From the beginning, Iraqis in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children.  One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents.  “The Americans came into the room where my father was praying,” she said, “and shot him.”

I said nothing, or if I did, I do not recall.  I was in a state of shock.  I let him continue.  He mentioned the circumstances that preceded the soldiers’ attack, and mused of people in a place far from home, mired in daily battles.  I listened.  I thought, and I continue to ponder.  In this treatise, I ask you dear reader to do the same.
I am the ultimate peacenik.  For me, war is never an option.  I work hard to eradicate the thought from the minds of any, many, even in personal strife.  For me, the cycle is endless and need not be.  For centuries, soldiers have fought the “War to end all wars”; yet, we never cease-fire.  

We, [people] kill, maim, and assault.  We identify others as evil, the enemy, and separate ourselves from them.  We speak of opposition and think those that disagree with us are, different, less than, and certainly of little or no value.  We [humans will] continue to justify war.  

I have asked what is war good for, expecting to hear the retort, “absolutely nothing.”  However, rarely is that the response.  People prosper in war. [Dick Cheney was among millions of billionaires that benefited from the war in Iraq.]  The righteous glorifies their victories.  Troops tell tales; “It was the best of times and the worst of times.”  Some feel the service shaped them.  Leaders speak of their legacies.

With each discussion, I am left to conclude violence begets violence.  I want no part of it.  I know that most people say the same; however, they engage in it constantly.  In their homes, in their heads, and on fields, far far, far away human beings are battling.

In my life I have witnessed the heartache hostility bestows.  I have known persons that grew up in families where feuding was the manner in which they communicated.  They knew nothing else.  For them, life was survival.  My own experience was a quiet one and I am thankful; nevertheless, I have seen the hurt that brutality breeds.  The affects are devastating and they linger on, at times, they last for a lifetime.  Frequently, they are passed down from one generation to the next.  War is all most people know, even in their daily lives.  Physical abuse is a prime example of this.  It is being passed on from family to family, victim to victim, and abuser to abuser.  People survive, or so it is said.

Therefore, I am not surprised by what is thought to be “excusable”; yet, I am.  Still, I do understand.  When I think of a bloody war, a continual conflict, I trust the mind plays tricks; it does so in an attempt to endure.  There is no way to makes sense of continual killing.  When a friend, a familiar, one that you have shared a lifetime of stories with in a single month is executed before your eyes, you mourn.  Revenge feels reasonable.  Rage has replaced your comrade.  Reason is lost.

The commandant of the Marine Corps warns of this.  He has traveled to Iraq to warn his troops; they must guard against what he calls “the risk of becoming indifferent to the loss of human life.”  So true, so powerful, and yet, they are marinating in a emptiness that causes them to question the value of existence, their own and their “enemies.”  

Soldiers cannot look to their nation’s leaders or officers for support or sanity.  These persons have instructed them to fight; rationalizing this will guarantee “liberty and justice for all.”

Thus, I continue to ponder the quizzical words of my friend.  I try to imagine a world where, at every turn, there is gunfire.  Grenades are a constant, and life, even my own, might be very fragile.

In this tome, I could try to come to terms with war.  I could endeavor to be wise.  I could present information on Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome however, for now, I can only wonder.  I am tired of war and the deeper wounds that it brings.  

I offer this article for your review and ask you to please make comments.  Perhaps, dialogue can begin and we can move away from futile conflicts.  Possibly, empathy can prompt an evolution.  If only our leaders would work towards such a stronger stance.

“For Connecticut Marines, the Enemy is Everywhere,” By Jesse Hamilton of the he Hartford Courant.  It was published on this Memorial Day weekend, May 28, 2006.

FALLUJAH, Iraq — The Marines are filthy and tired and act hard, like they’ve been here two years instead of two months.

Charlie Company’s 200 or so infantrymen – half from Connecticut – are reservists, pulled from civilian life for the unit’s first trip into the war.  They will spend seven months running patrols, guarding posts, raiding suspect houses and manning checkpoints in one of Iraq’s most dangerous cities.

The men from Enfield, Colchester, Middletown, and East Windsor are fighting in Fallujah to keep things from getting worse.  They fight to buy time for the training of Iraqi replacements.  They fight for an unknown future under yet-to-emerge Iraqi leaders.  And, at the most basic level, the corporals, and privates first class fight to keep themselves and their friends from getting killed.

They rehash their battle stories sometimes before they’ve returned to safety, writing their own characters into the war movies they gravitate to.  They court death in their spare time, watching violent movies and some playing video games of war.  Under it all, they are young and far from home.

“We’re trying to keep Fallujah stable and get out of here,” said Cpl. Parke Stearns, 26, of Lebanon, Ct.

The Marines here are fighting a war.  But it’s not always clear whose war.

Charlie Company is based at the Civil-Military Operations Center, or CMOC, pronounced see-mock in the acronym jungle of military speak.  The compound is at the center of the city, facing the major east-west route through it.  Charlie Company owns downtown, the worst of Fallujah.  It is one company where four battalions with thousands of troops once operated.  The nearest Marine Company, another part of the 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, known as “New England’s Own,” is at the train station on the northern edge of the city.

But there are other supposed allies.  Iraqi police, most of them locals, work from stations scattered around Fallujah, driving little pickups with patches of steel welded to them for armor.  Three Iraqi Army battalions – increasingly trusted by their U.S. partners – also operate here, brought in from elsewhere.

The area is a stronghold for the Sunni branch of Islam.  The Iraqi Army soldiers are mostly Shiites, so they are among the insurgents’ favorite targets.  While the Iraqi police are mostly Sunni, their partnership with American occupiers invites attacks on them, too, leaving them walking a crooked line.

As 1st Sgt. Ben Grainger, Charlie Company’s chief noncommissioned officer who is from Enfield, said, “They live in the community, the same community the insurgents live in.  It’s not a matter of them dying; it’s a matter of their wife, family and kids dying.  They’re almost forced to play both sides.”

When working with either security force, Grainger said, Marines are told, “Treat them as our counterparts, but be ready to kill them, if necessary.”

On May 19, a car on the “new bridge,” the main crossing over the Euphrates River, rolled up to the point of the bridge where Iraqi soldiers sat in a sandbagged post.  It detonated, tearing the car and suicide driver into hunks of black shrapnel.  Only one of the soldiers was wounded in the explosion that wrecked two of their armored vehicles, but the blast also punched holes through the bottom of the bridge, knocking it out until it could be repaired.

Soon after the attack, Iraqi soldiers milled around, laughing and taking pictures.  One of them showed off a plastic bag that held a license plate.  He signaled that the other item in the bag was the blackened foot of the driver.

That evening, as engineers checked out the bridge, another company from the battalion watched the area.  They came across a group of men who scrambled into vehicles and fled.  Chasing down one of the cars, a taxi, the Marines watched its driver run the car into pedestrians before bailing out into a building.

Charlie Company responded as backup, to help surround a section of the notorious area of town known as the Pizza Slice, a triangle formed by two main roads and the river.  Inside the taxi, Marines found a few automatic weapons and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.  Night fell on their search, which ended with a suspect who fit the description, but couldn’t be held without more proof.

As they prepared to leave, a few shots popped in the distance across the adjacent cemetery.  The Marines who heard barely reacted.  Bullets are almost as common as mosquitoes when the sun goes down in Fallujah.  But the Marines carry night-vision equipment.  As they like to say, “We own the night.”

The following day, again, a suicide car bomb struck.  This time, it hit an Iraqi police station.  The car blew up at the outer security perimeter, injuring some people there, but no officers.

When Iraqis are hurt or killed in the city, it slides off most of the Marines in Charlie Company.  It’s when their own get hit, as they have a few times in the last several weeks, that the news grips tight.

On Wednesday, Marines from Charlie Company’s 2nd Platoon are returning to base when an Iraqi boy, maybe 11, throws a grenade at them.  It lands within lethal range but doesn’t go off.  The boy gets away.  Explosives disposal guys are called in to grab the grenade.  They arrive with a flat tire, so more Marines from 2nd Platoon come out for security.

An arm pokes around a corner and throws another grenade.

This one blows as Marines dodge for cover.  Two Marines are hit with minor shrapnel: Lance Cpl. Jordan Pierson, of Milford, in the arms and leg, and Lance Cpl. Nicholas Lambert, of Oxford, Mass., in his right thigh.  Both are taken to the hospital at Camp Fallujah.

Afterward, as he limped from his treatment, Lambert said to the medical staff, “It’s nice meeting you guys, but I don’t want to see you again.”  He and Pierson returned to the unit.

Another day, when gunfire crackles and blasts start shaking Charlie Company’s building, the Marines get ready for a fight.  They gather in the entryway of their four-story building, like greyhounds at the starting gate, the air heavy with the smell of gunpowder.  In squads, they start to reinforce guard posts and head into the city.

The explosions come from a combination of rocket-propelled grenades streaking into the big compound and mortar shells dropping from above, in greater numbers than usual.  With fire from three machine guns on top of it, the coordinated attack is the nastiest on CMOC since the unit got here in March.

Within a few minutes, Marines have shot back and hit two or three attackers – news that puts smiles on faces back inside their building.  The surviving insurgents vanish, taking their wounded with them.  The leaders of Charlie Company count it as more of the same – hit-and-run, no real threat to the Marines, though more organized than they like to see.

But theirs isn’t the only building in this dusty hub.  In one corner is the equivalent of a town hall.  There is another building that houses the mayor’s offices.  And a new police headquarters just opened on the northern edge, which could also have been a target for the rain of more than a dozen mortars.

No Marines were hit, though one dud mortar embedded itself on the roof of the former education administration building they live in and another landed a dozen yards away.

The attack did kill three Iraqi police officers on a nearby guard post – Iraqis killed by Iraqis.  Much of the violence in this wounded city is between Iraqis, leaving U.S. troops as the referees in a game with more teams than rules.

Just a few hours earlier, out at a Charlie Company checkpoint on the west side of the Euphrates River, a car drove up with a dying man in the back seat, his curled-up form full of bullet holes and soaked red with blood.  The car was allowed to pass through to a nearby hospital, where a doctor turned it away after a quick check that concluded the man had died.

When the car got back to the checkpoint, Marines tried to figure out what had happened.  They gathered the six other men from the white Toyota and held them aside while a translator questioned them.  Meanwhile, a Navy corpsman – a medic who travels with Marine units – checked the man in the back seat.  “He has a faint pulse in his wrist,” the corpsman said.

“He’s still alive.”

The man’s brother leapt from his kneeling position and began weeping and moaning, trying to get closer through the knot of Marines.

The corpsman kept working, looking for further signs of life.  He couldn’t find a pulse in the man’s neck.  And his heart was still.

“He’s done,” the corpsman finally said.

The other man continued to cry, his tears rolling through his brother’s blood where it stained his face.  He had the eyes of an animal struck by a car, stunned and confused.  As he folded against the car trunk and put his head down on his arms, the story was told by the others through the translator.

Their car had been at a gas station down the road.  A group of men got out of a gray BMW and fired an AK-47 – Iraq’s favored assault rifle.  Nobody in the Toyota said they knew why.

Bottom line: The shooting didn’t involve a Marine.  So the Marines waved them on, back down the road.

References for your Review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Bush Boasts Of Battles in Memorial ©


On this day of Memorial, our Commander and Chief advocated war.  He professed his strident belief in conflict.  President Bush was speaking to the graduating class at West Point.  Mr. Bush proclaimed their futures would be filled with battle.  He should know; he started so many of these, Afghanistan and Iraq to name a few.  The Emperor is plotting and planning for more.  Many suspect that Iran and Korea are his next [possible] targets.

Rather than touch on the topic of war while promoting peace, in honor of our fallen men and women, Mr. Bush pushed his standard agenda.  Our leader spoke of terrorism, ignoring the acts he has committed.  

King George II proclaimed his pride in the country’s newest leaders. With the terrorist rhetoric, post September 11, 2001, Bush was able to breed this force for the future.  This class was the first to complete their studies after the “terrorists attacks.”  Baby Bush was pleased; he beamed with delight.

Today, Saturday, May 27, 2006, the first day of this Memorial Day weekend, our leader praised wars of the past and those of his making.  The Commander and Chief spoke little of love or life.  He only honored his killing machines, men, and mechanisms.  

Congratulations graduates, you have entered a world not of your making.  I salute your lives; long may you live these.

With deep regrets for the losses, I offer many missives I wrote in honor of our soldiers, fallen and injured, fighting, and surviving.  May they all rest and go in peace.  May the future be tranquil and serene.  May war never be considered an option.

References For Further Investigation . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Come To Visit, Converse With Me ©


All words attributed to George W. Bush are his. He said these at his Thursday night, May 25, 2006, press conference.
Possibly, you, as I, look forward to our meetings with the President, infrequent as they are.  Perhaps, that is why we treasure them so.  These conferences are rare, though, nevertheless, a treat.  When President George W. Bush asks Prime Minister Tony Blair to accompany him, well that is truly a delight.  I am overjoyed.  I revel in these exchanges.  I can hardly wait to invite the two in my parlor for a chat.  This Thursday night was such an occasion.

While the hour was late in London, and therefore, few Englishmen and women would be able to join us, I acknowledged that I was fortunate.  Two men of such great stature, power, and fame [infamy] were coming to visit me.  We would gather in my living room.  They stated earlier that they were ready, willing, and of course able to discuss politics, particularly the Iraqi war.  This was such a dream come true.
I invited each of my guests to speak first. I requested they share their points of view; I would listen, and then discuss. Blair spoke some, though his words were not as poignant as those of the President. Mr. Bush has a style and finesse that is engaging, thus, he and I conversed.

President Bush proposed, “The United States and Great Britain will work together to help this new democracy succeed.”  I inquired, is it not true that a Democracy is a government chosen by the people and not forced upon them through war?

He ignored me and continued, “We’ll take advantage of this moment of opportunity and work with Iraq’s new government to strengthen this young democracy and achieve victory over our common enemies.”  “Common enemies,” I blurted out.  Might we the aggressors not be seen as adversaries?  

Did we not invade a country without reason or a request?  Did America and Great Britain not choose to unilaterally attack a nation of people merely to overthrow their leader?  Did the “allies” and “broad coalition” not create turmoil in a land that once entertained at least a sense of stability and could they have not achieved a similar turn without all the killing?  President Bush remained placid.

Mr. Bush remained good-natured and composed.  His stilted smirk never betrayed him.  His monologue, his mantra was steady.  The naked Emperor  said, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”  

Mr. President I retorted loudly, “Do you really believe it was correct to enter a country on false and contrived pretenses?”  “Do you think killing the young, the innocent, and the unarmed in worthy?”  Do you honestly believe, battles such as the ones that you yourself, even in your youth were never willing to engage in are just?”  “Mr. President,” I declared, “I think not!”

George W. Bush looked over at me, wincingly, and said, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was controversial.  We did not find the weapons of mass destruction that we all believed were there, and that’s raised questions about whether the sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it.”

As I stated, he repeated, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”  After all, “Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people.  He was a state sponsor of terror.  He invaded his neighbors.”  “Oh, sir,” I proclaimed with a shrug, “Is it only because there is an ocean and other countries between us that you do not believe that we too, America, invaded one or more of its neighbors?”  “Are we not as a state, as a nation, sponsoring terror?  Look what we have and are repeatedly creating worldwide.  Both before and after our aggressions, I see little evidence of US diplomacy.”

King George II mused for a time and then replied, “We’ve learned from our mistakes, adjusted our methods, and have built on our successes.”  Have we Mr. President?

Smugly George W. acknowledged, “No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America.  I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country.”  Turn on your television see what?  Mr. Bush, it has been documented repeated, not since Vietnam has there been so little coverage of a war.  Your administration and Pentagon have flown the fallen and wounded in at night so that photographs cannot be taken.  Your own personnel have spoken of the Dover Effect and have worked to control against it!

Only recently, since citizens began exposing the truth of this war, has American been given more access.  Dear George, is it not true that without citizen activism, this conflict would still be invisible?

Hemming and hawing, King George reluctantly offered, “Listen, I want our troops out, don’t get me wrong.  I — you know, I — I — I understand what it means to have troops in harm’s way, and I — and I know the — there’s a lot of families making huge sacrifices here in America.  I’ll be going to a Memorial Day ceremony next Monday, paying tribute to those who’ve lost their life.  I’m sure I will see families of the fallen.  I fully understand the pressures being placed upon our military and their families.”  He mumbled, “But I also understand that it is vital that we — that we do the job, that we complete the mission.”

Apologetically, though resolute, the President affirmed, “And it has been tough.  It’s been tough, because we’re fighting an unconventional enemy that is willing to kill innocent people.  There are no rules of war for these people.  But make no mistake about it.  What you’re seeing in Iraq could happen all over the world if we don’t stand fast and achieve the objective.”

A friend of mine then reflected aloud, “Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq.  Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?”

Bush recounted,  “It sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here.”  The living room filled with laughter, nervous chuckling.  “Saying “Bring it on.”  Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people.  That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner.  You know, “Wanted dead or alive,” that kind of talk.  I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted.  And so I learned — I learned from that.”  I mumbled inaudibly, “you learned that good ole boy `plain speaking’ is unwise; nothing more?”

Perhaps he heard me, for he then suggested there were other lessons.  “And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that’s happened so far, at least from our country’s involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib.  We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time.  And it’s — unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice; they’ve been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.”  Were they Mr. President?  Did America actually judge all those that were responsible or only the “peons,” the persons that were expendable?

With that, President Bush thanked me for my hospitality and said his good-byes.  Would we meet again soon?  I suspect the answer is as the one frequently asked, “When will the war end?”  No timetable will be given.

For Fun or Fears . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Press Secretary Tony Snow Cried. He and I Touched Humanity. ©


This is a personal tale. Tony Snow’s tears triggered the telling. The days of delay does not affect the deliverance of the message.
This story is about Tony Snow, a homeless man, humanity, and me.  I will begin with Press Secretary Snow.  My focus will not be on the unforgivable term, though I too struggle with its usage.  Instead, I will discuss what for me, was a more meaningful lesson.

In this day and age of snarky, once known as snide, rude, and crude, it was a delight to witness genuine emotion.
Tony Snow exhibited feelings, heart-felt, and deep, at his first news conference.  The novice Press Secretary was asked what might have been considered a casual and innocuous question; journalists inquired of his Live Strong bright yellow bracelet.  These bangles are as ubiquitous as clothing itself.  They can be seen anywhere, everywhere; rarely are they worn with significance.  Still, when queried of this wristlet, Tony Snow paused.  He was sincerely and visibly choked up.  For a time he could not speak.

Moments later, with a quiver in his voice, and tears in his eyes, Snow replied.  The Press Secretary was sobbing softly as he spoke.  He told this audience of journalists that he was a survivor of colon cancer, an illness that had taken the life of his mother when he was very young, seventeen years of age.  Snow stated, that years ago, such a malady was considered fatal; however, with the use of modern technology, he was able to fight the disease and live on.  He was thriving and staying strong.  While acknowledging all the turmoil over health care in America, Tony Snow said, with thanks to the quality attention he received, he was here and enjoying life.  

This event was newsworthy.  Tony Snow, a White House Press Secretary cried.  His tears were not exaggerated or put on.  They were not meant to evoke empathy or sympathy.  These were not the playful antics of a plotting personality.  The tears were not those of a clown or a court jester; they were unexpected, unadulterated, untainted by position or pretense.  The cries sprung from a man who had suffered, and was given reason to reflect; they were from one that learned.

At a younger age, Mr. Snow might have forced himself to suppress the sniffles.  He might have feared what people think, would say, or do if they witnessed a grown man cry.  Snow in his twenties might have been concerned that a man in his position, appearing on television, and working within the White House cannot show sorrow or sentiment so publicly.  However, I suspect with age comes wisdom.  Experiences teach us empathy and we evolve.  Still, sadly, few of us ever expose our emotions or ourselves. His story takes me to my own.

While my pain may not have been as life threatening, it did cause me to ponder.  The care I received was not in a hospital; nor was it from medical personnel.  My mentor had been through much and had much to teach me.

Today’s older and wiser never expected to be.  They are from a generation that rallied round stating, “You cannot trust anyone over thirty years of age.”  They meant it; they believed it.  Few ever thought they would live beyond that age.  

The youth of the sixties was certain that they were more informed and aware than their elders, and possibly, they were.  Probably they were.  These rebels were willing to question everything and every authority.  I do not challenge that idea.  Humph, I live it, bathe in it, and believe it to be vital.  Nevertheless, in some subtle ways I think this cynicism has worked against us.  It has created a counter culture that no longer feels anything but anger.  

Anger has replaced action; in a sense, anger has evolved into apathy.  [I offer this aside for those not familiar with the way in which I define action versus reaction.  For me, actions are loving, caring, creative, and productive.  Reactions are the result of fear, hurt, and pain.  They are often counter measures and thus, counter-productive.]  

No, it is not that all persons are unconcerned; they are not.  Many are “activist,” in a reactionary sort of way.  Nevertheless, too many are indifferent to the way in which their thoughts words, or deeds affect others and the ultimately result in an unwanted outcome.  

People walk around spouting the words “I don’t care.”  They do not care about other than their interests, their friends, family, and themselves. I myself work so hard to avoid using this pervasive phrase because “I do care.”  I have come to realize that if we do not care for or about others then we care not for or about ourselves, because, in truth, we are all connected.  “No man is an island.”

“If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself.  As long as you love another person less than you love yourself, you will not really succeed in loving yourself,  But if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person and that person is both God and man.  Thus he is a great and righteous person who loving himself, loves all others equally!” – Meister Eckhart from The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm, page 56

In the world today we work hard to forfeit and fight against connections.  Walk down the street and watch, as the faces of others turn away from your own.  Smile at your neighbor and notice how often they do not beam back.  They as you are in a hurry, preoccupied with their own thoughts, their own worries, and their own fears.  They have no time to engage you or yours.  

Weeks ago while wallowing in my thoughts, I was engaged; I was drawn to a sign.  I was driving from Lowe’s Home Improvement Center going to PetsMart, and traveling down highway 441.  I was pondering my recent decisions and determining what was to become of me.  I had recently made extreme changes in my life.  I had entered the world of the unknown.  Fear had become my unwelcome friend.  

For years, I had lived happily in my habits.  I went to work.  I swam; I wrote and I cooked great quantities of healthy food.  I played with my babies.  I chatted with friends.  I lived in a home I made my own.  On occasion, I would walk around the lake.  Life was good, very good.  Nevertheless, I sought more.  

For decades, I lived in California.  I had never wanted to live in that state; still, my family moved there and since I love my family, I followed.  I never regretted that decision; however, I did not feel connected to this territory.  For all the years that I lived there I was never willing to say, “I am from California.”  

For me, weather is not a superficial subject; it influences the way I feel.  The climate in “Sunny Southern California” is not that.  A maritime malaise fills the sky until late afternoon.  The June gloom begins in May, and it affects me.  I wanted out.  

Since childhood, I reveled in Florida weather.  The topics were my treasure.  Therefore, I decided to move South and East, to go where my heart was.  However, much was not as I expected.  

I planned for my employment.  I intended to do as I had done for decades in California.  I did not fear financial ruin; I trusted all would be well.  After taking time to complete my house, I returned to work.  “Returned” is not the right word for this is a different state, city, and circumstance.  What was once my bread and butter, my staple, my stability, now left me nauseous.  The nuances are too numerous to explain.  

Upon entering the work force, I was repelled.  I knew I could not do this.  Worry began to fill my mind, my heart, my soul, and even my dreams while asleep. On this day, as I drove to the store, I was in a stupor.  I stopped at a red light.  I was in the left-hand turn lane.  A homeless man was standing on the medium.  He held a sign expectedly asking for money.  I had none.  I rarely carry any and even if I had, I always leave my purse in the trunk.  I knew I could not give him change; I did not have enough for myself.  In truth, I worried I would soon be him.  

I did not wish to meet his eyes, to see his soul.  I could not face my own and his presence reminded me of whom I might become.  I did, however, read his sign.  It said, “Imagine me being you, and looking away.”  Oh my, that was exactly what I was imagining, my life could easily be as his.  I believe there was more on the sign; however, in this moment, I recall my feeling overwhelmed more than all the words that took me there.

In an instant, I remembered that a week earlier my father had taken the toll-way.  He had left the change in my car and told me to keep it.  I might need it at some time.  Perhaps if I ever drive the turnpike, the change will do me good.  When he said this, I thought, `not likely.’  I will never waste money on such a highway.  I had tucked the quarters away in the side pocket of my car door.  

When I saw the man, I knew the money was meant for him.  My father was always giving to the homeless.  He would not object to my doing so also.  I pulled the quarters out and called to the destitute and scruffy man.  I extended my handful of change apologizing as I did so.    

I explained this was all that I had and though I knew it was not much, I hoped it would help.  [Tears are flowing again as I retell this tale.]  He sweetly smiled and explained, “There is no need for you to apologize.”  He said, “Say God Bless.”  I was reluctant.  I believe “Thou art God.”  Yet, I was not feeling the least bit divine.  I reject religious overtures; too often, they seem insincere.  However, coming from this man, in this moment, I decided to oblige.  I thought `I am okay with this.’  Thus, I said, “God Bless.”  

The gentle man then replied, “If you say God bless and I say God bless than all will be well.”  Perhaps it will.  Whether God is within, above, or throughout, even if God does not exist other than in the recesses of our minds, I believe what is God, or the personification of such, is “goodness.”  If we say and act upon all that is good, if we remember and consider that we are all connected to our neighbors and treat them with reverence, all will be well.  

This week, Tony Snow was reminded of his humanity, weeks ago I recalled mine.  Imagine what the world would be if we each chose to be human and humane daily, if we chose to connect to each other and ourselves.

References For Your Review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Immigration. Walls at The Borders. Barriers or Buttresses? ©


On occasion, I am fortunate; I find that an essayist heard on National Public Radio has written a commentary and published the text for all to read.  Thus far, I have yet to locate the transcript for “‘Good Fences’: Misreading Poetry,” an essay I heard this evening on All Things Considered.  However, I will keep searching.  Until then, I am offering a link to the story so you might listen to the author himself.  

Jay Keyser, Professor of Linguistics at MIT is baffled and distressed by the use of a Robert Frost verse in defense of building walls between borders.  He speaks of how the oft quoted poem, “Mending Wall” is misunderstood, if analyzed at all.

The poem closes with the line we all recall “Good fences make good neighbours.”  When people speak of immigration, or more accurately segregation, they use this declaration to justify their stance.
However, as Professor Keyser so aptly points out the elegy begins,

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.”

Mr. Keyser offers, Robert Frost thinks there are walls that function as “walls.”  They are practical parapets, or purposeful buttress. However, sadly, according to the poem, Frost recognizes walls and fences can be barriers.  

Keyser, reflecting on history and using the verse to support his belief, surmises countries build “walls” to “keep out the unwanted and keep in the unwilling.”  They build barriers that fight against the blending of people.  

Linguist Keyser objects to these fortifications, as he states Frost does. The academician argues, Frost is questioning the reason for such ridiculous artifacts.  So too is [Samuel] Jay Keyser.  I hope that after listening to his commentary and reflecting upon the famous Robert Frost poem, you too will ask why would we wish to build a wall.  Frost does . . .

“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know,
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.”

I certainly have no desire to create fences; I do not love a wall. I love my [thy] neighbors.

References for your Review . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

America. Freedom Of Speech, English Only ©


Photograph By Jim Young

I am dumbfounded or at least, wish I were.  America has once again proved itself xenophobic!  I awoke to the news, “Senate Votes to Set English as National Language.”  Apparently, on Thursday, May 18, 2006, the Senate agreed to declare English this nation’s official language.  The debate, prior to the formal poll was passionate.  The word “racism” was tossed about.  Nevertheless, the bigoted belied what they know to be correct and voted overwhelmingly to impose English upon all that enter this land.  The final vote was 63 in favor, 34 against.

However, ‘moments later,’ the voice of reason filled the room, Senate members altered their stance slightly.  They again voted, and this time passed a less powerful amendment.  English would be titled the “unifying language.”  I ask how a divisive dictum can unify rather than divide.  Sadly, I am certain I will not receive an answer that I can comprehend.  According to Democratic Senator Harry Reid “Although the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist.  I believe it is directed at people who speak Spanish.”  Mr. Reid, I trust that is true.  America has become focused on Mexican immigrants.  This nation wants the “Brown” out!  
Our countrymen want to forcibly rid this nation of color, if they can.  Any method that might work will be initiated.  Though there are some voices of reason, Speaking of the situation, Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of immigration legislation stated, “The Senate should be ashamed of itself.”  There are also reluctant vocalizations within the Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, and potential Presidential candidate, declined to state whether he intends to vote for the plan.  He was willing to offer, “It’s [his decision is] certainly moving in that [the affirmative] direction.

Should the Senate approve and House sign on, the President, our Emperor will need to accept the legislation.  Baby Bush is conflicted.  White House press secretary Tony Snow said, ‘‘What the President has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language.  It’s as simple as that.”

It is as simple as what?  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speaking on the subject added to the confusion and complexity.  Gonzales declared, “The president has never supported making English the national language.”  The Attorney General then spoke for himself, ”I don’t see the need to have legislation or a law that says English is going to be the national language.”  However, Congress does, or is pretending to in order to please their constituents.

The prejudiced population in this country presupposes that the English Only imposition is not enough to deter entrants’ citizenship.  Therefore, the formal standards will be made more stringent.  A working knowledge of the English language will not be acceptable; proficiency will be expected.  Congress also added other stricter regulations to the bill.  Mastery of United States history and government theory will be required.  There will be little consideration for competency.  An applicant will pass or fail, become a citizen or remain an “alien” because Americans are running scared and Congress is running for re-election.

It is for this reason, that the Senate, for the first time in its history has passed such an amendment.  Sadly, states have engaged in similar restrictions for decades.  In America, English only has long been increasingly made the standard.

For decades this nation and its “silent majority” have spoken.  Subtlety, though significantly, America, has passed restrictive language laws.  Of course, each of these specifies, “English only.”  Nationally English Only legislation first appeared in Congress in 1981.  A constitutional abridgement titled the, English Language Amendment was introduced.  This proposal was never ratified.  Had it been, English would already be America’s exclusive language.  Federal, state, and local governments would have banned all others.  The measure was not voted upon, even in Committee.  Now times have changed; we are more openly discriminating.

However, it is important to note, since 1981, approximately thirty states have adopted English only legislation.  Four states had approved policies barring the use of other vernaculars prior to 1981.  Hawaii’s is officially bilingual, as is, Alaska.  Arizona attempted to prohibit the use of other forms of speech; it voters passed English-only initiatives; however, these were declared unconstitutional.  In 2002, Iowa became the twenty-seventh state to ratify an English only law.

Division within the country called for such measures in local elections and now nationwide we will visit the idea.  Currently, citizens are in a tizzy.  They fear for their jobs.  Pensions are being pulled; health care is a privilege.  Outsourcing is the standard.  Life is not as stable as it once seemed to be.  People are apprehensive and nervous; when they call American companies, the voices on the telephone are foreign.  Here at home, the population is changing; neighbors no longer look as they once did.  White has taken flight or is merely out-numbered.  People feel great trepidation; they fear strangers.  Chauvinism and intolerance are on the rise.

People are seeking solutions; they have explored many.  Logistically, America cannot deport the eleven to sixteen million immigrants that entered this country illegally.  Laws requiring employers to report questionable documentation are not enforced and therefore, do not work.  Homeowners sponsor illegal entrants by offering them jobs.  Trafficking is profitable, and thus the “problem” continues.  Imposing a language on the “illegals” seems to be the only or best response to a growing quandary.

However, interestingly, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, English is widely spoken among immigrants.  

Research studies show that over 95 percent of first generation Mexican Americans are English proficient, and that more than 50 percent of second generation, Mexican-Americans, have lost their native tongue entirely.  In addition, census data reveals that nearly 90 percent of Latinos five years old or older speak English in their households.  [And]  Ninety-eight percent of Latinos surveyed said they felt it is “essential” that their children learn to read and write English “perfectly.”

Among these non-natives, education is the lost link.  Desire is strong, active attempts to acquire the English language stronger.  There is a shortage of English as a Second Language classes.  Few states offer such an option.  The states that do, receive little support.  Communities are reluctant to serve those they want out.

Children of European descent think “Immersion” programs are best; no programs at all would be better.  After all, their parents learned to speak the language, or at least some did.  In years past communities were different and people learned, as they do today, based on need.  Their progeny forget or reject this.  In the last fifty years, “Language Acquisition” has been studied.  Experts offer various theories; however, all maintain fluency in a second language can be a challenge.

The consensus is it takes approximately seven years to truly achieve fluency.  The first two typically involve listening more then use.  Private speech develops first.  Societal situations, circumstances with a given community, and the history of each individual influences what is learned and exhibited.  It is far easier to achieve expertise before the age of twelve.  Is that not the reason for the amendment, at least in part?  Eliminate entrance into America; require English proficiency.

There are other motives for such a measure.  Eliminating the “Brown” is but one cause; elections are another.  Members of Congress want the support of their constituents.  Daily they receive a barrage of mail, electronic and snail.  Calls are placed and the voice of the voters is influential, more so than the voices of immigrants.  There is ample anxiety expressed.  “Who are these aliens and why are they living in my country?”

Congress answered.  In December, the House passed the Sensenbrenner Bill and the nation exploded.  This law cut to the core; in country of eleven to sixteen million immigrants of questionable status, many were directly affected, or would be were this amendment became law.  The legislation would make it a federal crime to live in the United States without written permission.  Millions of immigrants that have long worked and resided in the States would become felons; they would be barred from ever obtaining legal status.

According to this initial proposition, individuals who assist or shield undocumented migrants would be subject to prosecution.  Regardless of their title, an offender, be they a priest, nurse, or social worker, could face a five-year prison term.  If convicted of such a crime, authorities would have the legal right to seize a portion of the individual’s assets.  Spouses, and the employers of such émigrés would not escape judgment.  They too could find themselves in jail for an extended time.  Any association with an “alien” could be considered criminal.  

This proposed law spoke to the people that thought it worthy.  It also screamed to those in the helping fields and those actually working in the fields of this country.  This agenda spoke to the millions directly and indirectly affected by this plan.  The immigrants themselves stood up, shouted, and insisted they be noticed.  They were.  Millions of them flooded the streets, carried flags from their countries of origin [along with the red, white and blue], and they sang the American National Anthem in Spanish.  Sigh.

If those that entered this country without certification thought they were being mistreated before, and in my opinion, they were, after these displays, further wrath would befall them, and it has.  Thus, we have the latest proposal.  English will be the official language in America.  The “melting pot” will no longer be fluid; the ingredients will congeal and separate.

In decades past, signs were posted, “Whites Only.”  Assuming this measure becomes law, might we expect banners asserting “English Only.”  What this means legally is still in dispute.  What it signifies ethically is unquestionable.  Racism is rampant and we are a reactive society.  

In this nation of immigrants, we want none.  We want to remain pure, white, and bright.  Thus, we accept émigrés that will advance our brilliance.  We permit the highly educated to reside among us.  Whites are always welcome and if an individual can verify by our own subjective standards, they are not tainted, we might consider their entrance, temporarily.  They can work for us, be our guests.  These barely benign can clean our homes, hotels, and offices.  They can bend over in our fields; they can be our guests, for a time, as long as we are able to ensure that they never learn to speak English.

We want the Mexican migrants here and we do not.  We want them to work and pay taxes; however, we do not wish to support their needs.  We want no evidence of their permanent presence in our neighborhoods.  We are willing to hire these immigrants for a day or an hour.  Then we put them out as refuse.  We have them in our homes; still, they are not in our hearts.  In a nation founded on freedom, there is little for those not native born.  Yet, less than a few centuries ago, few of us were.  How quickly we forget.

“We’re [also] a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways.”
George W. Bush, President Bush’s Address to Nation, The Washington Post.  Monday, May 15, 2006

For your pleasure. Please peruse.

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think